4 ms·

I'm going to side on Arrington on this one, even though sometimes, he likes to make a big deal out of something small like removing a few words from his post.

by yosho 16y ago

maukdaddy 16y ago
Why? All he had to do was select a few sentences from the excerpts and edit his post. There's greater reward in the long run from acting like an adult, working well with others, and not being a complete douche.
- gte910h 16y ago
 Actually, I think you're wrong on both accounts. Fortune is jerking him around. Calling them on it is not a bad thing, because a working relationship on those terms will likely cost more than it will benefit. Additionally, bloggers (and others in Attention Media) often make more from douchebaggery than from evenhandedness. (And I honestly don't think Arrington is being a douche here.
 - neilc 16y ago
 Fortune is jerking him around. I don't see how: at least in the emails posted, Fortune never authorizes Arrington to post the full excerpt: they talk about writing a post "on the book excerpts". In any case, I think it is more likely to be a simple miscommunication. It would be more mature for Arrington to simply concede that -- the excerpts are their copyrighted material, and they have the right to control its distribution. Getting all peeved about being woken up at 6:30 AM is silly.
 - ig1 16y ago
 Why is neilc's post getting downvoted ? - it seems a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion.
 - danudey 16y ago
 On the one hand, yes, he has a valid point, but I'd guess the downvotes are from people who feel that being unclear in your communication, then calling repeatedly over and over to have you take down a post full of glowing praise and preorder links on a hugely popular blog, then, when you refuse to edit what is probably the best PR the book's had so far, threatening to sue you to have you take it down. Fortune could have said 'Sorry, we miscommunicated, could you trim down your excerpts? Here are some example quotes you might want to include instead.' They could have called him, and when they didn't get an answer, e-mailed him instead. They could have asked nicely, or even looked on the bright side of this amazing PR. Instead, they're being the biggest assholes they can be. So yeah, there's a point to be made there, but I think Fortune's dickery is overshadowing it.
 ismarc 16y ago
 Except for the fact that the entire blog post with the excerpts has no content except the excerpts. There's no value to be derived from it except reading the excerpts. There's no trimming them down, they are the only content.
 jimbokun 16y ago
 'Sorry, we miscommunicated, could you trim down your excerpts? Here are some example quotes you might want to include instead.' Didn't they do that, minus the example quotes? I'm honestly confused here.
 ZachPruckowski 16y ago
 Expecting immediate action at six AM is a bit silly, as is calling three times at that hour especially when you know the guy was up as late as 2 AM. I realize it's a priority, but expecting 24-7 service when someone's doing you a favor is a bit unreasonable.
 - parfe 16y ago
 I agree. Fortune wanted TC to write a story about Fortune having the excerpts to drive traffic to Fortune. By posting the exclusive content himself Arrington essentially stole the exclusive.
 - AmberShah 16y ago
 I don't see how: at least in the emails posted, Fortune never authorizes Arrington to post the full excerpt: they talk about writing a post "on the book excerpts". He DID publish a book excerpt. Based on the way they kept saying full content, they want to make it sound like he published the entire book or something. They asked if he would publish excerpts. They sent him excerpts. He published excerpts. He followed the rules and they want to change it and cry "fire" after the fact.
 - neilc 16y ago
 They asked if he would publish excerpts. Except they didn't, at least not in any publicly-posted email that I can see. In fact, they describe the excerpt as "exclusive" to Fortune -- they asked Arrington to post "on the book excerpts", not "to post the book excerpts". As I said, a miscommunication -- and there is a simple, mature way to handle that.
 - froo 16y ago
 >they asked Arrington to post "on the book excerpts", not "to post the book excerpts". As I said, a miscommunication -- and there is a simple, mature way to handle that. ... pistols at dawn?
- petercooper 16y ago
 No. He was giving them amazing PR. Anyone who's against getting a giant piece of positive PR on one of the world's biggest blogs is a total idiot. Added: There was a documentary recently about an old-time woman's magazine in the UK. They'd brought in a new, modern editor to bring the magazine into the modern era and to increase sales. One thing she landed was a mostly positive write up in the Sunday Times (the UK's biggest Sunday paper). One of the owners was not particularly impressed because a few negatives were portrayed in the piece and she went nuts because it was, clearly, one of the biggest PR coups the magazine had ever had.
bmelton 16y ago
I would be inclined to agree, but for this one line: "I declined on the grounds that I was pissed off I was being called so many times" That, and that he then seems to take offense when they call him unprofessional? Love him or hate him, but at least come up with a better reason than that to your (business partners|vendors|partners|sources) when trying to work out a dispute.

