ALTOM: Beware of inciting online vendetta from clients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tim Altom

It started as a dispute over towing a car, and it’s now a cause célèbre, thanks to Facebook.

Last January, a Michigan towing company, T&J Towing, hauled away a 1997 Saturn belonging to Justin Kurtz. The car was in the student’s apartment parking lot and, according to Kurtz, still had its sticker prominently displayed. He contends that T&J scraped off the sticker to justify the tow and the $118 fee. It may have been T&J’s most costly tow ever.

Kurtz promptly opened a Facebook page about the incident, which quickly attracted thousands of viewers, many of whom left complaints about similar experiences with T&J. As the dispute widened, T&J lost corporate accounts and reacted by filing a $750,000 defamation suit against Kurtz. Kurtz responded in turn by filing suit against T&J for abuse of process and for violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

Most observers agree that, although T&J was undoubtedly injured by Kurtz’s Facebook page, the towing company’s main purpose in suing was to shut him up. T&J’s owner, Joseph Bird, might have done better to hire a PR firm and read up on the Streisand effect.

In 2003, Barbra Streisand’s house was included in aerial shots of homes along the California coastline. The photos were publicly available, and Streisand was understandably worried about her privacy. The photographer, however, was no paparazzi; he was shooting the photos for the California Coastal Records Project and the total archive numbered some 12,000 photos. The harder Streisand pushed to have the photo of her house removed, the more publicity it garnered, and the more people who looked at the house online just out of curiosity.

More recently, the Streisand effect took a more morbid turn when Muslim radicals, offended by cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad in distinctly unflattering ways, threatened to kill anyone who published anything similar, producing not a timid cessation, but a massive landslide of Internet cartoons about him. The Streisand effect is now well-known among public relations professionals and most are careful to advise their clients to avoid spitting contests like the one T&J initiated.

In today’s small-scale, do-it-yourself world of news publishing, it can be a major misstep for a company to play hardball against a little guy. Mark Twain (among other pundits) is supposed to have warned us never to pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel. Today, almost everybody online sits in that same position of awesome power, with an apparently inexhaustible barrel of ink.

It takes almost no time, and definitely no money, to create an angry Facebook page that can be seen by thousands within a few hours. Twitter users can cover the globe in minutes with fast-breaking news, as tweets morph into numberless retweets. If a prominent blogger such as Daily Kos (www.dailykos.com) or Pharyngula (scienceblogs.com/pharyngula) picks up the dispute, the effect can be even greater, leading to instant fame for the little guy.

A legitimately aggrieved company can actually win its battle and lose the overall public relations war. Quiet behind-the-scenes legal maneuvering doesn’t work well, either, because the other parties will often just post the legal documents.

One way to deal with Internet anger is to refuse to play the game. Lie low and hope the storm passes quickly. The public’s attention span is like a shooting star—brilliant for a while, but short-lived. The problem is that even when the unwelcome glow fades, the damage can remain. T&J’s lost corporate contracts won’t return just because the shouting dies down.

The second way to deal with online criticism is to anticipate the problem and prepare for it far in advance. Go online yourself. Get the company into blogs and social network sites to establish credibility. Public indignation is greatest against companies perceived to be well-heeled bullies. A company that shows a history of fielding moderate complaints fairly and in public can build up a lot of good will. Of course, a company that truly takes advantage of the public won’t be able to hide behind an Internet façade, but the public forgives much faster when an organization publicly apologizes and makes it up to their customer.

The latter strategy requires dedication, skill and courage. It’s never easy admitting your faux pas in front of thousands of critical eyes. It has to be done consistently, so it doesn’t become mere damage control. And it must be done honestly. But many companies have found that it pays enormous dividends. Public relations professionals know that it’s just another way of controlling the message.

The Internet doesn’t belong only to the aggrieved. Businesses, too, can buy their ink by the barrel.•

Altom is an independent local technology consultant. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.