Golden State PR guy anonymously defends franchise on message board

[Shaggy]

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2009/05/21/warriors-pr-director-confirms-he-authored-anonymous-blog-comment/

Would love your thoughts on this. Golden State PR director goes onto Warriors message boards, anonymously, and tries to steer about 4-5 conversations in a positive direction regarding a number of different issues. The latest is an issue that he's directly involved with re: season tickets. Kawakami approached him and he didn't deny anything. He admitted to it all without hesitation.

My opinion? I think being anonymous is a little tacky, but going onto message boards to preach positive thoughts might not be a bad idea for a PR guy.

Thoughts?

 

[mustangj17]

He's a PR guy, isn't that what he is supposed to do? Make them sound good?

 

[OnTheRiver]

Yup.

****, he's doing his job.

 

[Armchair_QB]

However, he's clearly not real good at keeping his identity anonymous.

 

[Drip]

However, he's clearly not real good at keeping his identity anonymous.

here, here.

 

[Kelly Tripucka]

However, he's clearly not real good at keeping his identity anonymous.

Obviously. But he does seem to be earning his paycheck.

 

[Joe Williams]

Isn't anyone bothered by yet another Web site revealing the source of an allegedly anonymous commenter -- something its sites specificially allow? You had the Atlanta newspaper confronting a local franchise owner with charges that its IT staff had tracked some comments to his office, and now this from the Warrior fanboy site.

Strikes me that places like this will pick and choose, outing those whose views it disagrees with while maintaining cloak of anonymity for those who favor its side.

I think it should be all or nothing -- either you require registration and info that identifies every poster equally or you allow all of them to operate behind the curtain.

 

[SF_Express]

Aside from that, and I know the ethics are totally different, but I would think some would have at least a little bit of a problem with somebody employed in such a position by a professional sports franchise going in and doing these things without disclosing who he/she really is.

Or not.

 

[Moderator1]

During my reign of terror at VCU, I posted on the fan message board three times. Twice the posts were to thank the membership for recognizing VCU athletes for some such board-voted honor. The third was similar.
Used the name MikeHarris for all three.
If you do something like that, I think you do have to do the full disclosure thing.

Same thing if you are a writer posting on a fan message board (which I discourage, only leads to trouble). Hey, go read my story or hey, I'm starting a new blog check it out or something.
Creating a fake name to pimp your own work? Not so much.

 

[Editude]

Posting anonymous arguments on his blog and those of critics led to Michael Hiltzik losing his business column at the L.A. Times a few years back. He was assigned to sports for a while before moving back to business (and getting his column back).

 

[sirvaliantbrown]

Yup.

****, he's doing his job.

No, he's not. Did you read the comment? He passed himself off as a fan.

"I think we are all so mezmerized by what we read in the paper and take it as gospel. I actually enjoyed the call and appreciate their honesty, even if everything was not what we wanted to hear. I would like to hear from them more often. I have already renewed and are part of the 70%, so I will hope for the best from section 121……"

PR people are always going to spin; in some difficult circumstances, they might have to lie. But lying voluntarily, for dubious gain or no gain, is not part of the job. Neither is lying about their identity.

 

[Big Circus]

During my reign of terror at VCU, I posted on the fan message board three times. Twice the posts were to thank the membership for recognizing VCU athletes for some such board-voted honor. The third was similar.
Used the name MikeHarris for all three.
If you do something like that, I think you do have to do the full disclosure thing.

Same thing if you are a writer posting on a fan message board (which I discourage, only leads to trouble). Hey, go read my story or hey, I'm starting a new blog check it out or something.
Creating a fake name to pimp your own work? Not so much.

VCU has a fan message board?

 

[Moderator1]

www.caazone.com

There's a link to the boards. One for each team. VCU is one of the most active.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Happens all the time. And as has been said in this thread, people do this because promoting the franchise's (or school's) best interests is in their own best interest. They think they're doing their job, smarmy as it may be. I don't know how these types can look in the mirror, but this is pretty typical for some of the fanboards, like Rivals sites.

For instance: After a prominent coach at a major school was fired a few years ago, a couple of brand-new "The administration did the right thing" posters showed up at the school's fansite. Prompted a small exodus, as supporters of the ousted coach felt they couldn't discuss their beloved coach without getting shouted down by what they thought were "plants." (They started a new board . . . on which the main topic of conversation was what jerks and idiots the people at the old board were).

Anyway, fanboards are tough places to wade into for professionals like PR people and, as has been discussed here, journalists. Easy for a "group" to turn into a "mob." And easy to find yourself written about in the SJ Mercury News.

 

[mediaguy]

I think it'd be more interesting news if it weren't him steering things in a positive direction. I'm sure many athletic departments and teams have staffers in some capacity posting on message boards, however unofficially they may do it ...

 

[Babs]

I know of a guy who works for a pro team who uses a fake name to post on message boards and, among other things, takes swipes his own organization. It could probably get him fired, but I'm keeping this knowledge in my back pocket. I gain more the way it is now. Honestly it's far more entertaining to watch what a complete tool he is.

 

[pseudo]

During my reign of terror at VCU, I posted on the fan message board three times. Twice the posts were to thank the membership for recognizing VCU athletes for some such board-voted honor. The third was similar.
Used the name MikeHarris for all three.
If you do something like that, I think you do have to do the full disclosure thing.

Same thing if you are a writer posting on a fan message board (which I discourage, only leads to trouble). Hey, go read my story or hey, I'm starting a new blog check it out or something.
Creating a fake name to pimp your own work? Not so much.

Right on. A couple of beat writers post on our fanboard, ALWAYS under their own names. Same with the guys from the local sportstalker, although they don't post as often as they used to. We're happy to have them on the board, and as a mod, I do my best to make sure nobody takes a run at them.
(I respect your opinion on this, Moddy, and I'll admit I was leery of how it was going to work out. But so far, the vast majority of our posters appreciate the fact that they're willing to make an effort to interact with us.)

And if anyone from the front office posted on our board pretending to be a fan, I'd be sorely tempted to do precisely what the gang at WW.com did. To me, staying silent would be the equivalent of allowing them to use our site to promote the company line, but without identifying it as such.

 

[Mark2010]

People I have worked for have encouraged me to use a different screen name, so as to not give the impression I am biased (hell, yes, I am.... that's not going to change). I can see arguments both ways.

It's hard to royally rip someone you have to work with.

 

[jlee]

The local sports TV folks frequently comment on our Web site.

A November exchange went like this:

"Channel 11 woman: Why wait until tomorrow? I'll be watching it at 11 2nite!
Channel 2 man: Yup, you should be watching it on Channel Two!"

Maybe this would be a problem somewhere else. But here? I feel sorry for 'em. They get worse ratings than 2 a.m. Girls Gone Wild commercials, and this was probably the best plug they got all year.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Isn't anyone bothered by yet another Web site revealing the source of an allegedly anonymous commenter -- something its sites specificially allow? You had the Atlanta newspaper confronting a local franchise owner with charges that its IT staff had tracked some comments to his office, and now this from the Warrior fanboy site.

Strikes me that places like this will pick and choose, outing those whose views it disagrees with while maintaining cloak of anonymity for those who favor its side.

I think it should be all or nothing -- either you require registration and info that identifies every poster equally or you allow all of them to operate behind the curtain.

I'm pretty sure this situation was the fan site asking the journalist to confirm what it had already determined regarding the post. Wildly different than the Atlanta situation if you ask me. There, the newspaper's IT dept was the sleuth, but here it was the fanboy site which asked the newspaper guy, who had the access that the fan site may note have. Not sure if that changes the situation entirely but it does seem like a significant distinction to me.