I Told Them This Day Would Come

Time: Late Tuesday

Blog Owner’s Note: The person claiming to be a Publix I/S Associate does not represent Publix in their comments. We do not know if they are truly a Publix I/S Associate, either.

Time: Early Monday

Below you will see four comments placed here by someone claiming to be “Name: Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate | E-mail: anonymous@publix.com | URI: http://publixis.blogspot.com“.

I have retained the initial posts in a text file. What follows are versions I have edited to remove content that may be offensive - even libelous.

The author of these comments may write to me via this link and we can talk about my actions. Or, you may post a comment here in the blog. Please note that your comments will be subject to the same scrutiny.

I don’t appreciate people making unsubstantiated claims in their comments here - or anywhere, for that matter.

The interesting part of this is that it takes Josh’s initial post further as to the wild and bizarre nature of blogs and all the various issues that have to be considered in running a blog. The issues are important whether it be a corporate blog, an educational discussion blog or a personal blog.

Now, here is the first comment with portions edited. Those portions will be noted with this phrase wherever they occur:

Note: Edited by the blog’s owner.

The day has arrived, you are correct. Although an internal blog might be a great outlet, unless it protects the identity of the author I doubt there would be any candid discussion. I would gladly take my blog off of the public Internet if I had a way to blog internally (protecting my identity), and some of the important issues were addressed (criminal activity by Infosys).

The fact that you mention how difficult it will be remain anonymous explains why I am secretive.

I believe you are more interested in the PR side of this. Activists have tried for years to get their message out and they are largely ignored. I doubt there will be any measurable impact to the business from customers. Just look at Wal-Mart –they are the “Evil Giant” yet they are still #1. Of most concern to Publix should be how I/S associates react. There is growing resentment to many of the issues raised in my blog. When they choose to offshore they should consider our reactions. There may be more attrition, it could be harder to recruit new employees, and even worse for Publix there could be a drive to create a union.

My goal is not to influence what outsiders think of Publix, rather to influence insiders. I want management to see the other side to this issue, and for associates to organize if they don’t. Publix would be better off if the dirty laundry was aired inside the organization than publicly. One way or another this issue will be raised. I have an ethical responsibility to expose criminal activity. Publix, now aware of it, should investigate.

Note: Edited by the blog’s owner. This is where the comment contained a claim without any evidence. Claims by anonymous individuals are foolish. I do not want them in this blog - nor should anyone else.

You are forgetting one thing. (Note: The offending claim was here.) I haven’t aired it yet because it would expose myself and my source. If Publix goes out of their way to conduct a witch-hunt and figure out who I am, I will resign. On the same day, a letter will go out to local and national media outlets with my evidence. The evidence leaves no room for question.

Their best course of action is to investigate the criminal activity, not some blogger reporting it.

Just reading your views on PR and corporate blogs. Quite interesting. I can see a corporation having internal blogs in order to keep things internal…that may be beneficial.

However a corporate sponsored blog would probably not be all that interesting. My guess is that it would amount to corporate PR –everything would be fake and geared towards looking good and not saying anything of any real importance. A self gratifying pat on the back if you will.

What makes my blog interesting is that I can say what I feel without the fear of retribution. We would never tackle hard-hitting issues in a corporate sponsored blog. If we did, they would always side with the corporation. I doubt any corporation would allow a discussion around organizing labor on their servers.

The corporate blog in my view will only work if the company allows people to post anonymously and without censor (except perhaps anything vulgar).

You have some interesting views on this subject however. I think the blog enables management to see how things are really going. It is a raw and uncensored perspective into the business.

Most people if asked by management how things are going will say “fantastic” or stay positive. When people have their identity protected, the truth comes out (and in some cases lies). In any event, there is some truth to these raw expressions of thought.

My blog is not just a reflection of Publix however. It is a reflection of society and the growing conflict between corporations, government, and citizens. It (and other blogs) is a backlash to the corporate written laws designed to help them at the expense of us.

Times are changing. You are going to see another social revolution in America. Probably similar to the 60s, maybe more violent. Probably with socialistic leanings and even more radical elements (unfortunately). Blogs will be part of this change.

