One would think that a director of social media would be unafraid of a discussion, particularly one she started. Well, I posted on her blog in response to Miiko Mentz’s views about good practice and how to behave in social media.
My comment, I believe, was reasonable (even polite) while also being contrary to Miiko’s views. The comment has been deleted. Hmm? A post about how others should behave online denies contrary opinions?
So, I thought I’d share that comment here. I don’t know that I have the ‘exact’ wording of my comment, but I do tend to write things out before I share them. Then, I’ll paste the text into the comment area on the blog I’m addressing. The following is a draft I saved before posting in Miiko’s blog.
By the way, I wrote to Miiko (yesterday) asking why the comment was deleted. She has since approved other comments on that post since I shared mine. She has also not yet replied to my email (her choice, of course). Others saw the comment before it was deleted.
Look, I don’t really care if my comment gets posted in her blog. The real point here is simply Miiko’s choice to call someone out and now it seems Miiko is averse to, afraid of, contrary views.
My point, simply put: if you have a blog and receive a comment that does not offend any stated comment policy, why would you delete it? If you are the “senior director of New Media & PR,” is this path a good practice of social media? I have tracked back to her post. Let’s see how it goes.
Here’s the comment, you may decide for yourself. Remember to read Miiko’s post and all the comments first, as that’s the only way to take this in the proper context.
Well, goodness. This has certainly spawned many tangents. I’ll avoid those distractions and address the initial issue.
What was the original reason/rationale for Jeremy’s post? Sure, he accepts all pitches … but, do you (your colleague) know enough about him (and his usual blog topics & tone) to understand why he accepts them? I’m guessing the answer is no. Sorry.
I’ve read his blog for a long time. I can’t imagine Jeremy Pepper writing about this pitch’s topic in a positive manner. Seriously. Never.
That’s what I’m betting first got his attention. But, to really get Jeremy to write, you have to give him more. Your colleague did not disappoint.
There were three pretty crucial errors that followed the primary 101 best practice failures and, I believe, they likely set off Jeremy’s ‘post’ trigger.
The pitch preceded the development of a relationship and understanding with Jeremy. Next. the pitch shared pretty much the whole story prior without gaining that embargo agreement. Finally, your colleague didn’t know and understand her target audience – Jeremy Pepper. It’s really pretty simple.
The worst, most egregious error, may well have been calling Jeremy a “guru” in the pitch. Yikes! Shudder! He doesn’t like that term.
Next, Jeremy uses the Web 2.0 phrase, but he uses it mostly as a term of derision.
Finally, Jeremy rarely (if ever) writes about apps. He’s about as big a fan of SMRs as you are of the the “good ole boys” network.
Again, if you and your colleague knew Jeremy, you’d realize that he is *not* a member of that club. He’s the chief thorn in their side. ;o)
A mentor, Jeremy is. I can attest to that, as can my students and many others. Now, his tone may have an effect upon people. But, again, you’d know that if you knew Jeremy and/or his blog.
Funny thing is, Jeremy was actually mentoring with his Tumblr post. Seriously. Be happy he posted in the Tumblr blog, not Pop PR Jots at blogspot. (The reason? It would have received a great deal more attention.)
I imagine you won’t see it this way, but Jeremy actually did you, your colleague, and your firm … a favor.