March 14, 2005

dear fred…

zzzbambam04.jpg
Let’s say your name is Fred. Hi, Fred.
Let’s say you’re the edi­tor of a very large, well-known Lon­don news­pa­per.
And let’s say, not too long ago, you called up my bes­poke Savile Row tai­lor friend, Tho­mas and boo­ked an appoint­ment because you wan­ted a new suit.
And let’s say Tho­mas tur­ned up and gave you a mea­su­re­ment.
So let’s say you wan­ted to order two suits, but wan­ted a deal, in exchange for an inter­view in your paper.
And let’s say Tom deci­ded a bit of expo­sure would be just the thing to rev up his busi­ness, so he agrees. And let’s not kid our­sel­ves, it’s kinda flat­te­ring to be asked. Makes you almost think your big moment is about to arrive.
So let’s say the deal ended up being that you orde­red a grey suit at full price, but offe­red to give Tom an inter­view in the paper you edit, if he threw the second blue suit in for free. Two for the price of one, basi­cally.
So let’s say you shake on it, and Tom goes away, and buys the cloth out of his own poc­ket for the first grey suit, with your bles­sing, because somehow you have con­vin­ced him that you didn’t need to leave a depo­sit yet, what, with this big inter­view coming up and all.
And then let’s say Tho­mas cuts the cloth, and gets it sewn, ready for your first fit­ting. Again, all out of his own poc­ket.
And let’s say when all is ready, you keep can­ce­lling mee­tings with Tom at the last minute, after Tom has already spent half a day dri­ving down to Lon­don to meet you at the pre-arranged time. More than once. Again and again. Even your per­so­nal assi­sant is emba­rras­sed by your beha­vior.
And let’s say this keeps on hap­pe­ning till finally, you send Tom a hand-written note saying “Sorry, I’ve chan­ged my mind… I don’t think I want to give you any money, either… but let’s talk about doing that inter­view later on, eh?”
And let’s say the rea­son you gave for chan­ging your mind was beyond lame. Something to do with your nee­ding your girlfriend’s per­mis­sion before deci­ding on the second blue suit’s fabric choice, and because she lives far away she can’t come in and meet you two. Even though her input has nothing to do with the grey suit, the one Tho­mas has already she­lled out for in order to get made. What­ver. Like I said, beyond lame.
Now let’s say it’s a few weeks later, and Tom’s new blog is sud­denly doing awfully well. And let’s say his friend is a pretty well-known blog­ger, with a pet peeve against asshole big-media types who fuck with honest tra­des­men, just because the scum­bag thinks because he’s got the big editor’s job, it’s somehow OK.
Don’t worry Fred, I’m not going to reveal your real name. I only know one side of the story, maybe there was a misun­ders­tan­ding, maybe there’s some stuff mis­sing from the equa­tion I don’t know about, wha­te­ver. Maybe Tom was a bit naive to trust you, and maybe he unde­res­ti­ma­ted the corrup­ting affect that peo­ple who offer media favor can have on one’s affairs. Edu­ca­tion is expen­sive.
Besi­des, I know the cir­cu­la­tion num­bers of your paper. Seems you’ve already got enough to worry about.
What’s more inte­res­ting to me is how, with his blog, Tom no lon­ger has to rely on your kind to give his busi­ness the publi­city impe­tus it needs in order to remain via­ble.
A lot of these ‘arti­san’ busi­nes­ses like Tom’s tra­di­tio­nally live or die by whether or not some­body like your­self deci­des they’re worth tal­king about. You know it, I know it. It’s a lot of power in the hands of one per­son. But it’s unre­lia­ble. It has always been thus, but since there was nothing else to get the word out with, the arti­sans could be relied on to play ball, making you look good and sho­we­ring you with free­bies and favors.
But Fred, scum­bags like you no lon­ger mat­ter.
Now you’re no lon­ger the “Gate­kee­per” to the suc­cess of the arti­san. Hope­fully other arti­sans will spot Tom’s blog, and emu­late his exam­ple.
Another nail in the cof­fin of scum­bag, big-media, freebie-fattened, Gate­kee­per cul­ture, and I’m glad to be hel­ping drive it in.

36 Responses to “dear fred…”

  1. pjammer says:

    Asshat clients who think they are doing you a favor for gra­cing your busi­ness with their patro­nage are, unfor­tu­na­tely, a per­sis­tent and anno­ying part of the busi­ness lands­cape. Blogs can help — but for every Tom who has a high-traffic blog­ger bac­king him, dozens of pro­prie­tors are left twis­ting in the wind when some big swin­ging dick thought­lessly throws his weight around.
    Why hold back and not name this chap? Why are you pro­tec­ting such an odious and abu­sive dickhead, Hugh?