You PR people are going to have quite a time putting a positive spin on all the bad corporate behavior. Guess you have job security –unless you can find a good (and cheap) PR firm in India. Makes you think.

Perhaps now would be a good opportunity to explain what exactly the average day in the life of a PR pro is…and yes we are all like Nick Burns on SNL Just kidding.

Many of the people I associate with could use good PR. But clearly the winner in a PR war has the most money. That is why I personally don’t like PR because it is a war I (or my other allies in this fight) can’t win.

Just look at elections in America. Nine out of ten times, the winner spends the most money in advertising.

Right after my last post I went to search for offshore PR firms. It seems that many companies are going the offshore route. Probably not to the extent that the software industry has seen, but enough worth mention.

I consider myself part of a “rogue” PR war…just never thought of it in terms of PR. I have considered hiring (yes outsourcing) some temps at Manpower to carry anti-offshoring/union signs outside of our business during lunch hours when everyone is leaving the building. I can’t personally carry a sign because people would know who I am. In any event, there needs to be some overt signs of support for my cause or Publix won’t take offshoring and its repercussions seriously.

As a PR person how would you handle our situation? What would a PR pro cost? Do you ever bat for the other team, or just corporations?

From the author of, “Publix -Where shopping is a pleasure.”

I can see that things are unfolding rather quickly for large companies with blogs. In particular, Publix Supermarkets. What does this mean for Publix? It means great things! Publix does not own, operate, or contribute to this site, http://publix-communications.blogspot.com/, but they will in the future. They will, because it is the next logical step in the future of multi-directional communication between associates, customers, and the company as a larger entity. Publix will lead the way in this new form of customer service and public relations.

The views are varied about the future of corporate blogs and their usefulness. However, at least one Publix associate intends on turning the internet into just one more way of serving you.

Justin-at-Publix

No matter what the company, there is always drama between employees. Publix may have great employee relations but there is always some issue. Personally, I think that employees, when signing on for a job should sign some sort of privacy notice. To set up an unfavorable blog about your own company just doesn’t seem right. Yes, I know it is hard to trace who wrote it, but warning of a undesirable reprimand for the writer might serve as a deterrent. Now you are probably thinking, wow you are trying to limit a person’s freedom of speech, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as, a one-voice issue. In other words, companies need to stress the importance of keeping things inside the company. Therefore, when an issue arrises, the company can address the issue with one clear voice instead of the varied opinions of its employee bloggers.

I definitely think it is a good idea to start a company blog. This blog can be looked at by customers and the blogging community as an accurate and reliable source and can counteract the employee blog. It would be a great idea to invite any employee to submit articles or post ideas for the blog. This way, everyone can get their own voice out while the company can monitor their opinions as well.

Now, in an employee relations standpoint, these existing blogs can be very beneficial to Publix. They now know which areas they need to work on with their employees. They can make the effort to provide them accurate information about issues, which will decrease the speculative gossip that occurs not only in the blogs but also around the workplace.

Dianna,

It would be much easier to say nothing. Most people are in fact apathetic to this issue.

>

I have an obligation not to reveal any trade secrets or help the competition. I don’t have an obligation to hide criminal behavior. There is a distinct difference. There is also a right to associate and form a union. Because corporations ban union activity from their locations and during working hours, the only option is to conduct this activity elsewhere.

Part of creating a union is convincing others it is required. Corporations can’t have it both ways. You may believe me to be disloyal to the company, but loyalty is a two way street.

Finally, I don’t think you can label the wholesale replacement of Americans with cheap foreign labor your typical “drama”. This is a matter of swim or sink for us.

>

If I got a warning or reprimand, I would react with a lawsuit. I am exercising my rights here, like it or not. More importantly is my right to associate (unionize) and my right to free speech. Companies have rights as well when it comes to protecting trade secrets, but I can’t think of an instance where I crossed that line. As a professional I would never share that type of information. But as a profession we must grow. Right now we are faced with the challenge of offshoring. Our course of action is to do nothing (resulting in over a 500,000 lost IT jobs in America over the past 3 years) or to fight. I am a fighter.

So here’s a question for PR practitioners and students. When an anonymous poster comes to your blog to write “I have evidence that Company A and Company B are engaged in criminal activities”, where does your liability begin?

