Consumerist vs. Wal-Mart’s (Edelman’s, really) Krempasky September 28, 2006
It's no secret that I think that Consumerist does a huge favor to the general public in pointing out what's fishy about the latest bridge on the market. Editor Ben Popken has now taken Consumerist readers into a conversation Edelman PR's Wal-Mart advocate Mike Krempasky attempted to have with Ben.
If Ben is being entirely truthful and transparent, then the question that was posed to Editor Ben by Krempasky will make your stomach sink. According to Consumerist, Krempasky, representing both Edelman and Wal-Mart, asked, "What can we do to get you to stop writing about our companies?"
Sort of Godfather, no?
"Our companies" refers to Edelman and Wal-Mart. Consumerist isn't a big fan of Edelman and Edelman has actively tried to woo Consumerist (see the nice comments Mike leaves for Ben sometimes) and Ben Popken into allowing them to get into their good graces.
"What can we do to get you to stop writing about our companies?" I'd be interested in knowing what Edelman thought that they could do for Consumerist. The immediate thought is, as one commenter mentioned, a briefcase full of cash. But maybe Krempansksy meant to ask them for consulting advice. Maybe what Krempansky really meant was, "How can we be a better Wal-Mart for consumers and its employees?" or maybe he wanted Ben to be his Jerry Maguire ("Help me help you") and it just came out wrong.
I'm interested in what all the PR bloggers are going to say about this. We know through the Denton media channels that this episode is on Gawker this morning (how I got to it) and Lifehacker's Gina Trapani's commented on the post ("Isn't Edelman Steve Rubel's company? Yikes. I would've expected a lot more.") spells out the worst case scenerio for professionals associated with Edelman.
Trackbacks/Pings
Comments
For what it is worth, I read this as an attempt by Edelman to get some free advice from the Consumerist.
Interesting the he tried to go off the record with the Consumerist. Don’t think that is the way the Consumerist works.
So much for those “transparent” conversations we hear so much about. The only thing missing here was a gun above the toilet and a room full of cigarette smoke.
Rita,
Unfortunately, it just ain’t so. And I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. (I hesitate to ask, in the political blogosphere, “does anyone really think I’m that STUPID?!”)
What I did offer him was the chance to work together, to help his readers get consumer complaints resolved, and to help him participate in that. (far, far too often bloggers or blog readers get ignored or end up in the endless voicemail phone tree)
I thought, mistakenly, that he was interested in solving problems. His choice, of course, and I’m better for having learned the lesson in this case.
As far as blogs go, lots of folks think the only conversations that are permitted are on the public stage of the internet. That sort of dialog is great, of course, but in many cases even if you disagree with someone, you can get a lot done together if you’re willing to show a little respect and courtesy. And perhaps the very tiny start of that is the ability to have a private conversation sometimes.
Plenty of consumer problems with Edelman clients have been posted on The Consumerist. Where are their solutions?
I was approached similarly by Edelman’s senior management. Two things jumped to mind when the “private conversation” was broached: “Okay Mister, I’ll get in your car;” and Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, “Your murderers come with smiles, they come as your friends.”
I took a pass.
- Amanda
—–Original Message—–
From: Murray, Rick [mailto:Rick.Murray@edelman.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 9:51 PM
To: chapel@strumpette.com
Subject: coffee
Hey,
Love your design.
This is totally unrelated, sort of…
I am looking for someone who has a real knack for stirring it up in Chicago.
Let me know if you’re interested in grabbing a coffee to chat some time.
RWM
Yet more PR action from Mike…a shill acting the part of arbitrator, but remember, the aggressor, the environmental polluter, abuser of women and children laborers, and destroyer of local economies, Wal-Mart, pays his salary to disguise these facts.
Mike may just be “doing his job”, but Ben and I, investigative journalists, in turn, are just “doing ours”.
Scott