Know-How Exchange : Our Forum

Now that both sides have been heard on this, I hope to get others who will offer constructive notions. Perhaps the MP team can set up a flagging system, where answers that are disrespectful can be tagged for removal.

You paint the other parts of the picture well . . . I agree most of the comments here are well intentioned and respectful.

I'm glad to hear that a) I'm not a voice crying in a hypersensitive wilderness and b) others care about this as I do. And now that my blood is just simmering instead of boiling, I'd also like to add that my complaint was against a very few . . . but it only takes one or two to ratchet down the quality of the exchange.

I'll keep this open through next week and see if we can't generate some more good ideas.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful contributions so far.

And to those who enjoy giving the smarmy answer . . . look at what's being said here and try and understand that those kinds of answers do impact the group, do upset more than just cranky old Mike.

Hey All,

I've been involved in design and marketing for 25 years and I've seen, heard, read, and experienced a lot of things in the industry: some of them good, some of them bad, some of them idiotic, and some of them just completely beyond redemption.

As Michael G. points out I'm often "direct". For this I make no apology. None.

I learned this from my Dad. As far as he was concerned, life was too short to fart around.

If he had something to say, it got said. If he had something on his mind, you knew about it. If you asked for his advice, he gave it. And if you didn't like what you heard, that was your problem, not his. He passed away almost five years ago and I miss him more than I care to admit.

Certain people didn't like this approach with my Dad and many people don't like it coming from me.

But you know what? Tough. Much like Michael G., I'll avoid questions where the questioner (to my mind) doesn't appear to know their ass from their elbow. I mean really, what's the point?

And yes, I'll call people "dearie" or "my dear chap" or whatever
for three reasons: 1., because I'm British, and 2., because I've been addressing people like that in letters for almost 30 years,
and 3., and because one of my copywriting mentors is Neil French.

Do I suffer fools gladly? Alas (for them) I do not. Does my persona sometimes come across as intellectual thug meets evil genius?

Yes, I suppose it does.

Have I had bigger blokes than me actually step out of my way when I've been walking down the street? Yes, I have. But I rescue spiders from the bathtub with a yogurt pot and a postcard so that I can dump them outside "Fly! Be free!" and honestly, I'm pretty non confrontational.

Will I go out of my way to help a little old lady across the street and do I coo at chubby babies and giggle at all the puppy belly pinkness on YouTube? Yes, I do.

Why? Because at heart, I'm a big softy. I'm also incredibly passionate about what I do and about what I know. And the things I know and do the best are marketing and graphic design.

But I am no guru.

In the past when I've employed diplomacy in marketing and design situations I've actually had someone DEMAND that I tell them what I think. (This happened way before I got involved on this forum and the person involved is not likely to read this. But even if they do read it, screw 'em!)

In this particular scenario I used every fiber of my being to put forward the opinion that perhaps another direction would be worth pursuing in this, but this guy wouldn't let his point go.

His exact words were "Well, if you don't like it, just say so. Come on. Just say it!" So I said "OK. I don't like it."

His response was, and I quote "Well! I'm insulted!" And then he went off on some piss poor lecture about him knowing about design (when he didn't) and so on.

So, now you know. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Of the questions I've answered on this forum I think I've had negative responses from three people: a Canadian real estate agent, an astrologer, and someone else: I forget who. That's
about a third of a percent of the total number of people I've responded to.

Am I proud of the fact that I've upset anyone? Good Lord no!

In fact, I'm mortified. But you know what? As with the chap I mentioned earlier, there will always—ALWAYS be someone who takes offense where none was intended. I can bloody well guarantee it.

I wrote to the astrologer to clarify my position, to smooth things over. Did it work? I'm not sure. As for the Canadian real estate agent? Although I wrote a response, I didn't send it.

Why? Some inner voice told me not to bother. It is what it is.
A few years ago a sage old trustee of a non profit I've been involved with for ten years gave me a great piece of advice.

We were chatting one day off to one side as a group of other trustees were discussing an important issue.

He asked me a question, I forget now what it was, and I mentioned that I knew that I was the lowest person on the totem pole in that situation and it was then that he gave me this:

He said: "Gary, none of these people put their pants on any differently than you or I. When you get the chance to chip in your two cents' worth, you speak your mind!"

So there you have it. To my mind, good advice is a rare commodity these days. Me? I'll take whatever I can get.

Stay passionate.

Gary B.

Not so fast, Phil. Just because 95% of the complaints have been about your posts there is no reason to change your behavior. It's possible -- maybe likely -- that people who didn't want strong medicine complain more frequently than people who do. It's THEIR problem, not yours.

While I occasionally wince at your comments, I almost always realize that you're giving your best advice and telling people what most of us are thinking. That's not such a bad thing. If it were, you would not have racked up 80,000 expert points and landed in the top 10 in something under 5 years on the KHE.

I don't think Shelley was suggesting that what you are doing should be changed. Rather it says (to me, at least) that your style of "tough love" is getting through to folks and making your point better than most of us make ours.

The goal shouldn't be to minimize complaints. It should be to provide real value to the people who come here for help. Anyone who doesn't like the advice they're given, or who doesn't like to read the advice given to others, can tune out if they want. If your postings become a problem, I'm sure Shelley (or one of the other MarketingProfs police) will say something to you in a private email.

There's a gulf between straightforward and sarcastic. Between candid and caustic. I suppose you either recognize that gulf or you don't. So be it.

