Open Letter: A Lesson Learned Twittering

The following is an open letter to Jim Louderback, Editor-in-Chief of PC Magazine, as well as any of the several hundred employees who work for Ziff Davis Media.

Dear Mr. Louderback,

Last Friday, yes Friday the 13th, I put up a post on Twitter that I wish I hadn’t. I said that I don’t read the hard copy of PC Magazine and that my free subscription goes in the trash. In a guest editorial on Strumpette you weighed whether the magazine in response should blacklist all PR pitches from Edelman, my employer, on behalf of our tech clients.

I learned a valuable lesson. Post too fast without providing context and it can elicit an unintended response. While the item is true, it does not reflect my full media consumption habits. I subscribe to PC Mag RSS feeds and have linked to several of your publication's online articles over the three years I have been writing this blog. Further, I have linked to articles from eWeek, your sister site.

More importantly, my opinions and habits do not reflect the broader populace, our agency or its clients. While there is a subset of people who are reading blogs more than they do traditional media, magazines are in fact thriving. I noted this important trend on February 12 of this year. Therefore, the audiences that magazines like yours reach are important to our clients and our agency.

I apologize if you and the editorial team at Ziff Davis took offense to my post. I look forward to meeting you one day for a drink to discuss the next time we’re on the same coast.

Sincerely,
steve rubel
svp/me2revolution

Comments

[Andy Beal]

Strange, I left a comment earlier, but it appears to have vanished.

[SFGary]

Steve apologized for a rash comment, and Jim Louderback accepted graciously. Why are the rest of you still mouthing off? and some of you, off topic as well. Hope none of you are PR people...

[ABCota]

Well, I guess that answers your question about using Twitter as blogging platform. There's a reason not every thought that pops into ones head has to be shared.

[Jason]

I'm envious that Steve can afford to be so blaise about his free subscriptions.

Outside the US, these are much less available.

I would read and make purchase decisions based on the printed copies of PC Magazine, and others such as Infoworld and InformationWeek, if I was sent them.

Although I read a lot on line, especially to get fresh news, printed copy can't be beaten for speed of information assimilation, and reading over breakfast.

[Kenny H]

I'm with Jason. Steve, if you don't want your free subscription, please send it to me here in Bangkok and I'll cover the postage! It should still be cheaper than the $10 they charge for each issue...

[hugh macleod]

Nice to see the vultures circling, right on schedule ;-)

I posted my response: http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/003881.html

[Dimitar Vesselinov]

I live in Bulgaria, Europe and I do not read any print media. I consume only internet resources like blogs, podcasts and video.

[Sean Kerner]

The larger question isn't really about Twitter though is it?

It's really about how many people are just like Steve? That is they get a free subscription to magazine XYZ but just don't bother to a) read it or b) cancel it.

Unlike the web where page views (I know Steve...they're going the way of the Dodo but..) can track usage to some extent - In print other than pure circulation, which doesn't 100 percent imply readership - there is not other metric.

[Mike Driehorst]

WOW! A compliment for Steve Rubel from strumpette?
"Listen, a least Rubel has the sense to open his mind and reconsider."

http://tinyurl.com/34c7pp

That shows a lot.
Mike

[Nick Reynolds (BBC)]

Seems like a bit of an over reaction by PC magazine. Still Steve,you are handling this the right way.

See this:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/wired40_ceo.html

[Robert John Ed]

Steve,

This is a valuable lesson. Transparency is not always a good thing. I also think that personal ideas and opinions can be disregarded from transcripted interactions. I imagine that PC mag is not something you care for greatly...but with your position you are under the influence of others.

This isn't about a magazine. This is about knowing your role within a company and not stepping on toes. You stepped on a big toe. I read the Louderbeck editorial and was impressed with the way he handled it. Essentially, he stated your wrong doing in a succinct and intelligent form...and although there is no retaliation now, it was apparent that the hammer could be called down at any time. At the very least, this was a valid reminder that you should not sh** where you eat.

[yawn]

wow, you guys are boring

got pulled in by the whole "corporate whore pleads for job" line, got a bunch socially inept no-lifers instead. PR folk frantically trying to take part in the whole 2.0 movement, so lame.

[Seinfeld]

OK here goes, I will say something NOBODY will agree with here:

Twitter is the flavor of the month, that all. Every once in a while a gadget or application catches on simply because all the influencers are talking about it. Twitter is exactly that. Its useless, at least in its current form. It has a couple of marginally useful extensions, like the syndication widget you can put on your blog, but thats about it. Unless it evolves significantly you wont see Rubel or anybody else orgasming over this thing 12 mos from now, because the next cool thing will be here. By the way, how do the influencers actually make any money since they spend 90% of their time at conferences.

[worm turns]

This whole thing is hilarious.

First of all, the same vendors and PR people who bemoan how "thin" the publications have gotten also continue to hit us all up for for coverage. If print is SOOOOO dead fellahs, how come you keep pitching us?

They're always talking about print being dead while somehow managing to try to woo print pubs (all of which, by the way, have online presence) to report on their wares.

The worm is turning folks. The furor around free-laptops-for-bloggers shows the problem with bloggers. Blogs are fine for what they are. But any vendor or PR person who views them as a viable substitute for real journalism should take a look at the whole free-vista-and-laptop controversy, the kathy sierra mess, the whole self-promoting notion of this medium. Why should we believe mr. techcrunch when he's clearly flogging his own interests?

...By the way several self-proclaimed "A List" bloggers took those freebie acer/microsoft laptops and did not disclose it proactively. They had to be outed by one of their peers. Guess what guys? there goes your integrity.

Can't wait to hear from edelman my own self. Good for louderback for calling them on this.