Good point, Allan.

I have - at least for now - taken down all of the anonymous comments from the person that identified himself/herself as “Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate” so that I can consider how to deal with this issue.

This is a first for this blog.

I have decided to keep the posts down.

The comments come from the same IP number and all were posted anonymously. The author claims to be the author of the blog at http://publixis.blogspot.com.

I don’t appreciate that one of the comments contained a claim without any evidence (or even an attempt at evidence) in the comment. Further, the poster did not provide a legitimate email address or a name.

So, this discussion will continue without them. For now.

OK, I have now read and moderated through all four comments from the person using the name “Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate” in this thread.

I made one edit to the very first comment. The others I will let stand.

Why did this happen?

First, someone posted an anonymous and unsubstantiated claim.

Second, I moderated the first comment (the one with the offending content) through without reading it. That is my mistake. A major one, by the way, and I apologize for it.

Third, this scenario is but one more example of the salient nature of Josh’s post in the first place.

Blogs are useful. They can also be detrimental. Blogs can be scary. They offer the opportunity for just such an event to occur.

I do not think it wise to make anonymous comments and further compound your error by not providing evidence of your claims.

Finally, I will leave the blog - for now - operating as is. Posts are not moderated - totally. The captcha system is in effect to help block spam and all first posts will be moderated.

I should have read the comment before allowing it to see the light of day. That was a mistake - my mistake. To “Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate” I will offer this lesson. What I have just done is state my name, state my claim and then take responsibility for my actions. You could learn a lot from this experience. I have.

Lastly, thank you to Allan for bringing this to my attention.

Man Josh, look what you started ;). Allan or Robert, I would like for ya’ll to expand on Allan’s comment. Where does the liability begin and what sort of consequences would be faced?

I honestly think the situation is good and bad on both sides of the matter. This situation is probable in any company as I have been taught. People discover blogs and some take them in a positive form for their company or personal use and others see it to their advantage to get their voice heard in what it seems like more of a negative way. The people, as in the case of the pharmacy workers at Publix, seem to have seen this blogging oppurtunity as a negative way to get their voices heard. I am not saying this is right or wrong of them but maybe they have tried every way possible and this was their final option. I think the situation could be handled effectively and efficiently by PR or communications people of Publix. I think your idea of Publix having an official coroporate blog would be beneficial to the situation. I also agree that including store managers, the author of the Publix- Where Shopping is A Pleasure blog, past Publix executives and cashiers and baggers, etc. would be a great public to have conversation on the corporate blog.
I think the problem is that people are starting to recognize the effectiveness of blogs and some are using this to their advantage. But, if these pharmacists and anonymous did not speak up then they might have gone to even more extremes. I, personally, do not know where the line is between free speech and blogging, I don’t know if there is anything that says people cannot speak freely about how they feel about their jobs. But, since I have started my blogging experience I have read in many instances where people are terminated because of their words on a blog. I have been taught that it is not appropriate or even ethical to rant or use other negative forms of speech in commenting or posting on/in a blog. But, like I have said before, if it is someone’s own personal blog are they free to write as they please or it it because this particular blog is strictly directed toward their unsatisfaction with their job and the company?
Thank you for the post.

Well, I read Josh’s post a few days ago, but didn’t have a chance to respond. Now, I have reread his post and the ensuing “drama”. I use this term loosely because, really, what is drama and how can we use it positively?

I think that this situation has a good cause. It has caused Robert to look at how to moderate comments and how much should be edited in a comment and remain unbiased, letting each side have a say.

I do believe that if someone makes a claim, he/she should have a reliable way for someone to respond to the comment. For example, anyone can click my name and go to my website. Their feedback could be positive or negative.

Allan posed the question for PR students about where does liability begin. The blog ownder is accountable for what he or she posts. I believe that if this is a free forum, then unless the statements are blatantly false and a person has commented, then the commenter is liable. The blog is simply a vehicle for expression. That is why valid contact information is important, so in case someone does say it is slander or libel, then the person writing it can be contacted. If the person commenting says that he/she has sources, that is like an editorial in a newspaper.

Also, PR is so much more than putting an optimistic light on a bad situation or advertising/marketing a product or service, and until someone truly attempts to understand this, they will never see what PR is designed to do.

