WeddingDepot.com wants our post detailing an exchange between themselves and a customer, which they call libel, removed.
President / Owner / Customer Service Rep of WeddingDepot.com Shaun Larson wonders if the post “breaks” our “terms of service,” and, “content is permitted, authorized, and approved by Gawker Media. “
“If it is not and does break your TOS, we request that the content be removed immediately,” writes Shaun.
Nope. Sorry. We don’t remove posts. A more cost effective solution is to spend less time hunting down negative reviews and more on improving your customer service and professionalism.
WeddingDepot’s full letter, inside…
Shaun writes:
- “WeddingDepot.com Admin
date:2:19 pm
to:tips@consumerist.com, marco@consumerist.com
cc: admin@weddingdepot.com,legal@weddingdepot.com
date Jan 3, 2007 2:19 PM
subject: Site Use
mailed-by: weddingdepot.com
Hello there,
We became aware today of a customer who apparently is on a rampage to harm our company through libel posting on the Internet. We are proceeding to evaluate legal actions against the person and those propagating the information. After reviewing your Terms of Service (http://gawker.com/advertising/legal/privacy-policy/), it appears the content at this address
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/complaints/weddingdepots-nonresponsive-passive-aggressive-customer-service-225599.php does not fall within your designed use for your service. We are contacting you to confirm if this content is permitted, authorized, and approved by Gawker Media. If it is not and does break your TOS, we request that the content be removed immediately.
An efficient response would be greatly appreciated as we plan to move quickly on the harm that is being done to our company. Thank you.
Shaun Larson
President / Owner”
— BEN POPKEN
Previously: WeddingDepot’s Nonresponsive, Passive Aggressive, Customer Service
More From Consumerist
-
Virginia Supreme Court: Businesses Can’t Censor Yelp Reviews Until They Prove Statements Are Libelous
-
Kroger Thinks You Might Want To Pay More For A 10-Pack Of Razors Than Two 5-Packs
-
Are You A Small Business Or Restaurant Owner/Manager? We Want To Hear From You
-
Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds
-
Man Wants To Be The First To Sell A House For Bitcoins Because Real Money Is So 2008
@gte910h — yes, that is the same guy.
@Demingite — ok, maybe thing have gotten a LEETLE out of control.
It is interesting to note that this post about the libel allegations has gotten more attention (if one goes by comment counts) and drawn more attention to the issue than the original post did.
If I had to summarize this whole situation, it would be as follows:
-Customer has bad experience with online retailer
-”CSR” from retailer (which turns out to be a one-man operation) engages in lengthy, escalating e-mail exchange with customer. Argues with customer about fault and semantics. Never apologizes.
- Customer forwards all correspondence to Consumerist, along with consent to post it. Consumerist posts it.
- Commenters weigh in. Some defend retailer, but most rail against his lack of empathy and lack of professionalism for taking things personally and arguing with a customer.
- Retailer contacts Consumerist expressing concerns about a libelous attack against him. Inquires about Gawker policy and requests that post be removed. Copies e-mail to “admin” and “legal.” Consumerist posts the e-mail, along with a refusal to remove the first post.
- Now most commenters really rail against retailer — even commenters who had initially defended him. Many zero in on the “copies” sent to “admin” and “legal,” since it’s become clear that this guy is President/CEO/Boy Friday.
So I guess I just did summarize…
^^ I agree with you abot NoKa chocolate, that is a huge scam.
Small guy, big guy: you hang a shingle out for business, you need to have at least a modicum of professionalism. Extra chocolate kisses for empathy and going the extra mile to make the customer happy.
I think that if he only failed on the latter, we’d shrug. I’d cut him slack. But his initial series of escalating, self-immolating responses to a consumer merely trying to get what she ordered without spending her time and money to fix his screwup is what provoked the backlash.
Everything else is gravy. I’m sympathetic to small business owners. But “small” doesn’t excuse woefully hostile attitude towards consumers. That’s why I think it belongs here, and our reactions are fair. If a bit snarky.
I’d summarize the situation this way:
- Two gaping assholes have a bun fight over email, with no actual fraud having taken place.
- World goes mad.
It’s what happens next that matters. I’d like it not to be: weddingdepot.com goes out of business, and child in background of doctored photo isn’t sure where next meal will be coming from.
If he was gonna refund her money and just have her throw the candlestick out why not just ship her the damn ornament and not refund the money. He’s will to take the hit for the candlestick, seemed to not be a problem for him. Instead of looking like the jackass that he has made of himself why not just take the hit for the shipping too and save the order. Seems to me like it would have been worth it to avoid all this negative publicity and risk losing all this business that Loren would have brought to him , providing her friends have equally bad taste in ornaments.
gypsychk: I completely agree with your statement, “It’s what happens next that matters. I’d like it not to be: weddingdepot.com goes out of business, and child in background of doctored photo isn’t sure where next meal will be coming from.“
We are talking about a real human being here.
