Socking Steve Hall: Biegel’s Attorney

When Adrants posted a mud wrestling photo and colorful commentary related to the Steve Biegel vs. Dentsu lawsuit, it attracted some attention. Most notably from Biegel’s attorney, Andy Dwyer, who offered up his own sharp commentary in a comment. It was sharp enough to convince Steve Hall to strike through his post and proclaim himself an idiot.

“I find it incredible that Mr. Hall feels qualified to post on this case when (a) he has obviously never read any of the filings in the case, even though they are all publicly available on the internet, and (b) he has never bothered to speak to anyone involved on the side of the plaintiff, even though they can all easily be reached,” noted the Dwyer comment. “Mr. Hall erroneously relied on an article in another publication, and then bought their spin hook, line and sinker.”

However, given other comments were offered up from “Toyo Shigeta,” and “Denny Crane” and “Not Biegel’s Lawyer,” one never really knows if someone who comments is who they say they are. Right?

“Is there anyone in your industry who is willing to take the time to read the court file in this case before they publicly express an opinion? Or is that too much to ask? If folks in the blogosphere ever want their writings to rise above the level of graffiti, they are going to have to work a little harder at getting their facts straight before they post,” stated Dwyer.

Never mind that advertising folks read Adrants because it provides tabloid-style op-eds in contrast to more recognized advertising trade publications, one of which Dwyer claims erred in its reporting. Never mind that Adrants never attempted to establish itself as legitimate journalism that I am aware of.

Never mind, except I still took interest in exchange. Why? Because I had read the court file. And, although I mostly write on public observation, I wanted to find out if Dwyer made the comment. Maybe he'd even answer some questions I had about the case, I thought.

He did make the comment. However, he doesn't seem inclined to be interviewed about the case beyond the reasonably polite and extended commentary he e-mailed me, which says that he pretty much has “zero respect” for bloggers. According to Dwyer, he is not alone either.

“Interestingly, real journalists have written to me in response to my post on Adrants to applaud what I said, because they are tired of bloggers being compared to journalists,” he wrote.

Highlights From The Andy Dwyer E-mail

• He commented on Adrants because he says the statements made were “demonstrably false.” He said he was setting the record straight.
• He says that he and his client have refused to partake in the media battle, contrary to statements made by some bloggers (He says they have refused comment to some journalists, and he and his client has repeatedly denied interviews).
• He likens the anonymous comments to garbage, which “reduces blogs to little more than the walls of a bathroom, where any idiot can scrawl whatever illiterate nonsense pops into his head.”
• He finds it unlikely, “even if I gave the entire court file to a disinterested observer, he would not be able to understand it unless he had particular expertise in employment matters and/or the law.”

Dwyer raises some good points, and some not so good points. Obviously it is much too early in the case to call an outcome. But it is not so early to note that the media has shifted its angling from a Dentsu spectacle to Biegel’s credibility.

It is this shift in reporting, perhaps because Dwyer and Biegel are less accessible to the media, that makes it interesting. Perhaps if they were more accessible, the burden would still be on Dentsu.

Regardless, while Dwyer is right that the case is about the law, he is not so right in saying it isn’t about branding or communication. Sure, media coverage is not likely to impact the court’s decision, but the outcome of this case may have long-term consequences for Biegel and Dentsu.

And therein lies the rub. As much as professionals sometimes proclaim bloggers cannot understand their area of expertise, sometimes those who say so do not understand blogging or communication. Really, it’s not difficult.

Understanding Bloggers: Engagement 101

In a very broad sense, when it comes to cases like Biegel vs. Denstu, it is the media that sets the stage, leaving bloggers to pen op-eds based on the setting. Sometimes, the commentary reads not unlike radio talk shows, which do allow anonymous callers to chime in.

That understood, non-communication people hoping to engage bloggers, even to correct them, are best served by evaluating the individual blogger much like they would the radio talk show host.

You see, some bloggers lean toward journalism and some do not. Knowing where any particular blogger may reside on this invisible line dictates the engagement. And that can make all the difference.

