• by Tom Hespos , August 13, 2002

I've been following the threads on the Spin Board concerning Dave Smith's column of August 1 ("Send Me Your Stories"), as well as the August 8 follow-up column by Jim Meskauskas ("Dave Smith is Right"). Some interesting points were raised by both articles, as well as by the subsequent posts on the Spin Board.

I, for one, support the notion that we should take the skeletons out of the closet and hang them out for all to see. Doing so would allow the rest of the communications industry, as well as the public, know that we're serious about steering interactive media toward legitimacy with respect to carrying commercial messages from respected brands. In order to reach that goal, we do have to expose the cheaters and cut them out like we would a cancer. Otherwise, we're faced with the prospect of having other people perform this function for us – clueless business journalists who don't understand the difference between ad performance and click rate, lazy journalists who would just as soon throw out the baby with the bathwater, and – most undesirable, IMHO – the federal and state governments.

Before Dave takes up this charge, however, I have some advice for him. Over the years, I've tried to expose some of the companies out there that engage in questionable business practices. And I've tried to expose them through a variety of different channels, including the columns I've written for various trade publications and, sometimes, through online discussion lists and other trade media. There's a right way to do it and a wrong way.

So, if you'll humor me for a minute, allow me to make some suggestions about what to do with the "horror stories" that will no doubt be crossing Dave's desk by the dozen...

Be sure of the identity of the offender. There are tons of companies out there that engage in terrible business practices, especially in the realm of privacy and permission. I've personally conducted tests with various email aliases to track how supposedly "permission-based" lists are traded, sold and passed from company to company without permission. In these situations, it's often a single company that committed an initial violation, while the others were ignorant of what was going on. For instance, an email list brokerage can sell a list of email names as representative of people who are interested in getting offers from outside companies, when that might not be the case. Subsequent purchasers of that list are clueless as to the origins of these names, and the list may have been misrepresented. In cases like this, it's important to nail the seller to the wall – not the company that was the victim of misrepresentation.

Leave the door open for offenders to change their ways. I think it's important to avoid backing companies into a corner here. The message should be "clean up your act now" and not "we want you out of this business." Why? Because desperate companies do desperate things. They'll file frivolous lawsuits. They'll muddy the waters and attempt to weasel out of taking responsibility for their actions. They'll send nasty letters through their lawyers. It's best to focus on the questionable business practice and not on the company itself. Make sure the company always has a way to halt the wrongdoing and fix the problem, otherwise they'll fight like a cornered rodent by confusing the issue and trying to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing. Sure, the burden of proof is on the questionable company. That is, it's up to them to prove they're innocent of any allegations in order to have a case for libel or slander. But that rarely prevents companies from filing lawsuits anyway. My advice is to do the best you can to give morally misguided companies a way out other than threatening legal action.

Make sure your facts are 100% accurate. I can't tell you how many times someone has said to me "I've been spammed" or "Adware downloaded itself to my computer without permission," and further investigation of the facts revealed that the complainant DID sign up to receive e-mail communication, or DID give an adware program permission to come aboard. All I know is that this seems to happen a lot. If you want to expose an adware company for violating accepted rules of engagement, make sure the people who send you stories also send you screen shots or show you how to replicate the problem yourself. Otherwise, you're relying on second-hand information that might be inaccurate.

Give companies the time and space to rebut any allegations. Thankfully, The Online Spin has a built-in feedback mechanism (The Spin Board) to allow for continuing discussion. However, not every trade media channel has that feature. If you name names, be sure to give any named companies or individuals a way to address allegations. This will help to get any issues out in the open. And it fosters dialogue, which is rarely a bad thing in situations such as these.

Dave, I admire you for wanting to help get rid of the companies with sketchy morals. It's clear we need this to happen in order for our medium to gain legitimacy in the eyes of non-believers. Just remember that cutting out cancer requires surgical precision.