This is one of those issues that is probably better left “uncommented on” and that is probably why I am compelled to do so.

First of all I have mixed emotions about bloggers rights. I agree that it is a vehicle for free speech, yet to what extent. Do we allow “Joe Smith” to just say anything about anyone without regards to the aftermath that ensues. Do we allow them to say whatever they think and feel without evidence and proof to the statements. If “Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate” is so confident in his information then why would he not feel as confident putting his name behind the facts? Wouldn’t he want to allow discussion about these issues in order to find “justice” for them (if that is in fact what he hopes to find).

Secondly I do feel blogging can lead to beneficial discussion and problem solving, but as is true with any means of communication, it must be done tactfully and with objectivity. An internal corporate blog is a great idea yet would need certain criteria before employees would embrace it. I believe it would need a certain amount of faith within the organization that you won’t get “canned” for posting your opinion as long as it is stated in a professional manner with a “how can we solve this” attitude. (Obviously slanderous and crude comments wouldn’t be tolerated.) I think it is definitely important to embrace blogging internally to find out what employees think at all level. After all it might be the “bagger” that has the most important information to share and how else would corporate level managers’ receive this information. Corporations are latching on to this method of communicating left and right and I think it is only a matter of time before it is the main form of internal communication everywhere. (Even the military is blogging now.)

Also as for his comments on PR, and his assessment that our tactics are “fake and geared toward looking good and not saying anything of real importance. A self gratifying pat on the back if you will, I stand amazed. If Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate had any real sense of Public Relations at all he would be aware that often PR steps to the plate to openly admit fault and try to fix the problem not just sugar coat it. Also, he would be aware that PR is not strictly about making a company look good it is also about Employee Relations, Investor Relations, Community Relations, Media Relations and the list goes on. Perhaps Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate should take a good “Case Studies in Public Relations” class in order to understand it isn’t all glossed over puffery. I am sure that in the end it might be PR who helps him solve his little problem with Publix.

Finally, as for Mr. Jenkins Question about when our liability begins… that is a great question and I too would like to know exactly where liability begins and consequences are faced as Mr. Estes stated.

I am not going to comment on any of the allegations here so that there is no conflict of interest by this blog’s owner; my response is on my blog.

I will say that I take offense to some of what has been said here. I am actually doing something about alleged wrongful activities, and being attacked for it. I think if you look up the history of whistle blowers, you can see their lives have changed for the worse. I prefer to keep my identity concealed, as well as any people who have provided me with information. A simple audit will reveal the truth; I don’t need to reveal myself or my source for that to occur. It will either prove me a liar, or correct.

As far as my views on PR, they are really not well-fomed views and just my oppinion. I don’t have a background in PR so you can understand my stereotypical view of the profession. Don’t tell me you never tell lawyer or doctor jokes.

Because I don’t have a well-formed oppinion about your profession, I will refrain from comment. I don’t like people attacking my profession and will show the same respect. As I said before, you are welcome to share what exactly you do in your profession. I truly have no idea, aside from my stereotypical views.

This will be my last post here regarding this issue. I have concerns about protecting the identity of my source so future comments will be in a more secure place (my blog).

“Mr. P”,

To equate posting anonymous allegations with some sort of altruism doesn’t quite work for me. And, if you are going to do it - at least confine it to your own home, please.

Feel free to comment here, but do it without the accusations.

That being said, if you truly believe your comments here or the posts in your Blogspot blog are anonymous, that is quite naive. You can be found. Don’t fool yourself. Nothing is anonymous on the net. (Another lesson for the students, if you please.)

Your views on PR are not surprising. They reflect common misperceptions about PR held - we all sadly admit - by a wide audience in the world.

For instance, you reference above some thoughts about polical advertising and equate it with PR. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are different animals and disciplines. Advertising versus Public Relations, for instance. Now, I would not endorse all of those defintions, but you get the drift from reading and comparing them.

Two articles at O’Dwyer’s PR/Marcom address the differences well. Registration is required to read them. We could all benefit from the read.