I'm going to side on Arrington on this one, even though sometimes, he likes to make a big deal out of something small like removing a few words from his post.

by yosho 16y ago

I'm going to side on Arrington on this one, even though sometimes, he likes to make a big deal out of something small like removing a few words from his post.

maukdaddy 16y ago

Why? All he had to do was select a few sentences from the excerpts and edit his post. There's greater reward in the long run from acting like an adult, working well with others, and not being a complete douche.

gte910h 16y ago
Actually, I think you're wrong on both accounts. Fortune is jerking him around. Calling them on it is not a bad thing, because a working relationship on those terms will likely cost more than it will benefit. Additionally, bloggers (and others in Attention Media) often make more from douchebaggery than from evenhandedness. (And I honestly don't think Arrington is being a douche here.
- neilc 16y ago
 Fortune is jerking him around. I don't see how: at least in the emails posted, Fortune never authorizes Arrington to post the full excerpt: they talk about writing a post "on the book excerpts". In any case, I think it is more likely to be a simple miscommunication. It would be more mature for Arrington to simply concede that -- the excerpts are their copyrighted material, and they have the right to control its distribution. Getting all peeved about being woken up at 6:30 AM is silly.
 - ig1 16y ago
 Why is neilc's post getting downvoted ? - it seems a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion.
 - danudey 16y ago
 On the one hand, yes, he has a valid point, but I'd guess the downvotes are from people who feel that being unclear in your communication, then calling repeatedly over and over to have you take down a post full of glowing praise and preorder links on a hugely popular blog, then, when you refuse to edit what is probably the best PR the book's had so far, threatening to sue you to have you take it down. Fortune could have said 'Sorry, we miscommunicated, could you trim down your excerpts? Here are some example quotes you might want to include instead.' They could have called him, and when they didn't get an answer, e-mailed him instead. They could have asked nicely, or even looked on the bright side of this amazing PR. Instead, they're being the biggest assholes they can be. So yeah, there's a point to be made there, but I think Fortune's dickery is overshadowing it.
 - ismarc 16y ago
 Except for the fact that the entire blog post with the excerpts has no content except the excerpts. There's no value to be derived from it except reading the excerpts. There's no trimming them down, they are the only content.
 - jimbokun 16y ago
 'Sorry, we miscommunicated, could you trim down your excerpts? Here are some example quotes you might want to include instead.' Didn't they do that, minus the example quotes? I'm honestly confused here.
 ZachPruckowski 16y ago
 Expecting immediate action at six AM is a bit silly, as is calling three times at that hour especially when you know the guy was up as late as 2 AM. I realize it's a priority, but expecting 24-7 service when someone's doing you a favor is a bit unreasonable.
 - parfe 16y ago
 I agree. Fortune wanted TC to write a story about Fortune having the excerpts to drive traffic to Fortune. By posting the exclusive content himself Arrington essentially stole the exclusive.
- AmberShah 16y ago
 I don't see how: at least in the emails posted, Fortune never authorizes Arrington to post the full excerpt: they talk about writing a post "on the book excerpts". He DID publish a book excerpt. Based on the way they kept saying full content, they want to make it sound like he published the entire book or something. They asked if he would publish excerpts. They sent him excerpts. He published excerpts. He followed the rules and they want to change it and cry "fire" after the fact.
 - neilc 16y ago
 They asked if he would publish excerpts. Except they didn't, at least not in any publicly-posted email that I can see. In fact, they describe the excerpt as "exclusive" to Fortune -- they asked Arrington to post "on the book excerpts", not "to post the book excerpts". As I said, a miscommunication -- and there is a simple, mature way to handle that.
 - froo 16y ago
 >they asked Arrington to post "on the book excerpts", not "to post the book excerpts". As I said, a miscommunication -- and there is a simple, mature way to handle that. ... pistols at dawn?
petercooper 16y ago
No. He was giving them amazing PR. Anyone who's against getting a giant piece of positive PR on one of the world's biggest blogs is a total idiot. Added: There was a documentary recently about an old-time woman's magazine in the UK. They'd brought in a new, modern editor to bring the magazine into the modern era and to increase sales. One thing she landed was a mostly positive write up in the Sunday Times (the UK's biggest Sunday paper). One of the owners was not particularly impressed because a few negatives were portrayed in the piece and she went nuts because it was, clearly, one of the biggest PR coups the magazine had ever had.

bmelton 16y ago

I would be inclined to agree, but for this one line: "I declined on the grounds that I was pissed off I was being called so many times" That, and that he then seems to take offense when they call him unprofessional? Love him or hate him, but at least come up with a better reason than that to your (business partners|vendors|partners|sources) when trying to work out a dispute.