[Marek Wawrzyniak]

Steve, I remember your twitter post in real time. At that time, I knew exactly what you meant. - You don't read paper; you read RSS and online versions instead. I think the complaint is unfounded, but your apology a nice touch.

People who do not get the online thing, get bothered by such comments.

Keep on twittering!

Your Twitter follower.

[Merredith]

(Fair disclosure, I'm in PR) Those who are coming down on Louderback miss the point. Edelman's clients include MSFT, Mozilla, Palm -- companies which are insightfully and ably covered in PC Magazine, online and off. Edelman was already in hot water for its lack of transparency (posting comments on its clients and not saying they were from its PR firm) and sending MSFT laptops to Linux bloggers. So for Steve to comment that this fairly important outlet to his clients went "into the trash" was bad business judgment, from a PR standpoint. He *should* read the outlets that his clients read, or at least not insult them. It's that simple. The whole point of his blog, in a sense, is to represent the Edelman brand -- and I'd say in this case he blew it. Yeah, maybe he reads it online - but that's not what he said. It's not worth much more energy than that. So we move on.

[jayvee f.]

i used to be in the publishing industry. the company i worked for published the local version of PC Magazine where i reside. Jim had every right to react publicly because Steve did post on a public forum.

Steve, as a PR maven, doesnt enjoy the right to free speech as much as he would want to as he is most often on the record when he talks about clients. this is the double edged sword of PR.

[Eric Hansen]

Let the manifestations of various online communications ideologies sink or swim according to their fitness. May the best interpretation of reality win.

Steve and Jim did the right thing and I am glad that we may learn from their exchange.

In Re print v. pixel: The Long Tail reminds us to think "and" not "or".

[Alison Minaglia]

Future Twitters can learn from Steve Rubel's Micropersuation posting on Twitter on how he puts his print edition of PC Magazine in the trash. Due to the brevity required with Twitter postings, there was no room for Rubel to explain in context there how he does in fact read PC Magazine online and through RSS feeds. Publishers of traditional media are well aware of the impact that their online versions and RSS feeds have on the future of success of their print copies, though to publicly acknowledge this would be to put their combined online and print advertising revenues at risk.

[Mike Jasic]

The lies they do not expect us to believe.

Steve here thinks he's George Bush. He will lie, lie, lie but there's no way he expects you to actually believe he doesn't have contempt for your magazine and his apology is the minimum of what's required to save his job.

The last time Steve saw a pair of balls they were sitting on his chin.

Grow a pair, own the act and see what it's like to be a man for second.

Flaks should be put up against a wall and bullets poured into them until there's enough lead to build a monument to spinelessness.

[FSJ]

Steve, nice work. I hooked you up in my blog, FSJ, ever heard of it?

Check it: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/04/radically-transparently-stupid.html

[Carles Wilson]

here is another one...Dvorak chimes in.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11083

[Julio Preuss]

Even though I do mostly everything online, I still love printed magazines and buy lot's of them (but not PC Mag) every month. Having said that, I believe Jim overreacted with an empty threat he could never go ahead with. Too bad you didn't call his bluff and went the PR way instead.

The same reasoning some people used to say you couldn't risk the relationship between the magazine and some of Edelmans's clients which are heavily covered by it would apply to the boycott Jim suggested. Does anyone think that if PC Mag and it's sister publications decided to boycott Edelman's clients, their 11 million readers would be happy to miss all the news from the likes of Microsoft, Palm etc? My guess is that it would mean more copies of PC Mag ending up in the trash and advertising from those and other companies being cancelled. Great strategy!

And how does ignoring news that were considered relevant weeks before or badmouthing companies based on personal issues contribute to the credibility of the magazine? If they started boycotting news because of a personal dispute with a PR person, I wonder if the next step would be a decision to print only what their friends (and advertisers) pitch them. They should be thinking about their readers needs, not about getting even with you. If the magazine is good, the readers won't care about whatever you say about it.

[Angela]

Amanda, I have to disagree with your comments of April 17th:
"Jim's initial impulses are exactly what he said they were: impulses. The fact that he did NOT act on them is a validation of restraint with regards to instant communications. If this technology is truly about creating "conversations," then part of the conversation is the strategic holding of one's tongue when faced with an unexpected statement."

After reading Jim Louderback's letter, it seems clear that he IS acting on his impulses and he most certainly did NOT hold his tongue.

First, he took the time to write a lengthy, public letter about how horrible Rubel's comment is. Unlike Rubel's off-the-cuff comment that disses PC Mag, Louderback took quite a bit of time to skewer Rubel in public. That's not my definition of holding one's tongue!

Second, he says "First, we get to save a little bit of money on our comp subscription line item." Sounds like he IS going to cancel Rubel's subscription, even after deliberating about it.

Third and most importantly, Louderback says "I'll probably be somewhat less inclined to take a meeting with one of Edelman's clients." Talk about going for the jugular. Rubel states that he personally has no need for the paper-copy of their magazine and Louderback responds by threatening his livelihood?

Suffice it to say I'm not impressed at all by Louderback's response.

Jim, I have to disagree with your comments of April 17th:
"But it certainly seems that some here want to punish Jim Louderback for his instinctual reaction. (A reaction that he HAS NOT acted upon, and that you'd never know he had if he hadn't written about it.)"

I've touched on some of my reasons above in my comments to Amanda so won't repeat them. I did find one of your comments interesting - that we would not have known about his instinctual reaction unless he had written about it. What exactly are you getting at here? Is it such a feather in Louderman's cap that he opened up and told us about his instinctual reaction? Are we to applaud him for telling the world that he wants to (and will) get back at Rubel by seeing less of Rubel's clients?

If so, I have to wonder if your viewpoint would be the same if this tempest in a teapot occurred between yourself and Microsoft.