Skype's Message to Users: What Do You Want For Free? Your Money Back?

I suppose everybody in greater metropolitan Christendom knows about Skype, and probably has a Skype application on their computers and/or phones.  Skype seems to provide a useful service at a reasonable price - free being "reasonable" in my book.

But recently, they've begun an insidious effort to take over their users' computers (in a small way, but who asked them to, eh?).

They've begun circulating upgrades, and these "demand your attention" by popping up, un-asked-for, on your desktop.  Bad enough, but apparently justifiable.

After all, what do you want for free?  Your money back?

But now they've taken it a step further. If you do try to upgrade, unless you are VERY careful, they will - as part of this upgrade - automatically make Bing (instead of Google) your default search engine, and MSN (instead of Dilbert or Drudge or DancingCatsOnCatnip.com) your default home page.

Who asked them to do that?

Well, obviously, the corporate masters (the ones with fat checkbooks) at MSN and Bing.  But I mean, if I wanted those, I'd have set them up myself, right?  But I don't. I want Dilbert and Google, and I DID set them up myself.

What's that got to do with upgrading Skype?  Not much.  But they seem to feel it's OK to try and sneak this one past you. 

After all, what do you want for free?  Your money back?

Business Wire - A Division of Publicly-Traded Berkshire Hathaway - Creates a Tangled Web of Deception

Note - this blog was updated on October 1, 2014, following further conversations with several increasingly-senior executives at Business Wire, including two calls with BizWire COO Phyllis Dantuono

*** 

The Scottish 19th Century Poet Sir Walter Scott might have had Business Wire in mind when he wrote:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive!

It turns out that, over at Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE BRK), Business Wire - at least when it comes to "practising to deceive" - has been "practising" overtime. At least that is my personal perspective, based on an increasing body of experience with the firm, related to the issue below.

One reason any PR professional might choose to use Business Wire – a Berkshire Hathaway Company – and one reason why so many PR people are willing to pay a premium to use this most expensive of news-release distribution services, is their claim that when you do place a release with BizWire, at least 294 news aggregator websites will (because they're under contract to Business Wire) pick up your release and run it online.   These nearly 300 news aggregator sites are primarily the online sites of news media outlets - national, state and local - and all this implies that your press release will appear on these sites, and be searchable at those sites.

That is the promise they offer. More important, that is the result they show in their NewsTrak dashboard.  This seemingly useful tool comes with each release, and purports to document just how often the release has been accessed, as well as offering links to online news sites where the release has been posted.  

Among other features, this seemingly-informative NewsTrak report shows (complete with interactive logos) that the release has been picked up by all 294 of those under-contract news aggregator sites.

I was so impressed when I first learned about this service four years ago that I blogged about this feature. I cited the advantages of a service with so many news aggregator sites under contract with them, and made the case for PR pros to use BizWire specifically for this reason:  http://pr-marketing2point0.blogspot.com/2010/11/press-releases-new-online-advertising.html.   

I also mentioned this feature favorably in a book I ghost-wrote earlier this year, "Beautifully Profitable / Forever Profitable."  

Clearly, I was a big fan of this news aggregator service (at least as it had been laid out to me in 2010).

Unfortunately, it turns out that there’s now a problem with that promise.

Today, of those 294 news aggregator sites, a vast majority of them do not actually post the releases as implied by the NewsTrak report. Some don't post the release at all. In those cases, the NewsTrak link routes you to other locations - including web pages hosted by Business Wire itself.  

For example, three Fox TV News local affiliate stations' websites are shown on my most recent NewsTrak dashboard report. However, when you click on those logo-links, instead of going to the released news story on those stations' websites, you go here: http://markets.financialcontent.com/stocks ... and when you get there, good luck finding the release.  

I have no idea what this site is, or who owns it (it may be a front for BizWire, or it could be as legitimate as the New York Stock Exchange - it's hard to tell).

If your release is there o this financial site at all, it's neither visible nor easily searchable.  Worse, if you search on the TV stations' websites for the release (using it's title as a search term), you get nothing.  

Despite the NewsTrak report's claim, the release is not where they said it would be - and, presumably, where my client was paying for it to be.

But unfortunate as this lack of performance is, for some media listed on NewsTrak, this situation only gets worse. 

For example, when you click on the Las Vegas Review Journal logo on the NewsTrak report (which I did because my client is in the Vegas SMSA), you do not go  to the Review Journal website, nor do you go to a financial site.  

Instead, you go to an internal page hosted on the Business Wire website:  http://www.businesswire.com/news/lvrj/20140917005210/en 

There, on that site, you have no RJ branding – just this:

Las Vegas Review-Journal - Las Vegas News, Business, Entertainment Information

Apparently, what you're really paying for is yet another posting on a BizWire web page - a placement on their own site, with no links to the RJ.