For example, singling out Hall’s post made little sense to me because all it did was invite more of the same, not less of the same. Mostly, Adrants is an entertaining take on the advertising industry. And while correcting Hall may have been prudent, going beyond the correction to take a couple of extended swipes communicates something other than what was intended.

Sure, some may hold Dwyer’s opinion that even well-known blogs “inspire fear (e.g. the Drudge Report) are notorious for repeatedly stating things that are simply not true.” (Personally, I don’t think bloggers inspire fear. Fear has to exist in those who are fearful.) Yet, he is not so right in thinking that all bloggers do not investigate as diligently as journalists. It depends on the blogger.

Suffice to say, if there is anything to take away from all this (beyond attempting to understand a blogger before engaging them publicly), it might be to understand that social media didn’t create public commentary or opinion. That has always existed.

What social media did was extend that reach beyond e-mails and water coolers, making it more public, especially to those being discussed. Sometimes, it is a good thing. Sometimes, it is not such a good thing.

I think even Dwyer might agree with me here, given he closed by saying “none of the posts on any of the blogs will ever have any relevance, except perhaps to support our claims of retaliation by Dentsu.”

Ironically, this is precisely what used to be said about journalists before bloggers began sharing the spotlight (or lurking in the shadows, depending on where your head is at). For most people, the media’s credibility always seemed to be related to how closely aligned it was to the subject’s opinion. Go figure.

Risking Credibility: Biegel vs. Dentsu

Brands are fragile things, like snowmen in spring. That’s what Julie Roehm learned with Wal-Mart, a case study we concluded back in August. And now it seems Steve Biegel, former creative director for Dentsu America, is about to learn the same thing.

Effie, Clio, and David Ogilvy Award-winning ad veteran Biegel filed a lawsuit against his former employer that has the advertising industry shaking its head, not its fist.

He alleges that Toyo Shigeta, CEO of Dentsu Holdings USA, took and shared upskirt shots of women (including Maria Sharapova; see Adrants), forced him to visit a Prague brothel, and required workers to have sex with prostitutes. Advertising Age has published the entire lawsuit online. It makes the Roehm scandal look rated G for gratuitous.

“If Steve Biegel had exhibited as much creativity and effort when he worked here as he has on manufacturing this frivolous complaint, the company would not have fired him,” Dentsu America CEO Tim Andree told Adweek.

Dentsu has also vowed to file a countersuit, primarily alleging libel because a lawsuit draft was sent to its clients. (If Biegel did send Dentsu clients drafts, he may be forced to prove every point true to avoid libel.)

As with most legal wrangling, some of the non-court communication hints at the truth. Did the events take place? Probably. Was Biegel horrified and sexually harassed? Only Biegel really knows, but his credibility is in question because based on the lawsuit and subsequent communication.

It seems all too likely that he was more horrified about losing his job than some of the events that seemed to have occurred as much as three years prior. It also doesn’t help that Biegel did not find the alibi or ally he thought he might with his friend Scott Weitz, a staffer with Driver Media who was present during the Prague brothel incident. According Adweek, Weitz said that Biegel never complained about Shigeta encouraging or forcing him to engage in such behavior and that Biegel went into a private room with a prostitute. (Eesh! To think that if Hostel came out one year earlier, all this may have been avoided.)

To be clear, sexual harassment in the workplace is wrong. However, advertising is probably not the right career path for those who shy away from an industry that claims “sex sells.” At least, it’s not really suited for someone who claims to be as horrified as Biegel now says he is (not that our industry requires bath houses or brothels, of course).

Still, what employees need to know, I suppose, is that just because your employer tells you to do something, it doesn’t mean you have to do it. Um, you can make your feelings known immediately, file a complaint while you’re still employed, or walk out the front door before you’re fired. Heck, I’ve even terminated an account or two after becoming uncomfortable with advances that persisted after warnings.

Just say NO!

But, then again, I’m not writing from a legal perspective (because I’m not an attorney). I’m writing from a communication perspective that suggests: it’s probably best not to be the freewheeling creative ad guy for years and then attempt to play bashful family man shortly after you are terminated.

