7 comments

• 

  davidarmano

  2 years ago

  Max,
  
  That's a pretty fair answer to a fair question. I guess that's the bigger point I was trying to make by referencing Greg's post. I thought he raised a valid point about a cgm conference not allowing cgm.
  
  I agree with you about avoiding extremes, as extreme positions are certainly not the answer. I would be curious to see how your clients feel about future events. But I think you did a great thing here by addressing the question head and providing your rationale (as well as the disclosures)
  reply
• 

  davidarmano

  2 years ago

  Max,
  
  That's a pretty fair answer to a fair question. I guess that's the bigger point I was trying to make by referencing Greg's post. I thought he raised a valid point about a cgm conference not allowing cgm.
  
  I agree with you about avoiding extremes, as extreme positions are certainly not the answer. I would be curious to see how your clients feel about future events. But I think you did a great thing here by addressing the question head and providing your rationale (as well as the disclosures)
  reply
• 

  Noah Brier

  2 years ago

  Max, I hope you'll use this as an example for your clients on how to handle a situation like this. Greg and David had a valid question/criticism and you provided a very logical and thoughtful response (as I had no doubt you would).
  reply
• 

  Greg Verdino

  2 years ago

  Max - Thanks for your thoughtful response. Let me begin by stating that my post reflected my personal opinion (and not the official stance of my employer), but that even after participating as a BuzzMetrics client (on behalf of my employer) I didn't hear much (outside of some of the conversation in the breakout sessions) that struck me as overtly proprietary. The event was wonderful, to be sure, and I enjoyed participating. You'll note that I did in fact respect BuzzMetrics' wishes and did not blog about the content. Nonetheless, even as a client I think that at least some of the content could have been reported without violating confidentiality, causing discomfort or adversely impacting Nielsen, its customers or the quality of the event. There is a difference between establishing a blanket no blog policy and distinguishing between on-the-record and off-the-record statements.
  
  Having said this, I stand by my post which, after all, simply raised a question.
  
  On a separate but related note, I want to be clear that the Digitas/Logic+Emotion event was actually an internal Digitas employee event, to which we invited a select group of marketing bloggers and MSM reporters. Like your CGM event, this was not a "public" event, yet we certainly did welcome the outside opinions, coverage and interest. And, frankly, we are glad we did - the coverage by you and others was fantastic. In the end, I'm not sure that the nature of this event was all that different from the nature of yours...
  reply
• 

  Greg Verdino

  2 years ago

  Max - Thanks for your thoughtful response. Let me begin by stating that my post reflected my personal opinion (and not the official stance of my employer), but that even after participating as a BuzzMetrics client (on behalf of my employer) I didn't hear much (outside of some of the conversation in the breakout sessions) that struck me as overtly proprietary. The event was wonderful, to be sure, and I enjoyed participating. You'll note that I did in fact respect BuzzMetrics' wishes and did not blog about the content. Nonetheless, even as a client I think that at least some of the content could have been reported without violating confidentiality, causing discomfort or adversely impacting Nielsen, its customers or the quality of the event. There is a difference between establishing a blanket no blog policy and distinguishing between on-the-record and off-the-record statements.
  
  Having said this, I stand by my post which, after all, simply raised a question.
  
  On a separate but related note, I want to be clear that the Digitas/Logic+Emotion event was actually an internal Digitas employee event, to which we invited a select group of marketing bloggers and MSM reporters. Like your CGM event, this was not a "public" event, yet we certainly did welcome the outside opinions, coverage and interest. And, frankly, we are glad we did - the coverage by you and others was fantastic. In the end, I'm not sure that the nature of this event was all that different from the nature of yours...
  reply
• 

  Greg Verdino

  2 years ago

  Max - Thanks for your thoughtful response. Let me begin by stating that my post reflected my personal opinion (and not the official stance of my employer), but that even after participating as a BuzzMetrics client (on behalf of my employer) I didn't hear much (outside of some of the conversation in the breakout sessions) that struck me as overtly proprietary. The event was wonderful, to be sure, and I enjoyed participating. You'll note that I did in fact respect BuzzMetrics' wishes and did not blog about the content. Nonetheless, even as a client I think that at least some of the content could have been reported without violating confidentiality, causing discomfort or adversely impacting Nielsen, its customers or the quality of the event. There is a difference between establishing a blanket no blog policy and distinguishing between on-the-record and off-the-record statements.
  
  Having said this, I stand by my post which, after all, simply raised a question.
  
  On a separate but related note, I want to be clear that the Digitas/Logic+Emotion event was actually an internal Digitas employee event, to which we invited a select group of marketing bloggers and MSM reporters. Like your CGM event, this was not a "public" event, yet we certainly did welcome the outside opinions, coverage and interest. And, frankly, we are glad we did - the coverage by you and others was fantastic. In the end, I'm not sure that the nature of this event was all that different from the nature of yours...
  reply
• 

  Joseph Hunkins

  2 years ago

  Max this is a thoughtful argument and correctly separates this case from normal conference blogging as I failed to do in my critical post.
  However I remain skeptical of any anti-blogging policy since it defies a new open standard that suggests blogging keeps the online world humming along nicely. This appears to be too close to asserting that it's OK to profit from online communities and activities with no obligation to share insights with that same community"
  reply