*** 

As an aside, I have published what appeared on the header of that page  because, within just 30 minutes after my discussion with Business Wire's regional manager, Jerry Johnson, my client's press release - which had been published on this Bizwire page - suddenly disappeared.  

Instead, what you now see is this:   

The content you request is no longer available. You are welcome to login to our site to see other news of interest.

That happened within 30 minutes after my call with their regional manager, a call which didn't end well.  

Several senior execs at Biz Wire, including the COO, Phyllis Dantuono herself, claims that this pull-down was either a coincidence, or the action of the Las Vegas Review Journal. 

 You may draw your own conclusion about this.
 

*** 

Finally, if you go directly to the RJ site, or to any of the Fox Network stations' linked news sites, or to any one of the other hundreds of sites found on the NewsTrak report, and then if you plug in the key words (i.e., the press release's headline) to their “search” function, what you get is ... nothing.  

Though they claim it as a valid "use" of the press release, on he RJ's site, there is not even a link to the BizWire created and hosted page.  

Those NewsTrak-claimed media outlets don’t acknowledge having anything to do with the release, nor do they have even a link to it on their own page or in their archives. 

Business Wire, via their NewsTrak dashboard report, tells you otherwise (by providing links that supposedly go to the releases at those sites). This tracking report claims that your release was basically plastered all over the Internet, featured on at least 300 or so news media websites.  

That’s a big part of what you pay for, and if you take the NewsTrak dashboard report at face value, that's what you've received.  In fact, this (at one time remarkable) feature has been how I have been justifying BizWire's premium rates to my clients.

But - as I learned rather painfully - what you really get from these supposed placements on news media websites is not much, apparently, at least not much of any real PR value.  And certainly what you get - at least if you believed, as I did, in the reality behind the NewsTrak report - is nothing like what you thought you were getting.

*** 

As an ending note, all of this - both what Business Wire promises and what Business Wire actually delivers - was explained to me in great detail by Jerry Johnson, regional manager of Business Wire.  He very candidly told me exactly how their news aggregator "benefit" really works.  He then tried to justify this seemingly bait-and-switch business offer (it appears to be so to me, anyway, though it may not rise to the legal definition of bait-and-switch).  

He justified this by saying “everybody does it,” an excuse my mother taught me to avoid back when I was 9 years old.  

After offering this justification, Mr. Johnson also refused to even consider a make-good. He then went further and refused to send my concerns, and my request for a make-good, up the corporate ladder to someone who might actually help me resolve this situation amicably and professionally.  

He also got nasty and vulgar, but that's really beside the point.

That refusal to even consider a make-good to satisfy my concerns that my client's money was wasted was the genesis of this blog.  

If Business Wire seems to offer one thing but actually delivers something else (and that "something" is of much less value), and if they then do not stand behind their service when a client like me complains, I felt other PR pros ought to know this, too.

UPDATE - October 1, 2014

Since I first wrote this blog, and after sending Mr. Johnson a further email trying to obtain equitable some resolution, I have spoken with a BizWire regional VP, Brenda in San Francisco.  She much more politely and professionally backed up what Jerry Johnson said about the fairly useless "reality" behind the bold promise reflected in the NewsTrak report.  

She then referred me to the corporate executive (Sandy) who apparently handles the news aggregator relationships.  She gave me a great many nuts-and-bolts pieces of information in an effort to claim real value from something that has no value.  However, in the end, she didn't dispute the fact that a link to the RJ, or to Fox News in Las Vegas, didn't actually go where they "suggested" that it went.

Then, today, I had several conversations with the COO of the company, Phyllis Dantuono.  She is a charming individual, and spent quite a bit of time with me.  

At the beginning of the call, her initial stated goal was to get me to stop reporting on this via emails to lists of public relations pros by persuading me of her personal ethics (which I have no reason to doubt) and her company's integrity as well (of which I remain unconvinced).  

In that initial part of the conversation, she also suggested that the facts I've been sharing with my fellow PR pros were somehow "libelous."  To that, I told her flat-out that the truth is a defense against libel, and that the First Amendment was on my side.

When I didn't quail at the hidden threat of legal actions, she quickly dropped that line of discussion, though I expect to hear it again if I refuse to back off.

She also said I was trying to "blackmail" her (or her company) by posting  emails to colleagues about what really happened when I tried to resolve a problem with BizWire. She specifically said that she resented this so-called blackmail.  

I countered that, since I was told there was no possible resolution (by Jerry Johnson, who was not contradicted by his boss, or by a senior corporate exec),  I was publishing the truth as I knew it with no expectation of gain. 