The less than $1 million lawsuit and potential damage from a libel countersuit (not to mention potential personal brand and credibility erosion), is not worth it. Or, in other words, if Biegel really wanted to win this case as opposed to shooting for a settlement, he would have employed the most basic premise of crisis communication and “talked about it as soon as possible.” That would have been three years ago.

Still, this lawsuit comes at a bad time for Denstu. It just recently made a push toward taking a more visible foothold in the international marketplace. Although it is one of the largest advertising companies in the world, only eight percent of its revenue is generated outside Japan. (Japan is the second largest advertising market in the world.) Its clients have included Canon, Toyota, HarperCollins Publications, and Toshiba America, among others.

As a side note, Dentsu America’s mission statement is to “influence by telling the truth in new ways.” And how. Case study? I'm not sure yet.

Going Viral: From Soflow To Jericho

BusinessLine recently published “Why Viral Marketing Fails" that represents some business backtracking on the concept of consumer marketing. It was reposted by Charles Cook as "the lights were going out" on the Adrants' Solfow forum.

Of course, Soflow wasn’t really closing as much as it was morphing into Wis.dm. but the viral “closing” campaign seems to have been more successful for other networks than Soflow. Competing networks quickly offered up they were sad to see it go but were happy to accept its refugees. This left Soflow inc.’s new platform with fewer members than if it had not mismanaged its message with the hope of going viral.

But can the misfire really be pinned to the concept of viral marketing? Is it really true that most consumer marketing campaigns are destined to end up with a whimper? BuisinessLine seems to think so as the article questions everything from the name “viral marketing” to the very “ethics” of it. Yawn.

Any time viral marketing (though “consumer marketing” does sound better) fails, the failure can be traced back to a flawed strategy more easlly than a flawed concept. You see, the best consumer marketing — the kind that Hotmail originally used to become a success story — cannot be “forced” upon an unsuspecting public. For marketers, the simplest solution is to have a plan B in the event the viral plan A doesn't work.

Even better, if you’re lucky, consumers might kick off a viral campaign and all the company needs to do is nurture it. The question isn't how this happens as much as how it is happening. One of the best consumer success stories currently in progress is the once cancelled, now resurrected television series Jericho.

CBS never asked for a consumer campaign; the consumers did it on their own. The long and growing list of consumer marketing credits now include: Shaun OMac’s BlogTalkRadio show, fan-generated Web sites like Jericho Lives; forums like Jericho Rally Point; and Radio Free Jericho; an upcoming J-Con convention; fan groups like Jericho Coalition; and blogs like Jericho On CBS, The Jericho Bulletin, and Jericho Monster.

Jericho Monster, hosted by Jane S., demonstrates why consumer marketing works: it has a strategy driven by common sense. Without mapping it out like a communication consultant or marketing guru, her blog(s) have an unwritten work plan. Here’s a thumbnail of what she is doing (based on observation and not any formalized plan):

Objectives
Introduce non-viewers to the show.
Educate fans how to do the same.
Increase viewers for Season 2.
Tactics
Launch multiple interlinked blogs.
Make connections across the Web.
Expand the content to increase interest.
Early Results
Growing presence beyond Jericho fans.
Increased blog traffic driven to Jericho site.
Expanded content that caters to diverse interests.

It’s smart. And it demonstrates the best of consumer marketing. Through it all, CBS and Junction Entertainment have been increasing their efforts to assist the fans without attempting to “control” them or the proliferation of their content. On the contrary, they have taken to praising it (the image above, framed by a CBS Jericho widget border, is one of several created by Jericho fan Rubber Poultry), linking to various blogs and forums, and offering widgets fans to add anywhere they like online.

At this rate, Jericho stands to have a sensational return for its short-run seven episodes next season. And if it proves successful, it seems very likely that it will be on the verge of a complete renewal.

There isn’t any mad marketing genius behind what is becoming a viral phenomenon — just fans with a sense of passion and purpose. That’s true for all consumer marketing. It’s less about gimmick and more about allowing something to catch consumer interest. And, if that doesn’t work, you might be best served to have a plan B.

There are thirteen days left to enter Copywrite, Ink.'s contribution to consumer-generated Jericho buzz:. The free “Expanded Universe Short Story Competition” entry deadline is Aug. 17.