  2. Keith says:

    Wow. This sounds like something that an account exec (aka: “a suit”) would pull at an ad agency. Are you sure that “Fred” wasn’t an account exec at BBDO? Typi­cal behaviour.

  3. Jerry says:

    Hugh:
    I’m from Brooklyn. And in Brooklyn we know how to deal with ass­wi­pes like this. Let me at ‘im.
    On top of everything else that is dis­gus­ting about this story is the notion that this dick would con­si­der “selling” space for a suit.
    Take an ad out in this paper and then use your clout to get the publisher to scream at the edi­tor.
    Jerry

  4. john t unger says:

    Hugh: don’t need his name, but why not publish his phone num­ber? heh. That way, those of us who feel like dis­cou­ra­ging such beha­vior can call him at 3 a.m., and, not kno­wing his name, i guess we could just call him asshole, or some such fit­ting appe­la­tion.
    In ten years of doing cus­tom work, I’ve only had one client stiff me like that, and at least I had the for­sight to get a depo­sit. Nor did I turn over the work when they refu­sed final pay­ment… so I was a little bet­ter off than Tho­mas, but it still bur­ned me up.

  5. John says:

    great post — and a pro­mi­sing post genre! Put the boots to the fucker.

  6. Hi Hugh,
    um, why don’t you publish the name of the guy who did this to Tom? That to me seems the logi­cal conc­lu­sion of the new way of doing things — name and shame peo­ple if they behave in such an appa­lling man­ner. I can’t see that it will do English Cut any damage, and it shows you’re not to be mes­sed with. Par­ti­cu­larly if you say it rather than Tom. That still keeps him in the moral high ground with you doing the cus­to­mary swea­ring and bitching under­neath. Same as it ever was…
    Best
    Chris

  7. Pegasus News says:

    Bes­po­ken out

    We’ve said before that we believe that the new trans­pa­rency and inte­rac­tion of a Jour­na­lism 2.0 world could eli­mi­nate both the need for adver­to­rial and the abi­lity to have ad-driven con­flicts of inte­rest in one’s news cove­rage. Hugh Mac­Leod offers

  8. barbara says:

    I don’t know how many law­yers there are in jolly ol’ England, but in the U.S. if you named this guy he’d be all over you with law­suits. And he’s an asshole, so you know he has an asshole law­yer. Libel, slan­der, malice. No proof. Hear­say. You get the idea.

  9. geoff lane says:

    Pass on the info to Pri­vate Eye.
    They know how to stand up to news­pa­per editors.

  10. Steve says:

    Fuck­tard!

  11. Great post; it always shocks me a little to hear about this kind of media corrup­tion though I don’t know why I’m surprised.

  12. giorgia says:

    what an asshole (and par­don my french.).

  13. sue says:

    that man does not even deserve a tho­mas suit.

  14. Thom Lawrence says:

    Wow. That felt like watching Rocky all over again.

  15. exce­llent exposure

  16. david says:

    Do your­self and Tho­mas a big favor and chalk it up to expe­rience. Fred is an asshat and leave it at that.
    He still works at a news­pa­per and those things (dino­saur blogs?) still have rea­ders and have some influence and the last thing you need is to pick a piss fight with a big­wig at a major news­pa­per by wri­ting about it all here.
    Howe­ver… I’m sure there’s some Lon­don equi­vi­lant to Gaw­ker who would LOVE to hear the story.….

  17. hugh macleod says:

    Nah. We’re not bothe­red. We think it’s kinda funny. That’s why I didn’t name names.

  18. mark says:

    I fuc­king love it. Best post yet, and I’ve been rea­ding Gaping Void daily for months now; even deci­ded last night to do my own blog very soon, for a very spe­ci­fic pur­pose. If it works, I’ll let peo­ple know…

  19. let me know if you need a big­ger hammer

  20. Steve Gill says:

    Now THIS is what blog­ging is all about!
    Loved it! :)

  21. Seems yes­ter­day was a day for shame. Coin­ci­den­tally AdPulp pos­ted a piece on the orga­ni­zed use of shame to fight pros­ti­tu­tion in San Fran­cisco — publicly dis­pla­ying con­vic­ted johns ima­ges on bill­boards and such.
    And Bar­bara is right, to post Fred’s real name would be a strong case for slan­der.
    AdPulp post:
    http://www.adpulp.com/archives/000572.html

  22. Perhaps I’m young and naive, but how would it be slan­der if this man scre­wed Tom out of howe­ver much time and money, and then Hugh (Tom’s busi­ness part­ner) called him on it in a public forum?