I wasn't threatening them with "pay me or I'll blast you."  Instead, my approach has been, "since you won't resolve this, I'm going to let my colleagues know how you do business, and let them decide for themselves how to proceed."  That, I told her, was not blackmail.

She also backed off of that charge when I explained how illogical it was. 

Later in this series of calls, she re-stated her goal - this time, she wanted to satisfy my concerns (assuming that if she was successful in satisfying me, I'd drop this whole issue).  

Yet oddly, for someone who says she wanted to satisfy my concerns,  she still wasn't open to any meaningful make-good on a press release that I feel was largely a waste of my client's money.  

She did at one point offer a $200 discount on a future release, but I told her there will be no future releases.  With the transformation of their news aggregator feature from something of real value to something with no practical value (though the NewsTrak report makes it appear that they still offer value - until you check under the hood), there is no reason in my mind to pay the BizWire premium. Absent that now-nonexistent "benefit," other services can competently distribute my clients' press releases for far less cost.

She ended our calls today by saying she wanted to discuss this with others, then get back to me in a day or two.  This is when the whole situation got surreal. 

She's the COO of a multi-million-dollar company.  She's been with them for 28 years. Yet she apparently doesn't have the authority to authorize a $1,500 refund to a dissatisfied client, at least not without talking about it to others in her firm.  

The apparent fact that a division of a huge public company doesn't allow their COO to authorize a $1,500 refund is almost mind-boggling.  It also says something almost frightening about their resistance to offering meaningful make-goods to their dissatisfied clients.

But refund or not (and I honestly don't expect one - the whole question of "refunds" only came up when she asked me what it would take for me to be "satisfied"), BizWire no longer provides a valued service that was offered as recently as 2010. 

The appearance of the service remains, but the reality is not there.

I'll update this blog as I get additional information.  

In case you're wondering who this company is, BizWire is owned by Warren Buffett. 
 

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE BRK) is legendary business mogul Warren Buffett's self-described "diversified company with major interest in GEICO, life insurance, annuity sales and sales of jewelry."  It has a generally squeeky-clean reputation, based on Mr. Buffett's own formidable reputation (Forbes says his net worth is $67.4 billion dollars, making him the third wealthiest persons on earth).  However, I wonder if he knows that - through his Business Wire business unit - Berkshire Hathaway also apparently excels in deceiving - if not actually defrauding (that would be for a court to decide) - his Business Wire press release service clients. 

Berkshire Hathaway wholly owns BNSF (the railroad giant that merged the Burlington Northern and the Acheson, Topeka and Santa Fe railroads), as well as Lubrizol - the specialty chemical giant - Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Helzberg Diamonds, FlightSafety International and NetJets.  The firm also owns half of John Kerry's wife's Heinz, and has strong positions in Mars, Inc., American Express, Coca Cola, Wells Fargo and IBM.  

And Business Wire.

Is your free speech worth $50? Southwest Airlines Thinks So

I see now where Southwest Airlines is apparently routinely violating the first amendment rights of passengers. 

 

Apparently an A-list Southwest Customer and his kids got removed from a flight because he tweeted his dissatisfaction about the way a gate agent treated him. HE is (was) an A-lister, but his kids weren't, so the gate agent wouldn't let him board with the A group (and his kids, age 6 and 12). He told the gate agent that he was going to Tweet his dissatisfaction, and apparently he did.

Anyway, after he boarded, the "jack-booted thugs" came and yanked him and his kids off the flight (I imagine the father could handle that, but imagine a 6-year-old facing this). 

Off the plane, the gate agent said she wouldn't let him and his kids back on unless he deleted the tweet (which he refused to do, and in fact, tweeted again, letting the world know).  Southwest later "apologized" (without any suggestion that the gate agent was wrong, or would be replaced with a bobblehead or a potted plant or something else more likely to provide good customer service and respect customers First Amendment free speech rights).  They also offered this guy and his kids $50 each in make-good coupons.  He turned them down, and said he'd never, not ever, fly Southwest again. 

Apparently, he won't sell his freedom for $50 a head.

I'm going to remember this the next time (and every time) that I think about flying.

I usually do fly Southwest because of cost and convenience, but I'm not one to trade my freedom for a pocket full of marbles (as Paul Simon sang).  I used to think Southwest was all about customer service ... apparently not.

Here's the story:  http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/07/23/tweet-gets-family-booted-southwest-airlines-flight

The Judge and the Book of Mormon ... OR ... How NOT to Raise Funds

A conservative candidate for Judge in Clark County Nevada – a good man (and not a Mormon) has made a potentially election-killing decision.  He’s tied a major campaign fund-raiser to the Book of Mormon. 

More on that in a minute.

