Playground Behaviour
I have been pondering for a couple of days whether to post on this - the awards shortlist for the Flackenhacks - a tech PR awards evening set up by Peter at Fullrun and the people behind anonymous PR blogger TWL. But it's really ticked me off, and after reading Richard's post on the issue, I felt I should say something in support.
I posted about the awards back in June, arguing that having an award singling out the "least communicative hack" seemed to me like personal bullying. At that time, TWL said I was "missing a sense of humour"
Now the shortlists have been announced, and while the hack award hasn't been listed (apparently the shortlist is too short and would ruin the surprise) there is a lovely award for biggest PR fuck up. Two of those shortlisted are companies that had specific PR problems. The third? Is Richard Millington.
Richard made the heinous mistake of posting a stupid piece on his blog back in February about the feminisation of the PR industry, which was laughed at by TWL. The anonymous blog went a step further with subsequent posts about Richard here and here. And now he's to be held up as a "fuck up" at an event that lots of pretty influential people in the industry will be attending? On the basis of a single blog posting that Richard has apologised for, and has admitted was poorly written and phrased. Yes, Richard may have been nominated by more people (undoubtedly something to do with TWL's repeated references to him) but are there no rules? Could they not have made this an award for a company? Or for a blog? Why make it so personal?
Is that fair? Where's the name of the person who fucked up at Brando or Google? Where's the award for "we're a bunch of smug bastards who like to laugh at people trying to make a career in our industry"? Or would the shortlist for that award be too short, too?
Seconded. I also think it's interesting that 2 of the shortlisted cock ups don't even come from the tech PR sector - Somerfield's Easter press release????
Clearly, TWL's leadership has no balls - there are plenty of genuine cock ups in the world of tech PR for us to have a laugh at without this stupid habit of picking on people who are in no position to fight back - especially since they might not even know who Mark from TWL even is.
You're right. Poor show, TWL.
Posted by: Amelia | October 17, 2007 at 04:05 PM
I wasn't going to comment here, but I need to for accuracy. I didn't choose the shortlists, TWL readers did. I simply counted the nominations.
Posted by: ...the world's leading... | October 17, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Bobbins.
People can nominate anyone for any reason for any award, can they? Even people who, er, don't work in tech PR, don't have tech clients and are only on their radar because TWL has been taking the piss out of them for months?
Clearly it's intended to be "amusing" but I think this is an individual and for you to include his nomination, to publish it and to have created the posts that have led to it isn't on. Sorry.
Posted by: Sally | October 17, 2007 at 05:07 PM
I agree with Sally - you're hiding behind a piss-poor excuse.
Posted by: Sean | October 17, 2007 at 06:03 PM
Crikey Sean, you get around don't you? this blog, our blog, Richard's blog.
Look chaps, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Fair enough. But to answer your question Sean, yes, anyone could nominate anyone or anything for any award - such is the beauty of the world wide web. And they did. And I decided not to then filter those nominations to those which I considered right or not...'cause then we might as well not bothered asking people for nominations in any category...I should've just chosen what I fancied choosing. And I could hardly filter out Richard's nomination for irrelevance, because it was something we had posted about!
Now, ironically, you guys are doing more to bring this to people's attention at the moment than we are. All we did was stick Richard's name and a little commentary on the Flackenhacks blog - no links or anything. On the other hand, Sally, in your post you've managed to link to every mention we've ever made of Richard. Nice one.
Posted by: ...the world's leading... | October 17, 2007 at 07:18 PM
Sorry - it was Sally's question not Sean's. Same difference.
Posted by: ...the world's leading... | October 17, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Yep, I linked. I figure people can look and make up their own minds. To me, it looks unnecessarily personal and pointed. Others may disagree. Tis the miracle of the internet.
I also think the only good reason for having a party is so you can choose which losers not to invite. I assume the same principle applies to having an awards evening.
You're perfectly able to say what is and isn't relevant to YOUR OWN sodding technology PR awards. And I'd suggest things that aren't related to technology PR could safely have been left off the shortlist.
Posted by: Sally | October 17, 2007 at 07:44 PM
In TWL's defence, if he needs it, it is a *stupendously* stupid post and Richard invites criticism if he's going to blog. And then to moan about it and manage to misspell half a dozen words doesn't really help anyone, does it.
But ...
I think the rules of fair play would have said for TWL to comment on the original post, either on Richard's blog or his own. To keep commenting after that looks a bit petty. And a PR Student is pretty easy target.
Had it just been one post, I bet nobody would have even remembered Richard, much less voted for him.
Posted by: Louise | October 17, 2007 at 07:56 PM
You know, you're right. Fair cop guv, I've fucked up.
It was harsh, and Richard shouldn't have made the shortlist. So I've taken him off.
Posted by: ...the world's leading... | October 18, 2007 at 04:08 AM
Geez, I can't believe how much conversation this is generating. All good for Richard (no press is bad press and all that!)
In defence of TWL, it is a bit of harmless fun albeit at the expense of Richard. He and others should consume a pinch of salt when considering this.
If you read Richard's other posts, they tend to be very good - raising good questions, expressing nice opinions and highlighting interesting issues.
I think a bit of perspective is needed - is this really bullying or just fun? I remember in my school days seeing kids get bullied, and I don't think this is to that extent!
Just my two cents...
Posted by: Yeelim | October 18, 2007 at 05:54 AM
Hi Yeelim - how's abroad treating you?
It's a fine line, but what I'd say is I can well imagine how Richard felt at the prospect of a load of people sitting at an awards evening, wondering "ooh, wonder if Richard Millington really is the biggest fuck up in our sector?"
Really, how funny would that have actually been? But it's academic as TWL has removed his name from the shortlist. Marvellous.
Posted by: Sally | October 18, 2007 at 09:46 AM
I thought I better add a comment on this, since Fullrun is 50% of The Flackenhacks and the shortlist was a joint effort between ourselves and TWL.
Just so it's really obvious: Richard, we messed up and we know it. The arguments against including you on the shortlist are bleedin' obvious.
Why did it happen? With The Flackenhacks, we're trying to do something different. One question: where should satire stop?
Working 16 hour days to get an event like this off the ground, it's easier than it might appear to get the answer to this question wrong. I hope that doesn't sound like standard-issue evasion. It's not meant to be.
Hell, I'm 42 and the list of my basic errors this past fortnight would take a while to download in PDF format. And you really wouldn't want to know what I need to apologise for from 20 years ago.
So here we go without reservations or hedging: Richard, we 100% did the wrong thing. We're sorry. And we apologise.
Peter Kirwan
Posted by: Peter Kirwan | October 18, 2007 at 02:15 PM
sally, does this make you the first person ever to win a fight with TWL? nice one.
Posted by: anon | October 19, 2007 at 10:11 AM