I’m sure this has been one heck of a learning experience for the key individual involved, regarding understanding customers’ perspectives better, and the dangers of faking email ccs (the latter quite possibly a function of understandable panic…brains under severe stress don’t work too well). But has his behavior earned his life being ruined?
To the webmaster and all commenters, including myself: We have a lot of power here, in this new world. (cf. Time magazine’s 2006 Person of the Year.) Let’s be careful, and use it well.
davehimself says:
Is it me or is Consumerist’s response just a little harsh. It sort of sensationalizes the issue. THe words used are…
“If it is not and does break your TOS, we request that the content be removed immediately,”
“If” and “request” imply to me that the sender is being somewhat reasonable. Take away the “if” and change request to “demand” and you’ve got a reason for lashing out.
Lacking context, I might agree with you. But from the way he argued the connotation of “victim” and his smarmy “I want to help you if you’d let me” tone in the previous post, it’s fair to say that Shaun is a tad bit passive aggressive. So I took his cease-and-desist-if-it’s-not-too-much-trouble as more of the same. There’s nothing reasonable about it.
I’d have more respect for the douchebag if he came out and said, “This exchange never happened and/or xxx is clearly false and libelous. Cease and desist, motherfucker.”
This vague, patronizing and passive aggressive approach is worse than straight up douchebaggery. If a small business owner doesn’t want to be seen as an asshole, he shouldn’t be an asshole. But if he’s going to be one, he needs to man the fuck up and stop pretending he’s Mr. Nice Guy.
gypsychk: I completely agree with your statement, “It’s what happens next that matters. I’d like it not to be: weddingdepot.com goes out of business, and child in background of doctored photo isn’t sure where next meal will be coming from.“
We are talking about a real human being here.
I’m sure this has been one heck of a learning experience for the key individual involved, regarding understanding customers’ perspectives better, and the dangers of faking email ccs (the latter quite possibly a function of understandable panic…brains under severe stress don’t work too well). But has his behavior earned his life being ruined?
To the webmaster and all commenters, including myself: We have a lot of power here, in this new world. (cf. Time magazine’s 2006 Person of the Year.) I suggest we be careful, and use that power thoughtfully, judiciously, and to good ends.
Let me be clear: I don’t want to see the guy’s business associated until the end of time with this one experience, but that’s up to him. Time’s Me of the Year didn’t do this to him, and Me can’t save him from himself.
He made a mistake with a customer, which can happen to anyone or any company. But then he chose to argue with a customer who was clearly upset. Things got out of control, he found himself facing a potentially harmful blog entry and BBB complaint, and he decided to publicly fling his body on the pyre instead of stamping the fire out. Dumb. Like, noob fuckwit dumb.
Shaun: Send the lady her ornament (free, please, including expedited shipping), throw in one of those cute duct tape purses, pen notes of apology (one to Loren, one to Ben) with as much sincerity as you can scare up, wait for the “Update: Weddingdepot.com Not Owned By a Douchebag” post, and consider the cost of the candle, ornament, purse, and shipping some cheap advertising at the global level. Reap rewards and take that cute kid to Disney World.
Anyone who uses a sentence like this is a douchebag. If he’s a non-lawyer trying to sound like a lawyer by writing like this, then he’s a double-douchebag. With twin nozzles, even.
What his “evaluation” will find is that libel law simply won’t apply to someone who is merely re-posting actual e-mails he’s received from a company. He might consider going to court anyway because he’s a Double-Douchebag / President / Owner / Customer Service Rep / Lousy Excuse for a Human Being, because he figures that Mr. Consumer can’t afford a lawyer to defend him, but I think he’ll also find that going up against Gawker’s legal team might mean paying Gawker’s legal fees to defend against his douchebaggery.
I can’t really understand the defending of a character like this. He has thus far taken no honorable course of action. “We are talking about a real human being here.” Humans have been responsible of some pretty awful events. Yes, we all make mistakes, myself certainly included. But this guy is being a blatant asshole.
Its also too bad to hear that someone actually took that TIME cover literally, instead of the sorry excuse for lazy reporting that it was.
the second result when you enter “shaun larson” into google is already the consumerist tag page for his name.
Classic!
if shaun’s o.k with his end of this exchange, then why is he trying to get this post deleted? huh?
Lest we not forget that weddingdepot.com is also the owner of kidables.com.
So if my assumption is correct, and they’re usually not, if you’re looking for tasty children to eat, kidables.com is your one-stop shop.
PS: the DIGG article is #3 and Consumerist is currently #7 when googling “Wedding Depot”
This guy charges a minimum of $3375 to shoot weddings (which he actually does quite a good job on) so he probably doesn’t need the income from his little Internet business, therefore he probably feels like he doesn’t have to put up with any customer service B.S.
Hence, he acts like a jerk to his customers.
I wonder why he even bothers having the website? Greed?
So – any update?
–*Rob
Hey Shaun when are you having your going out of business sale? After having read all of the posts I believe you should close your business and change your name. Seems like this couldn’t have happen to a nicer guy!