Nope, you didn't ask, you declared. We said, "Ok." Now we're saying, "not ok."
---------

Morality on a sliding scale is a very slippery slope and probably not conducive to running a blog based on people believing that you are telling the truth and giving them the straight story. Honesty doesn't have anything to do with the person you are speaking to. Your honesty is all about you.

Did you steal his wallet too? Or beat him up? Why not? He's just a PR flack.

SpecialEd

This was a giant slide in a media spokesperson training course from my agency days. Most of the time, if a journalist or blogger agrees to an off-the-record conversation, it's off the record. But never assume that a blogger will take that commitment to the grave.

Michael has every right to be mad, but he should have been smarter. Assume everything is on the record, and you'll never end up looking stupid.

Ryan Anderson

I think you guys owe it to "your readers" to let us know EVERYone you meet with privately related to your work as a "consumer advocate." Seems relevant to what you say about people/companies to know how said people/companies grease things.

And based on what you've said, and what Krempasky does, I doubt that he barreled into the purported smoking-gun-comment without getting your assent. If he did get your assent, then your character is lacking. If he said what he did, then I think his character is lacking. But to the Left (hey DU folks!) two wrongs do make a right and the end justifies the means and all's fair in love and war and politics, right?

nedwilliams

clyderay8

That's what consumer advocacy is supposed to be about. That's the way it needs to be and I think it's valuable for everyone, especially consumers, to better understand the economics of information, how information flows and to question the source of information.

Just my $0.02.

rdesai

That's not exactly how "off the record" works.

For what it's worth, in the political realm, on behalf of a number of leading lefty blogs I worked directly with Mike to defeat some rather nasty efforts to regulate political speech online. Mike's politics are (IMHO) wrong, but he's an honorable and decent guy, and you can't renege on an agreement to speak off the record.

Adam B.

First- the say-one-thing, do-another trick pulled multiple times by PR flacks before consumer advocates did it here. There are cheaters on every system, and you need methods to weed them out. Think of it as "The Prisoner's Dilemma" - consumers always play 'cooperate', expecting companies to do the same. But companies will defect if they can. Popken simply bolstered his position in the arms race.

Second - there can be, nearly by definition no 'ad hominem' attack on a PR person. Krem-bloviate-ski (isn't that you speel it, GenxClub?) himself was not attacked; his profession was. (A profession whose sole purpose is to skew you away from your natural opinion, I might add, if I hadn't already spent way too much time here.)

Popken rocks the socks like bagels and lox.

Transuranic

Politics per se, I agree. But if it goes to the slime's moral (cough) character, then it's fair game. Associating with GOPUSA, the Florida "riots" Joe Gannon (gay male prostitute and WH pressroom flack!) and other shennanigans, then it's valid. It casts doubts on his sincerity and truthfulness.

If a PR flack had a past association with Mao's Red Guards (same tactics, same goals, other side of the spectrum), I'd cite that as well.

Left, Right, who cares, here. History of deceit, it's relevent. It makes me trust Ben's version of events more than Krempatsy's.

Trai_Dep

Now, onto Wal-Mart itself:
Wal-Mart is not as terrible as everyone seems to think it is. It is also far more hideous than anyone could possibly imagine.
For the first part, Wal-Mart doesn't hire illegal immigrants, doesn't pay workers minimum wage, does provide health insurance, and does provide much needed jobs.
For the second part, Wal-Mart doesn't support the community in a real way, pay workers a substandard wage, and provides insurance that is sub par for the world's biggest retailer.
Wal-Mart is poorly run, poorly managed, and relies on predatory pricing to keep itself in business.

THE ONLY THING WALMART HAS IS LOWER PRICES.
But that is enough in places like upstate SC that were hit very hard by the textile businesses leaving the area. Wal-Mart replaced high paying factory jobs with low paying retail jobs.
Wal-Mart actively does its best to close down other stores, and they grow in a manner that most of us find unconscionable, leaving many empty store husks in their wake.
In short Wal-Mart isn't a problem in and of itself. Wal-Mart is a symptom of a consumerist culture run amok.

