7 ms·
PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client
- msredmond 15y agoThis is pretty standard -- get anti-Google (and Microsoft, and Apple) pitches all the time. About the only thing that isn't standard is the fact that the PR firm won't say who their client is. That pretty much never happens (at least to me). So the fact that they won't say who it is makes it kinda interesting, but it could just be some nutjob somewhere who decided to spend his money on hiring a PR firm.
- oinksoft 15y agoGoogle crawls publicly available data and uses it -- scandal! This is getting old, but it seems like some people still need a reminder: If you submit information about yourself that you know will be publicly viewable, you have no right at all to anger. I think that some people truly still do not understand how the internet works, and think that login page == walled garden privacy.
- itg 15y agoDon't see how this is a "scandal" of any kind. These tactics aren't uncommon.
- RexRollman 15y agoThat doesn't make it right.
- tensafefrogs 15y agorelated: "Google deflects PR firm's attack of Gmail privacy" http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2011-05-06-google_n.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2011-05-06-google_n.htm
- recoiledsnake 15y agoFrom that article: >The service also privately sends each Gmail user the names of "secondary connections," a listing of the people each direct connection happens to be following publicly on the Web. So it will show me the friends of my friends? What is this obsession with degrading privacy in this way? Didn't Google learn lessons from the way Buzz exposed your friends to other friends? Why can't email and chat be just that? If I want social networking I will use a social networking site. If this continues, I will look at making another email service my primary email.
- haberman 15y agoIt's only showing you information that is already public (the people your friends are publicly following).
- recoiledsnake 15y agoStill, Google needn't make it easy by aggregating it and presenting information about me to my friends.
- aresant 15y ago"Caught" seems like a funny word to use. They pretty clearly lay out a case that this is an interesting story, and all's fair in love and PR. In fact the email they're sending seems relatively benign compared to what I expected to see. And the juiciest part of the story - who's paying the PR person - is missing. Wondering why this wound up @ the top of HN as a result? EDIT - Slightly more interesting (err, predictable) if MSFT is the culprit? http://www.catchingflack.com/2007/09/burson-marsteller-outed-as-microsofts-sock-puppet/ http://www.catchingflack.com/2007/09/burson-marsteller-outed...
- RexRollman 15y agoIf it is Microsoft, they are wasting their money.
- rbanffy 15y agoThey have lots of it
- recoiledsnake 15y agoMore likely to be Facebook, since Social Circles seems to be directly competing with them, not Microsoft.
- warfangle 15y agoWhich is kind of funny, comparing GOOG's privacy with Facebook's privacy.
- recoiledsnake 15y agoNot really, because when I go to FaceBook(a social network website) I have a totally different expectation of privacy compared to when i go to Gmail.
- potatolicious 15y agoI think he's referring to the lack of privacy and information control even within Facebook - there are persistent claims from former engineers there that user privacy isn't taken seriously, and that breaches of user privacy by employees occurs often and with relative impunity.
- shrikant 15y agoJohn Mercurio is the the Director of the Media practice in Burson-Marsteller and more interestingly, "a leading political expert on national politics, campaigns and Capitol Hill" http://www.burson-marsteller.com/newsroom/lists/PressReleases/DispForm.aspx?ID=759 http://www.burson-marsteller.com/newsroom/lists/PressRelease...
- raganwald 15y agoSeems like a good time to revist Paul's essay "The Submarine:" PR is not dishonest. Not quite. In fact, the reason the best PR firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest. They give reporters genuinely valuable information. A good PR firm won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they don't want to destroy it by feeding them mere propaganda. If anyone is dishonest, it's the reporters. The main reason PR firms exist is that reporters are lazy. Or, to put it more nicely, overworked. Really they ought to be out there digging up stories for themselves. But it's so tempting to sit in their offices and let PR firms bring the stories to them. After all, they know good PR firms won't lie to them. A good flatterer doesn't lie, but tells his victim selective truths (what a nice color your eyes are). Good PR firms use the same strategy: they give reporters stories that are true, but whose truth favors their clients. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- jgroome 15y agoVery true. Reminds me of the concept of "churnalism" outlined in Nick Davies' book Flat Earth News [1]. Thanks for the link. Am now off to read that essay. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Davies#Critical_reaction_of_Flat_Earth_News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Davies#Critical_reaction_o...
- cglee 15y agoSelective truth != truth. I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest. I don't have anything against companies who are dishonest, but let's call a spade a spade: PR companies are spin doctors. They're dishonest. That's not quite straight out lying, but to me the very definition of dishonesty is not presenting all of the truth if you can.
- wibblenut 15y agoYou're right, but "dishonesty" is a dirty word, despite not necessarily always being bad or immoral. It's up to journalists to perform balanced reporting. We trust them to do that. Lazy journalists that simply rewrite press releases, emails from their friends, or otherwise fail to do any meaningful research are the ones truly deserving of the label "dishonest" (amongst others!).
- yanw 15y agoI'm glad that this sample is available, there were always the rumors about another big PR firm 'Edelman' hired for this sort of thing, the subject isn't always privacy they are also beating the antitrust drum, Google spokesman in DC called it then an 'Anti-Google industry complex'.
- hackermom 15y agoIn other news, Google fanboy is caught pointing fingers on people disliking Google.
- tshtf 15y agoDo you even know who Christopher Soghoian is?
- alecco 15y agoRelated True Enough - The second age of PR http://www.cjr.org/feature/true_enough.php http://www.cjr.org/feature/true_enough.php
- IanDrake 15y agoJust from the standpoint of better understanding the value of PR firms makes me glad I read this.
- asknemo 15y agoI am very surprised this is the first time someone try to get everyone's attention on this practice (if that's the intention of the poster/submitter). It's quite easy to spot recently there are well-timed attacks on Google or Android which are oddly fueled with passion. I suppose any money spent on this (which should be significant) would be way better used if it's used to improve whatever product the client have in competition with Google, really. End users, ultimately, won't benefit from these.
- brudgers 15y agoIn other news, undisclosed client employs Chiat\Day to push anti-Microsoft message over a period of one decade.
- Husafan 15y agoPerhaps this guy's promoting his book: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/e-totalitarianism-at-google/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/e-totalitaria...
- dsl 15y agoI don't care who is slinging the mud, but I do agree with the message. Where in the hell do I opt-out of "Social Circle"?
- meric 15y agohttp://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/facebook-exposed-user-data-to-advertisers-security-firm-20110511-1ehy1.html http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/facebook-exposed-u... Counter-PR?
- nviennot 15y agoHo... now it makes sense.. http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/12/swallowing-puke/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/12/swallowing-puke/