Sure, there are more Mormons in Clark County Nevada (home to Las Vegas) than you can shake a stick at.  For a century and more, casino owners have been glad to hire Mormons as dealers – they’re honest with their employers, and (the word is) they have no compunction about cheating the heathens.  I may have that wrong – I may be referring to Jack Mormons – lapsed Mormons who nonetheless hold onto major of the faith’s tenets.  But that’s really beside the point. Anyway, casinos are Mormon-friendly employers – however, even without casinos, this would be Mormon Central. Just down I-15 from Utah, Clark County was first settled (other than by the Paiutes) by Mormon settlers who built the Old Mormon Fort not a half-mile from what is now Las Vegas’s Fremont Street Experience.

However, for every Mormon in Clark County, you’ll find at least one non-Mormon who’s all but fed up with their door-to-door evangelism – not to mention the arrogance of mere children who arrogantly believe that they can teach their elders something about a life they have yet to live. 

Taking it a step further, there are more than a few Clark Countians who live in fear of Mormon bosses – one of my closest friends has a Mormon boss, and he lives in fear of being the only executive on the department’s team who isn’t at least nominally a Mormon.  Harassment isn’t too strong a word, and while I doubt if this is “official” LDS policy, it happens – just as does “shunning” of non-Mormons by neighbors in heavily-Mormon communities (that I can speak to from personal experience).

But that’s not really the point.  In fact, the Mormon faith isn’t even the point.

The point is that politics and religion don’t mix – they never have. It’s only worse when the religion is controversial.

Any religious faith, if pushed hard in a political campaign, can become polarizing.  Even a fairly neutral belief such as conservative or reformed Judaism, or mainstream protestant Christianity, even these can become polarizing in a political campaign.  Bring in a controversial faith – be it the late Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” or pretty much anything having to do with Islam, the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses (to name a few), and you’re going to polarize a segment of the political electorate.

Polarizing the political electorate means driving potential voters away – for reasons having nothing to do with the qualification of the candidate.  Jack Kennedy lost votes because he was a public and believing Catholic. Mitt Romney lost votes because he was so closely identified with his Mormon faith.  Joe Lieberman, a great and good man (for a liberal), lost votes because he was well-known to be a faithful Orthodox Jew.  In an election that close, his faith might have been the difference between President Bush and President Gore.

Is any of that right?  Of course not.  Even, “Hell, no!” 

But it is very much human nature, which is why every savvy politician who wants to win tries to avoid “taking sides” in a religious debate. They recognize that any such debate will only hurt them with some voters. 

At least if it’s the candidate’s own faith, most do better by embracing their faith than to be seen running from it.

But when a candidate makes religion an issue – and the faith isn’t his own – that’s just a bad political choice.

Enter this conservative candidate for judge, this good man who’s not even a Mormon.

Today he posted on the Facebook discussion group “Clark County Politics” a fund-raising promotion.  It reads:

“Donate to ____ 4 Judge between now and May 15, 2014, and WIN 2 BOX SEAT TICKETS FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION NIGHT SHOWING OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.  Support ____4Judge and win a chance to see the most popular show of the year with him on Primary Election night.”

Ignoring the poor grammar and punctuation, here’s the kicker.  Apparently, THE BOOK OF MORMON he’s referring to is a Broadway stage show, and a touring company of the play will be in Las Vegas on primary election night.  Not being a fan of Broadway shows, this was all news to me.  But if I’d known that, it wouldn’t change my negative reaction to this.

All I knew was when I saw the promotion on the website, I saw THE BOOK OF MORMON and a photo of one of the Mormon teen-boy missionaries, nametag, white shirt, white socks and black tie – book in hand – on the promotion.  I didn’t read the fine print about it being a Broadway show.   

All I did was see this message, then react immediately and viscerally to it. Seeing the promotion but not really reading it (yet), I knew I had no desire to win a copy of the Book of Mormon – so the “incentive” offered nothing to me. More to the point, I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what a non-Mormon and otherwise reasonable conservative candidate for judge was doing pushing a minority and clearly controversial faith – let alone doing so in the midst of a purely secular election.

So I asked him, and he explained that it was a popular show, and a good fund-raising incentive.  Frankly, I wasn’t buying it.

Then another conservative climbed into the conversation, noting that “this big hit Broadway play was prepared by liberal play producers in anticipation of Mitt Romney’s presidential run in 2012 – I’m surprised that you are not sensitive to the derogatory impact …” 

I don’t know if that’s true. Imagine – liberals wanting to mock a Republican presidential candidate – hard to believe, isn’t it? 

However, whatever the play is supposed to do or say or be, I do know this.  If two conservatives – well-known local activists who both were prepared to support this candidate’s run for judge reacted this badly, and for completely different reasons – then this has to be a bad idea.