We have seen the enemy and Wal-Mart is US.

And those comments are from someone who worked at Wal-Mart (#644) for 2.5 years, and actually enjoyed it (sometimes).

Jack_Ruby

Triteon

Ben did what he had to do. Krempasky should have been more careful about what he said.

homerjay- Smiling politely

Hey PR guy - either meet with the press and take your chances, or don't meet with them and get fired. "Background"? For consumer PR?! Are you high?

Oh, hey, Krempasky is associated w/ Joe Gannon? The male prostitute/White House flack? Ben, did he try flashing a bit of shapely thigh at you? Show off his ripped abs? Do TELL!! ;p

Trai_Dep

.....I have to laugh at Mr. Krempasky's indignation. Surely you realize that there are no real confidential conversations with the media? And why would you bother? Personally, I think that there's nothing wrong with asking an outlet what it would take for them to lay off. What was revealed that was so evil?

.....I didn't observe any boiled babies at the Beal Ft. Walton last week, but I did suffer through a huge near-hour wait in the checkout line. Half the registers closed on a Saturday night? Help us, please! While buying my beach groceries, I missed nearly the entire Florida-Tennessee game. Not to mention the risk of possible ecoli in my spring mix developing while everything heated up in line...

.....I'd also mention, if Mr. Krempasky is still listening, that the the Walmart on Lakeshore Parkway in Birmingham is pretty well run. You've got a lot of great folks working there, and the management is superb. Give 'em some props!

AcidReign

Hmmm. Whether he "asked" or "declared," you assented. Now you've decided "not ok." What changed? How would you respond to a company that treated you or your readers that way?

My next problem, and then I promise to go away:

> The morality of reneging on a committment to a PR flack... sounds like the basis for a good piece of sketch comedy.

Now you're really losing me. When you have to fall back on an ad hominem argument to make your point, it sounds defensive and self-serving. You had no problem having the drink with the "PR flack" or making an agreement (tacit or otherwise)to keep the conversation confidential. But now you're essentially saying, "Come on, you can't be serious; he's in PR."

I think you guys are great; that's why I'm writing. This conduct is unworthy of you.

bradnh

And disclosing that a source asked for a conversation to be off the record is not, itself, a violation of that confidence. Spilling the contents of the subsequent convo on a podcast is, though.

But burning Wal-Mart? Hell, I'd do it just for the recreational value.

raincoaster

* Nope, you didn't ask, you declared. We said, "Ok." Now we're saying, "not ok."

* Why should it be our responsibility to drop the complaints in your lap? They're right there on the blog. You already watch us with the Nielsen BuzzMetrics corporate grade blog-monitoring site. What prevented Edelman from stepping up on any number of the complaints we've posted about your clients, like Walmart and Starbucks? Where were you with the Boiled Walmart Baby? The withdrawn Starbucks coupon? The opportunity lost is yours, friend.

* You made a trip out to Brooklyn only after your employee, Chris Abraham, made a series of blunders in approaching us. We help out our readers by publishing their complaints and, when warranted, following up leads. Our duty is to the story, not to do your job for you.

* The morality of reneging on a committment to a PR flack... sounds like the basis for a good piece of sketch comedy.

Ben Popken

Thanks for the best laugh of the day. It's Oz-like.

Ben DovernDover

And does Consumerist deny that the conversation was off the record by agreement?

schmorsepower

If the Consumerist had planned on publicizing what the other party requested would be off the record, there's an amount of responsibility that falls on their shoulders -- the responsibility to respond by saying something like "wait a sec," or "no, this is on the record."

Obviously the other party should have confirmed your cooperation before saying something like "What can we do to get you to stop writing about our companies," but the point is that the Consumerist LET him continue under the impression that it was indeed off the record.

Even if we go with the Consumerist's version of the story instead of Mike's (which indicates he asked you rather than told), there's still a small amount of responsibility on Consumerist's part to respond to what he said.