* The fundamental difference between PR and advertising or marketing is this: Advertising and marketing sell the product. PR sells the organization (7/16/02)
* Advertising’s purpose is to sell a product or service. The purpose of public relations is to sell an organization. There is a large difference. (3/27/01)

Look, your claims may be true. I have no way to know one way or the other. But, I hope you won’t make the same mistake on someone else’s blog in the future. Keep the unprovable claims in your own blog. Keep your allegations, and the possible consequences, within your own realm of responsibility. You made them mine by posting a comment in the blog.

The good side of your posted comment is that we all learned a little bit from it about blogs and responsiblity. Yours as comment poster and mine as blog keeper. And nothing about those lessons has anything to do with Publix. A fine store, by the way, that I shopped in many times in Florida.

All the best.

My claims are not un-proveable. I just choose not to prove them. They can be proven one way or the other using a very simple audit by the company. For me to prove my claims would require releasing personal information. I think there might be some ethical issues with that.

If our discourse causes the company to investigate and act upon my claims, I think some good has occured. All without revealing my identity, or that of my source.

As far as my motives, maybe they aren’t entirely altruistic. I want to protect my profession from unfair labor practices, thus protecting my own interests. I don’t think outing myself serves my interests either.

I expect no direct reward from my actions…in fact I am more likely to recieve undesireable attention.

I have utmost respect for these whistleblowers: http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/

They testified against Enron, the FBI, and Worldcom. Unlike me, they have the courage to come out publicly against the giants. I openly admit my fear, but at least I am honest about it. Until you have tried it, don’t judge.

I am betting that a blog may play a large part in the next major corporate scandal. I don’t think our own situation rises to that occasion and can be compared with Enron or Worldcom (not even close).

Actually, everyone knows that immigration and labor laws are violated every day across this nation. And nothing is done. I could hand over my information to either the DOL or INS, and I would be shocked if they actually did anything about it. Our government is in the practice of turning a blind eye to this.

Where does our liability begin?

(Standard disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer; my views here have the same value as those of your brother-in-law.)

The legal advice I’ve gotten (and I live in Denmark; your local legal code will certainly be different) is that I am liable for all content on Desirable Roasted Coffee.

Mainly that’s because I reserve the right to moderate or delete comments. I am also told that liability arises because I have the easy ability to monitor, moderate and delete comments — as opposed to an ISP running a huge bulletin board with hundreds or thousands or comments a day.

But I am also advised that courts would look carefully at my intent. A libelous comment that I didn’t see for a day or so, but deleted upon discovery probably wouldn’t be a problem for me.

In the case of this thread, an anonymous writer claimed to know of

(got cut off, this continues my previous post)

“criminal” (his word) activities by two major companies (which he named). On DRC, I would have done the same thing Robert did: delete the entire post, or the offending lines. Why? Because as soon as the comment is made, the two companies have a named publisher they can sue (another issue, of course, is that MarcomBlog and Desirable Roasted Coffee have far greater audiences than this guy).

So… in my book, I see all of Desirable Roasted Coffee as an area of liability for me.

Finally, Robert is absolutely right… you cannot hide behind “anonymous” posts. With a subpoena and an IP address, a plaintiff can find Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate by sundown.

For you to subpoena my IP address, a crime must have been committed on my part. What I am saying is only libel if it is false. That isn’t the case, so it isn’t libel. Reporters routinely conceal the source of their information. In this case, I reported an alleged crime. It would be a travesty if law enforcement went after the person reporting it. Also, my ISP will only release my information to law enforcement. I have a good attorney and let’s just say if that occured a ton of bricks would come down.

I also told them how to find evidence. Here is an example for all you detective types.

Step 1: Get warrant on suspicion (thanks to my post)
Step 2: Ask any (Edit: Company Name) employee for their pay stub
Step 3: Compare paystub with prevailing wage.

If pay >= prevailing wage, OK. If not, a crime has occured.

Rocket science.

Publix is only responsible if they ignore the situation and allow it to continue. If you want any specifics on what I allege, go to my blog as I am not going to get into details here.

My bet is that our government could care less about this issue. Sad really that they allow corporations to routinely ignore the law.

Response to Tyler (this thread is building so quickly that it’s hard to respond right away).

