From: caal@hopf.dnai.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:28:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: PR
Message-ID: <199606141733.KAA27294@hopf.dnai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Public Relations
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From           xopher@ptd.net
> Organization   ProLog - PenTeleData, Inc.
> Date           Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:43:02 GMT
> Newsgroups     alt.fan.unabomber
> Message-ID     <4pnobp$1lh@ns2.ptd.net>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> PR firm declares war on 'rogue' Web sites
> 
> Copyright (c) 1996 Nando.net
> Copyright (c) 1996 The Associated Press
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (Jun 10, 1996 10:23 a.m. EDT) -- To advertisers and
> activists, the Internet is
> nirvana -- unlimited space and the chance to get their message to the
> world. To the public relations
> firm of Middleberg and Associates, it's a potential nightmare.
> 
> Before the World Wide Web, people unhappy with individual companies
> were reduced to
> convincing a news organization they had a legitimate gripe or standing
> around handing out leaflets at
> corporate headquarters.
> 
> Now, all it takes is a weekend coding some HTML files and every
> complaint or concern they've
> ever had is instantly available to millions.
> 
> "There was the 'Kmart Sucks' site, created by a disgruntled employee
> who was saying a lot of mean
> and nasty things about Kmart. Then there was the First Boston site,
> where a former employee
> published proprietary salary figures," said Don Middleberg, whose firm
> protects its clients from
> attacks on the Internet.
> 
> "Companies spend small fortunes to create a brand image and something
> called good will," he said.
> "These sites are actively destroying them."
> 
> To counter the threat, Middleberg's firm monitors the Web for what he
> calls "rogue" sites, then finds
> the people who created them and attempts to convince them to go
> off-line.
> 
> "If gentle persuasion doesn't work," he said from his New York office,
> "you need to bring in the
> lawyers."
> 
> Over and above First Amendment concerns, threats of legal action are a
> long way from the golden
> vision of the Web as an democratic leveler rhapsodized about by Howard
> Rheingold, who has
> written several books about the ethos of the Internet.
> 
> "The Internet puts the masses back in mass media. It lets anyone
> publish their manifesto for all the
> world to read," Rheingold said from his home near San Francisco.
> 
> Those days are over, countered Middleberg.
> 
> "Rheingold's perceptions of where things are might have been true a
> few months ago," he said. "But
> this is big business. Things have changed. This is no longer a cottage
> industry. Companies have spent
> millions of dollars on this. They're going to fight to protect their
> sites."
> 
> "If the lawyers decide to go after someone and a company is willing to
> spend the dollars, they
> certainly can threaten and make life very difficult for people."
> 
> It's legally unclear, however, how much power companies actually have.
> Merely making derogatory
> comments is not illegal, said David Maher, co-chair of the
> subcommittee on Internet Trademark
> Issues of the International Trademark Association.
> 
> "If you have an individual who doesn't like Ford motor cars or Burger
> King and says rude things
> about them, the First Amendment provides quite a shield. Just because
> people are saying bad things
> about you, you can't necessarily stop them," he said.
> 
> Not only is truth a defense against libel, but trade libel law
> requires that a company must show it
> actually has been damaged, a higher standard than individuals, who
> must show only that their
> reputations have been damaged, Maher said.
> 
> But legal or not, even the threat might be enough to shut down smaller
> sites, said Jonathan Hall, a
> spokesman for the environmental group Greenpeace -- which maintains an
> active Web site.
> 
> "I wouldn't be surprised if people gave in if they got a call and were
> told to 'remove this or there will
> be legal action.' They might do it because they don't know their legal
> rights," he said.
> 
> Greenpeace does, which is probably why the association of nuclear
> energy producers Middleberg
> recently spoke to considers it such a threat.
> 
> "They are scared to death of groups like Greenpeace, who are very
> clever in how they use the Net
> to get a message out," Middleberg said.
> 
> Not unexpectedly, Middleberg won't name his clients, though he says
> he's added eight to the list in
> the last six months.
> 
> Other public relations firms say they haven't heard of anyone using a
> similar strategy. Curtis Kundred
> of Fleishman Hillard International Communications deemed it a
> short-run approach that will backfire
> in the end.
> 
> "I would hope it's not the job of a public relations firm to muscle
> someone into backing down from
> expressing their beliefs online," added Amy Oringel of InterActive
> Public Relations Inc.
> 
> Up until now, the Web has provided a level playing field, a place
> where "Joe Schmoe can have just
> as much credibility as CNN," said writer Martin A. Lee, whose book
> "Unreliable Sources" was an
> expose of the public relations industry.
> 
> "Money is the great unleveler in this equation," he said. "We seem to
> be in the crux of a shift, when
> the whole equilibrium is shifting from 'a thousand flowers blooming'
> to a corporate market. It's
> disturbing."