The irony of writing this post the day after an on-going e-mail exchange with a guy who wrote a post about the lack of civility in advertising hasn’t passed me by, but …

I received an e-mail from a friend of this blog today who filled me in on an interesting online exchange between a blogger and the president of a company he blogged about.  As it turns out, the post written by the blogger provides a less-than-friendly portrayal of the president’s company. 

Nineteen months after the fact (Tuesday, as a matter of fact), the president contacts the blogger with more than one nasty e-mail message.  Threats of lawsuits follow and the ‘libel’ word is thrown around liberally.  The blogger was sufficiently po’d to contact another blogger, who wrote about the exchange and then passed the information on to me.

And now I’m blogging about it - albiet third-hand and without using names or quoting accusations.  You see, I don’t know either party involved in this broughaha and can’t vouch for them.  But that’s not my objective here.  Instead, I’d like to dive into the tactics employed and their ramification on reputation and, eventually, market share.

First off, consider the actions of the blogger who wrote about his personal experience with the company in question.  He wrote what he knew from personal experience and linked to information he found on the Internet.  His criticisms in his blog post, in fact, didn’t seem to be out of line.  Most of his post was opinion and direct observation.

Where things may have crossed the line is in the comments area - where readers commented on their experiences and the blogger responded.  The number of posts to the blog seem to have helped drive its placement in search engines like Google, putting this less-than-flattering review of the company directly under the listing for its web site.

Unfortunate but not intentional.  And even if it was, so what?

In fact, neither the post nor its placement in a Google search results page seems to have mattered to the company (or its president) until more than a year and a half after the fact.  Infer what you will from this fact, the appearance is that no one with the company was aware of this online negative impression (at best), or no one cared.

Point Number One: Pay attention to what people are saying about you and your brand(s) online by actively looking with some regularity.

Next, the president of the company acted - probably before seeking counsel from either his legal counsel or, most certainly, his PR counsel.  Threatening lawsuits via e-mail is rarely a good idea.  In fact, I can’t think of an occassion when it would EVER be a good idea.

Point Number Two: Don’t threaten lawsuits by e-mail.  Ever.

Next, the blogger gets his dander worked up and starts quoting from the U.S. Constitution to defend his right to free speech.  He may be right, but this could hardly be considered a constructive tactic.  Then again, it’s pretty obvious by the bulk of his post, there isn’t a whole lot of respect left in this relationship anyway.

But the point is, quoting the Constitution and correcting grammar and spelling in e-mails is almost certainly leading you down the road to conflict.

Point Number Three: Don’t poke the bear.

Now if “poking the bear” wasn’t enough, the blogger went on to share his experience (or possibly vent) to a fellow blogger who has picked up the cause and reported on the incident in his blog.  The quote at the end of blogger #2’s post is, I think, quite telling:

“Big no-no, Mr. Buchan. If you’ll look in the revised 21st century PR handbook, it says to never send angry emails to bloggers and expect them not to post them. Actions like that tend to come back and bite you in the ass.”

So, I suppose in a way, passing the news on to me is part of the ass-biting process.  Okay, I’ll bite.  Just maybe not as expected.  And that’s my next point.

Point Number Four: When you decide to stir up the shit, beware of the splashback.

Now I’m not critical of either of the bloggers in this case.  The fact is, they’re doing what bloggers do.  The first is writing what he knows or has learned.  For the most part, he’s sharing an opinion and there appear to be a number of folks out there who appreciated his insights.

The second blogger is also doing what bloggers do - he’s passing on an interesting story.  And he’s right.  This little firefight between blogger and company president is an intersting study in how NOT to react to a negative blog.  But by passing the story on to me, this second blogger runs a risk of fanning the flames of controversy with an (apparently) litigous adversary.

I’m not making any assumptions about intentions here.  What I am trying to do, though, is point out one of the inherent dangers of this social media we work within.  Rumor and inuendo are so easy to pass around in the blogosphere that we all have a responsibility to keep that in mind as we read, write and respond.

This is, in much the same way, at the heart of the big eBay controversy concerning seller feedback.  In a two-way medium like this, both parties need to have a channel that allows for civil and transparent dialog.  Inflamatory e-mails (like the kind sent by the company president) or the practice of holding positive feedback hostage (a very real fear for eBay sellers) certainly aren’t civil or productive.

Maybe thinking first before firing off that e-mail is a best practice all of us should follow.