Tyler wrote: First of all I have mixed emotions about bloggers rights. I agree that it is a vehicle for free speech, yet to what extent. Do we allow “Joe Smith” to just say anything about anyone without regards to the aftermath that ensues. Do we allow them to say whatever they think and feel without evidence and proof to the statements.

My response: Yes, we do. We let Joe Smith or Allan Jenkins or Tyler write or say whatever they like, and that’s a good thing. The consequences of libel or revealing insider information or leaking classified information are well-documented, if the writer crosses those lines. All else is fair.

By raising the question, I suspect you are toying with the answer “No, we don’t”. Why would you apply prior restraint? Or hold bloggers to a different standard than any other publisher? And how would you put preventing people from publishing “whatever they think or feel without evidence and proof” on the law books?

To our anonymous comment dropper, I offer this. You are a from here on referred to as Mr. (Edit) - Publix I/S Associate. That is your IP address. Or, at least it is the IP address registered each time you have written to this blog or me. You are not a representative of the company, therefore to continue using the name is wrong.

You write, “My claims are not un-proveable.”

That still doesn’t cut it. Your claim is shallow. I was kind before, but now - let’s not parse words. Your actions belie a lack of noble quality, character, or purpose.

You point to brave whistle blowers, yet hide yourself. For all we know, you’re just an angry former employee. Or, perhaps you bought a bruised pear and feel slighted by the produce department. The possibilities are numerous. Or, you could be legitimate. There is no way for us to know.

The more I read your comments, the more I’m inclined to disregard the latter.

You’ve had your say. You have a blog. Use it for your protest.

Come back when you’re ready to reveal your name.

Now, to take this discussion to a more valuable purpose, let us consider the issue of libel.

There are certain characteristics of the written (libel) or spoken (slander) defamation that must be evident for either to be proven. Remember, this is different in virtually every country.

They are:

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
(Source: ExpertLaw.com)

or …

In a libel action, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of libel:
(1) The statement has been made to a third party.
(2) The statement referred to the plaintiff. (This does not mean that the statement has to refer expressly to the plaintiff. A statement can be actionable if it is reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff).
(3) The statement must be defamatory, which means that it must be a false statement to the plaintiff’s discredit.
(Source: CyberLibel.com)

“Intent” of the person making the statement is also a pertinent issue to consider in libel law. Is their action malicious? Do they intend to cause harm with their comment? Did they know that it was not true when they made the comment?

Further, possible defenses against libel are:

There are three principal defences to an action for libel:
(1) Truth/justification. The defendant will succeed if they can substantially justify or prove the truth of the “sting” of the offending statements. Close analysis of the defamatory statement will avoid launching an ill-considered lawsuit.
(2) Fair Comment. This defence will succeed if it can be shown that the statement is comment on facts truly stated. It can be defeated by evidence of malice.
(3) Qualified privilege. This is a complicated legal defence and its application varies with the circumstances.
(Source: CyberLibel.com)

Some interesting discussions and descriptions of libel may be found here:

OJR: Internet Libel Laws In Limbo

The Classic Case: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Inter American Press Association

Libel Law: Let it Die (Wired.com)

CyberLibel.com

This is the best post ever!

Very rarely are we allowed a chance to see a debate over course content in action, much less have the ability to comment on it. I can understand Mr. Anonymous Post’s desire to remain anonymous when posting negative things against her employer/former employer - it is a rare person who can spit in someone’s face and hang around for a reaction. Also, it is his absolute right to have a place to speak whatever is on his mind…in his blog. But as Robert says, this is his blog. He frequently tells us to carefully consider our words when posting a comment on someone else’s blog, it is their home and you have to mind your manners while visiting. Mr. Anonymous obviously has something to say, but sure made it impossible to listen by the negative frame of his statement (he needs to take a PR class).

As for the question of libel, I agree that the moderator of the site should be ultimately responsible for the content (within reason). If there is someone making vulgar/threatening comments, they should be required to let someone else know - if it contains enough information to be credible. A random post threatening a vague act can not be the moderator’s responsibility.

When you open up a space (be it on the web or in real life) and ask for free discussion - you will get comments from anyone with a point to make…especially someone with a point to make. Once they comment, it seems like censorship to edit or block what they say. Unless it’s vulgar or threatening, you should let the conversation go.

