Rubel vs. PC Mag — bizarre

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get most of the reaction to Steve Rubel’s little Twitter-related gaffe (Twaffe?), in which he said that he throws his PC Magazine in the trash, and now has had to apologize to the editor-in-chief of PC Mag, etc. First of all, you mean they still publish PC Mag? Who knew. I stopped subscribing years ago, and so did anyone else with any sense.

snipshot_e411dij41o5e.jpgAnd secondly, yes I totally understand that it was probably unwise of Steve to say that about PC Mag, seeing as how Edelman pitches companies to PC Mag, and that we all have to watch what we say now, Twitter is not like instant messaging, etc. etc. Totally get that. But still — what the hell is Jim Louderback doing posting a long commentary on what Rubel did to some anonymous PR gossip rag like Strumpette? He has his own website, although it currently just hosts a bio and some links. Why not put it there?

Better yet, why not post a comment on Steve’s blog, or send him an email? Or talk to Edelman privately? Instead, he posts it on Strumpette, and muses aloud about penalizing Edelman in some way — not to mention that he takes what Rubel said completely out of context. What kind of person does that? It’s like overhearing someone say something offhand on the streetcar and then writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Bizarre.

Comments (14)

  1. Ed Kohler wrote::

    I can’t figure it out either. Why apologize for making an honest remark about the value of the print pub. to him?

    Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 11:12 pm #
  2. Mathew wrote::

    Glad I’m not the only one, Ed.

    Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 11:28 pm #
  3. Tony wrote::

    Why not put it on his blog? Probably because no one will notice and he wanted to take a stand on the issue.

    You can debate whether its something he ought to have took a stand on, but putting it up on Strumpette did the trick.

    It got him some cheap publicity, and it got an apology out of Steve Rubel.

    Cheers
    t @ dji

    Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 11:38 pm #
  4. Mathew wrote::

    Cheap is right, Tony.

    Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 11:48 pm #
  5. engtech wrote::

    The sad thing is that it’s always little comments like this that get blown out of proportion. Whenever I’ve had internet postings come back and bite me it was over something as inconsequential as Steve’s remark.

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 1:56 am #
  6. Allen Stern wrote::

    Just remember that in case after case, both parties win.

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 10:20 am #
  7. Amanda Chapel wrote::

    Mathew,

    First off, Strumpette is the 3rd rail in PR. Louderback was pretty smart in choosing us. Proof in the pudding, it has sent ripples throughout the business and will be discussed for some time to come.

    Now with regard to your cheap remark, excuse me? I may be loose but cheap… no. Well let’s put it this way, you couldn’t afford me. :)

    Regards,

    Amanda Chapel
    Managing Editor
    Strumpette

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 12:05 pm #
  8. Mathew wrote::

    Thanks, Amanda — or whatever your real name is — but I didn’t mean “inexpensive.” As for the third rail thing, I’ll take your word for it.

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm #
  9. Jeremy Toeman wrote::

    Mathew – it’s important because senior executives at PR firms should not publicly criticize publications their firm deals with. Period. That’s simply their job. It doesn’t matter if it’s Twitter, a blog, a podcast, a wiki, or any other newfangled technology – it was done publicly. That simple little Twitter update basically put that entire business relationship in jeopardy (and a PR firm/publication relationship is exactly that – a business one).

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 12:30 pm #
  10. Mathew wrote::

    I think you missed my point, Jeremy — or maybe I wasn’t clear. I didn’t say that it didn’t matter, and I agreed that Steve probably shouldn’t have said what he said — what I don’t get is why a guy like Louderback would respond the way he did. It’s just unprofessional and seems to have been done for cheap theatrics more than anything else.

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 3:57 pm #
  11. Amanda Chapel wrote::

    Mathew,

    With all due respect, I think it’s you who are missing the point. ALL of this is theater. It just so happens that Louderback’s play was hugely effective. There’s been 33 other articles written on the topic in less than 24 hours. I’d say he chose the exact platform to make that happen.

    Bottom line: the topic is important and the discussion essential. What are you gripin’ about?

    – Amanda

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 4:17 pm #
  12. Eric Berlin wrote::

    I agree that it’s strange. Perhaps it was done in reaction to Rubel’s “open letter” apology (which seemed sincere enough).

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 4:22 pm #
  13. Amanda Chapel wrote::

    Mathew,

    With all due respect, I think it’s you who are missing the point. ALL of this is theater. It just so happens that Louderback’s play was hugely effective. There’s been 33 other articles written on the topic in less than 24 hours. I’d say he chose the exact platform to make that happen.

    Bottom line: the topic is important and the discussion essential. What are you griping about?

    – Amanda

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 5:02 pm #
  14. Mathew wrote::

    Amanda: I guess that’s why I hate the theatre.

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 5:15 pm #