  23. Heh. Bren­dan, you may be right. Perhaps there isn’t any malice towards Fred in Hugh’s post. And perhaps by publishing Fred’s name Hugh wouldn’t hurt his repu­ta­tion or live­lihood. Now, I don’t mean to speak for Hugh or Tom, but I would ima­gine neither gent would want to find out through costly liti­ga­tion. Tom lear­ned a tough les­son — that Fred is untrust­worthy. Does that mean that Tom shouldn’t extend this kind of trust to other clients? Hope­fully not. Apo­lo­gies for the diver­sion from the topic.

  24. Brandon says:

    You guys need to think of something good to do with the suit. I am sure there is something good that could come from the work already com­ple­ted. I hope it doesn’t get deconstructed.

  25. tabasco says:

    man — i thought this was hypothetical

  26. john says:

    If you have proof of this then you should abso­lu­tely go public because the rai­son d’etre was to gain news­pa­per cove­rage. The need may not be so great now but his com­pe­ti­tors would give you that in dro­ves and you could empha­sise the points you made in this post rather than appear vindictive.

  27. Isaac B2 says:

    Glad you’ve found a way to suc­ceed without the hin­de­ring “help” of this hapless hoodlum.

  28. Having a wee­kend artisan-ish busi­ness, I can say with con­fi­dence that giving away your pro­duct for a bit of publi­city is a mug’s game. It’s in the bird-cage or recycle bin the next day, and you’re still paying the bills for what you gave away. Never mind the oppor­tu­nity cost of the esca­pade, which is pro­bably far grea­ter than the cost of the finished pro­duct, any­way. How many solid cus­to­mers could have been plea­sed as punch with the time and atten­tion was­ted on the mediot?
    Of course, your friend has lear­ned this les­son the hard way, and it cer­tainly cost him far more than it could have ever cost me. The really good news is that it’s a les­son you only have to learn once.

  29. ceo_bwm says:

    remind me some­time to go off on my pre­pac­ka­ged rant about the bles­sed, not one minute too soon pas­sing of the ancient cus­tom of han­ding out demos. another highly expen­sive, highly inef­fec­tive prac­tice that has been ren­de­red com­ple­tely unne­ces­sary by mp3 tech­no­logy, musi­cian blog­ging, and the com­plete eli­mi­na­tion via inter­net of the para­si­ti­cal middle-man. by the way, it also sort of eli­mi­na­tes the need for the guest list spot, the free swag, etc. etc. etc. etc.

  30. Nathan Schock says:

    On behalf of very PR per­son out there…thank you!

  31. Vinny says:

    well done hugh. let’s hope this fes­ters into something truly emba­rras­sing for “FRED”. I like the idea of saving the suit as evi­dence. cinderella’s glass slip­per in reverse.

  32. mindmelt says:

    [round of applause]
    bri­lliant post…
    what an arsehole..
    why do I have evil revenge tac­tics going around in my head? I shouldn’t be thin­king these things…
    of course let me know if you want to know them ;)

  33. Seems that a lazy Guar­dian jour­na­list subsc­ri­bes to Hugh’s RSS feed .…
    http://media.guardian.co.uk/diary/
    A natio­nal news­pa­per edi­tor approaches tai­lor for a new suit, gets mea­su­red up and sug­gests if tai­lor wants to give him another suit free, he’ll make sure he’s inter­vie­wed in the paper. Then news­pa­per edi­tor rene­ges on the whole deal, lea­ving tai­lor with lots of expen­sive cloth. He thought his moment had come, but edu­ca­tion in the corrupt ways of the media is an expen­sive thing, as his friend help­fully points out on a blog. The blog­ger is not naming names, but Mon­key belie­ves he resi­des in the Canary Wharf vici­nity. Anyone willing to con­firm this, email monkey@mediaguardian.co.uk
    And a link to Hugh

  34. Loved it. Loved the com­ments. Loved lear­ning a new word (“asshat”).
    As someone who is not a jour­na­list but has a jour­na­lism degree, let me say that Fred is extre­mely unethi­cal. Con­si­de­ring the fact that if he did that to Tom he pro­bably does that to other peo­ple, he pro­bably shouldn’t have his job. Real edi­to­rial shouldn’t come via bri­bes. Something is either news­worthy or it isn’t.

  35. Chris DiBona says:

    Two things, hugh:
    Post the mea­su­re­ments of the fellow, maybe someone who reads you needs a nice suit at a dis­count and might be in Lon­don soon.
    Also, you should know better…a man who would offer to do such a thing is not one you should deal with. Stand firm on rpi­cing, regard­less of cove­rage, then you can’t be scre­wed like this.