Wow, this is a lot to cover so I will try to hit the highpoints. First, company’s really do not have an option when it comes to recognizing blogging. At least, any company that cares about the public perception of their organization. This reminds me of one of Ebbers many mistakes at Worldcom. He refused to recognize new ways of doing things, especially when it came to new technology. We all know how well this strategy turned out for him. What I am trying to say, is that turning the other cheek to blogs will only hurt the organization as a whole.

Choosing, as a company, to acknowledge blogs does not make them more important. It does, however, allow a path for two-way communication regarding issues and concerns. This creates awareness that can benefit everyone involved. Of course, there will always be those people that choose to discredit themselves among blogs, but they should be recognized as doing just that. Throughout most every situation in life there will always be “those people.” It is important to see blogging as a mere element and not the whole enchilada. I think this misconception is where people are often divided on the blogging issue.

That being said, I can’t understand why someone would choose to take a passionate stand about public issues in a public place, making serious statements, and feel that their own name will not provide credibility to the claims. This is not the same thing as whistle-blowing. This is a waste of time to everyone involved.

Now that I have read your response, I consider you to be vindictive and frankly a horrible professor. You just crossed the line by posting my IP address for all to see. That is simply reprehensible. Your blog leaves the impression that posts are anonymous. For you to take your course of action and change my alias is simply incredible.

I stopped making claims on your blog as you requested. Your response has been childish and vindictive. If anyone here is an example of poor behavior, it is you.

As far as being a representative of the company, I never claimed to be. My posts never made anyone think “Hey, this guy represents the views of Publix”.

Going back to your definition of libel, by definition what I did was not libel. Grow up. I just lost all respect for the PR profession. You are nothing more than a corporate hack. That is truly sad considering your students are taking lead from someone like yourself.

You discust me and should be ashamed. I have seen young children behave better than you. I have been nothing but professional on your blog and even followed your own rules (even as they have changed along the way).

You are not an authority on blogs, your students should know that. I can’t imagine anyone paying for your consulting services. This is my last post, EVER, here unless it is to defend myself from your immature comments.

Well, this has defenitely been entertaining. After reading Mr. (Edit) - Publix I/S Associate’s blog, i think i know why he has been hanging out here…as far as I can tell, know one is listening to him on his…or at least not commenting.

This has been an interesting lesson for all of us as to what can happen on a blog. Obviously this guy has strong feelings on the subject and feels that he is being wronged. He thinks he has some important info, but doesn’t want to reveal all of that info, for fear that he will hurt his source, who apparently lives in another country (presumably India, the country that Publix is allegedly outsourcing to) so he is content making accusations that will forever be unsubstantiated–unless he comes out of the closet, so to speak.
It’s also nice to be reminded that there are ramifications to having a blog and that issues like libel are things we have to be aware of and diligent about.

I will give him this (and I’m sure it’s partly what he wants) I’m going to pay attention to see if any of this comes to light…and to see IF this guy will have the guts to stand up for what he believes in and not just post “anonymously” on blogs. That way I can say, oh yea…I remember him when he was just Mr. (Edit) - Publix I/S Associate on marcomblog!

Blog Owner’s Note: The person claiming to be a Publix I/S Associate does not represent Publix in their comments. We do not know if they are truly a Publix I/S Associate, either.

Everyone has a right to their own opinions.

What I, as the blog’s owner, have done is what might happen when dealing with any blog. You could be held to their decisions as to what they would do with whatever information they garnered from your visits to their blogs.

So, the tables can be turned very quickly.

I’ve merely identified you - to the best of my ability - to the public that reads this blog. They now have at least a little bit more information from which to judge your comments.

I’m glad this thread is over. All the best.

By the way, the commentor wrote to me and requested that we try and follow the trail of his IP back to find his service provider. It was easy. We did it.

Update: The more I think about this, I wonder if our guest recognizes that this whole thread is a lesson in the capricious nature of the web and particularly - blogs. For a business, blogs/CMS pose a concern regarding the “whim; impulsive and unpredictable” nature of the publishing software in the hands of just about anyone that wants to launch a blog. Further, those posting comments are equally exposed to the risk of that very same unpredictability.