Liam McNulty

I think the more interesting question is, what was the next thing out of your mouth? If you said, "sure Mike, that's fine with me", then you're an unprofessional douche. Then again, you're a blog editor, not a newspaper reporter. It will probably take a few more years for PR people to completely graps the difference.

SantosHalper

Smashville

MichelleMyBelle

Mike - you can solve people's problems by proposing and pushing companies to change their actual output - not just policies - on the issues people have having.

Also: Off the Record gives a clear message: "I'm not transparent, I don't want to and/or can't be honest with you, so let's pretend you're not talking to me."

Essentially, this is where you would actually turn on the tape recorder - this is where the person is actually going to talk and answer questions honestly.

So while it may appear to have been a little rude, I think the outcome is the least of what could have happened. Were I you, I would try to smooth this over, and not make a big deal out of it. Try and put positive spin on what could have been a terrible breach in the facade you appear to have painted.

danielnicolas

AND FUCK WAL-MART. Their exploitation practices are racist and a violation of basic human rights.

rubyfoos

schmorsepower

They do it over at Lifehacker too, and it's just so retarded looking. What purpose does the @ symbol serve that simply writing the person's name with a dash or colon after it doesn't? Best case scenario, there would be a quote button on every comment that would enter their name in the comment box, hyperlinked to the entry, but failing that, just leave out the damn @ symbol.

"Why yes! I do enjoy tilting at windmills, why do you ask?"

Mr. Gunn

Exactly what did you "agree not to" publish?

My advice, such as it is, would be never *ever* to offer a PR agency off-the-record status. At all.

Joe Clark

Then again, if Mike really knew how blogs work, he would have simply laughed at the idea that anything he said would be kept off the record.

MattyMatt

GenXCub

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Mike_...

Bokonon

Mike Krempasky

GenXCub

homerjay- Smiling politely

yumyum

* I asked for, and you agreed to, a candid and private conversation about a number of different topics, one of which was Wal-Mart, another was Edelman. I didn't declare that it was off the record, I asked you. Quite the difference.

* Despite your characterization of the conversation, the main substance as reflected in my notes was my very direct offer to help your readers resolve consumer problems with any of my clients. Bloggers and blog readers ought to matter to companies, and too many businesses wait for their customers to come complaining instead of proactively trying to fix problems. At the time you expressed that you'd be interested in that. But you never took advantage of that opportunity.

* I made the trip to Brooklyn to meet you for a drink because, among other things, I'm a fan of the consumerist. It's a well-written and entertaining blog. But it appears I misunderstood your interest in actually helping your readers (and, frankly, helping the businesses they frequent to do a better job) but instead just drive up the sitemeter hits.

And as far as this post - well, I'll leave it to others to judge its veracity, considering you're entirely comfortable with having made a committment and then ignored it.

Again, cheers and good luck.

Mike Krempasky

Lesley

bambino

.....Just the appearance of goodwill is worth a ton in corporate relations! Imagine the corporate benefits if they subsequently produced a "locked-in baby" policy, and publically/generously solved a handful of consumer grievances... They seem willing to just piss it away. Arrogance does not sell, but they do have low prices, and that will sell every time. Damn it.

AcidReign

DamnSkippy

GenXCub

* Mike wanted it off the record
* Mike asked what they could do to get me to stop writing about their companies.

And that's about it.

Ben Popken

(Okay, so where's my fifty bucks...)

Trae

Ben, did you just mention the existence of the off the record conversation? Or did you go into details?

Smoking Pope

Nottma

mark duffy

RandomHookup

GenXCub

@ Dave: If memory serves, he was wearing a grayish blazer with matching pants.

@ Gina: Yes.

Ben Popken

Get your employees off of state-sponsored medical aid and welfare?

mechanismatic

Stop angering customers?

RumorsDaily

Codefox

Gina Trapani

imoutthere

imoutthere

I sincerely hope this was accompanied by a briefcase being slid across the table. You know, bursting with those packets of hundred dollar bills.

Danilo Campos

was he wearing a blue vest for this meeting, or is that confidential and off the record?

dave the wet sprocket

GenXCub