If I can wrap up this thread now, the value here is to both (a) understand the value and danger of a blog for your clients and (b) to understand the value and danger of a blog regarding your personal participation in them. There are other lessons, but those two seem particularly pertinent now.

This thread wound up being a sort of ‘Petri dish’ for testing and exploring the quirks of blogs.

What’s this supermarket thing you guys talk about? Is it a Southern thing?

I thought everyone bought groceries at Costco.

I have edited all comments referencing our comment visitor to read as Anonymous - Publix I/S Associate and I have removed any mention of his IP address. For continuity, I have literally edited all of them in everyone’s comments.

The point has been made.

He requested, after I offered, to have the changes made.

I hope this little “drama” (as the students have termed it) is now over.

No harm intended, truly. The point has been made. The lesson has been learned - I hope.

Robert

Great thread. Robert is right for moderating as he has done. First off, it’s his blog ultimately…right? A blogger has been sued for comments appearing on his weblog.

http://www.businessblogconsulting.com/2005/08/blogger_sued_fo.html

Allan, I suspect you’re assumption is correct: If it’s your blog, you’re ultimately responsible for the conversation. It will be interesting to see how the case turns out if it goes to trial.

Thank you, Kevin.

It has turned into a good learning experience for all of us, I think.

Well, this all seems really complicated, fortunately its not. Internet security is an oxymoron. Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want your mother to read. Don’t make accusations you cant prove or otherwise don’t intend to pursue in court–there is no point in them. As far as Robert owning my posts on his blog–yes he does and he owns yours too. And yes, he can edit them as he sees fit. So what is my point? Corporate blogs have them same responsibilities and limitations as us individuals. I don’t know Mr. Publix or work. But I understand where he is coming from. Who could blame him for trying to get someone to listen to what he has to say without disclosing his identity? I think he has a valid point regarding his privacy, but how do you insure his privacy without infringing on the rights of companies and other individuals regarding their image in the eyes of the public? Answer: the same way any other form of mass media does, they check their sources. Newspapers don’t print just anything their readers mail to them, why should we?

This is an interesting discussion. But it’s one I’ve seen before - both when Mark Jen was fired from Google and hired by Plaxo for his blogging activities; in the Microsoft blogging experiments; and in Yahoo’s mostly positive way of addressing the issues raised by employee blogging.

It is very interesting to see this from a PR perspective, rather than that of the principles involved, but the “employee blogging about work” issue has been around for quite a long while now. What I find more interesting are the discussions about libel, slander and personal ethics as it relates to blogging.

I’ll just say here that there are many reasons for blogging more-or-less anonymously. In my case, the company I work for is so small that my point of view quickly becomes synonymous with that of my employer, which often is not the case. (That’s happened a couple of times with written and televised statements in the pre-blogging world.)

That’s a situation that is possibly detrimental to both of us, obviously – and made more complex by the fact that I serve on 3 boards for local governing bodies. My activities as a employee, as a private individual, and as a board member seem to merge quickly, even though there may be no real connection between the three at any particular point.

Anonymity – though some people may call it cowardly or pointless – allows my opinion to be my own, without having it identified as the viewpoint of my company, my municipality, or my county. Even though my pond is a very small one, it still allows me to have, in an odd way, my own identity, in a way I couldn’t if I were to blog under my name.

Richard, I don’t see anything wrong with blogging anonymously. (I will say that to blog anonymously and write rude and impolite comments about people is childish and immature. But, that’s not entirely what this particular discussion is about.) The point here was the anonymous statement of claims absent evidence. That is where the true problem comes in for a blog owner and her/his comments sections.

If I had allowed this blogger to continue posting anonymous claims of illegality about his company - or any other company or person - I would then be libel for his/her actions.

I know several people that blog anonymously. What they post in thier blogs is their business. When they post in my blog, or yours, then the responsibility is shared - like it or not.

Although an old issue, it is one that resurfaces quite often. In this instance, it was quite interesting for my students to see it happening in real time in a blog that is designed for them and they participate in regularly.

I don’t know what is going on with our anonymous comment poster, but his/her blog is now down.

http://publixis.blogspot.com/

Their experience here may have caused her/him to reassess the practice of blogging - period - whether anonymous or out in the open. It is a possibly dangerous activity effecting job security and more.