And somehow, interestingly enough, this has turned into a referendum on Phil. While it was his "turn out the lights and go to dinner" remark that fired me up to start this (which is why I mentioned him by name), I didn't intend for my comments to be focused on him alone, because he is not the only practitioner of Serial Sarcasm.

I also disagree with the "just being honest" argrument, because honesty is a content issue, and I'm talking about form here. Not about what's said, but about how it's said. You know: there are many ways to skin a cat. A sharp, refined knife does a clean job. A blunt knife creates a mess (God what an awful analogy).

It seems to me, that if we choose to answer a question we should provide the best quality content AND form.

People come here with issues: some of them naive and some of them not. I can tell, as can many others, by someone's question that they know little about Marketing. I can also tell, again as many others can, when an answer displays the same thing.

Keep in mind as well that a good answer to a stupid question may not help the questioner, but it may help someone else who uses this forum as a research tool.

My view: sarcasm is just showing off: if I can mangle Edward Albee, it's just "taking what's left of your wits out for a walk." It's purpose is to display personal cleverness . . . indeed, it may be that the intent is to get people to say "Wow, did he say that?" A kind of Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann approach where many things are said just to see the look on people's faces.

But that's not what we're here for.

Dear All,

The thing I respect and admire most about this forum is its differing personalities, many of whom positively LEAP off the screen. Oh that my own humble contributions were deemed worthy.

So Phil, please: to thine own self be true.

Sarcasm is said to be the lowest form of wit. Au contraire mon frere, au contraire.

The best of comedic observation is FOUNDED in sarcasm. To invent or employ a pithy retort—sarcastic, comedic, or otherwise—takes rather more linguistic skill, insight, wit, editorial acumen, and, let's be honest here—balls than many (often lesser) writers may ever aspire to. Rather than think "Did so and so really say that?" might it not sometimes be better to think "Damn! I wish I'D said that!"

Does this EXCUSE or JUSTIFY the use or abuse of sarcasm to bully or harass?

No. Never.

But to a certain degree, it MAY defend sarcasm's use to inject elements of realism into life where pompous self importance takes the helm and points the bows directly at the ice floe while steaming all ahead full, into the dark and potential doom.

Often, pithy retorts—sarcastic or otherwise, cut through the linguistic BS that shrouds and fogs far too much of the world of marketing with its synergies and value adds that shift the paradigms that cause multifaceted core competencies to leverage organically evolved quantum leaps.

Come again?

David Ogilvy. Rosser Reeves. Mark Twain. Groucho Marx. Frank Zappa. George Bernard Shaw. Oscar Wilde. Victor Borge. Jane Austen. Winston Churchil. John Cleese. Rowan Atkinson. Stephen Fry. Hugh Laurie. Woody Allen. Douglas Adams. Peter Cook. And Dudley Moore would, I'm sure, all have much to say on this issue.

Although sarcasm may be unwelcome at certain doors, it's arrival, along with its close cousins irony and cynicism can, I think, sometimes add what may (from time to time) be much needed zest, realism, levity, and openness to a conversation.

But it's my contention that the "sometimes" in question in the paragraph above MUST ALWAYS be at the editorial discretion of the originator, so that the questioner—no matter how much of an idiot they may clearly be—might at least retain SOME element of intelligence or business acumen.

I'm saying this because there certain half-witted questions (on
this forum or elsewhere) that practically BEG for some pithy, Basil Fawlty-style retort. Every now and again it's just TOO tempting to
ignore the emperor in all his or her nudity.

The comedian Ron White (who, I'll admit, may not be everyone's cup of tea) argues that there are cures for all kinds of conditions and diseases but that sadly, there's no cure for stupid.

"Stupid," says Ron, "is forever!"

Although stupidity is NOT a felony, in certain cases sarcasm can
(and perhaps ought) to be used to treat stupidity as a marketing misdemeanor.

And yes, I agree that questioners who shoot the messenger DO
say more about themselves than they say about the responses
they receive.

Again, just my humble two cents worth. I hasten to add that none of
this is intended to start another firestorm of disagreement. I just want
to express my opinion.

Gary B.

you have brought up the subject of “ sincere and serious questions" which are written in poor English.

Time and time again, well-educated and sincere and serious people from other countries ask how they can do business in the United States. Often there are a dozen or more serious grammatical errors in their brief posting.

I have tried to gently persuade them to hire an editor if they intend to sell professional services to companies in the United States. It seems unlikely to me that United States companies will outsource marketing work to those who are apparently unable to compose a proper paragraph.

I agree that we should be civil and that we should be respectful of others. I have personally attempted to be as gentle as I can while letting people know that those who wish to sell in the United States need to be able to spell and to punctuate (and should not write run on sentences like this one).

Am I being overly critical?

Should we abandon constructive criticism so that we don't hurt anyone's feelings?

I'm looking back at Gary's thoughtful responses, especially at the part where he refers to them as two cents worth. Dems two mighty big pennies!

I must say though that I think using comedians as your model for how we should interact with questioners is itself, well, questionable. (Have you ever heard Gilbert Gottfried tell his version of The Aristocrats?)

Telemoxie, I'm with you a hundred percent . . . although it must be said that many in the international community ask questions not related to penetrating the English-speaking marketplace. But maybe I can use it to illustrate where I'm coming from. In the scenario you describe, let me share two ways of offering the advice you shared.

"Communicating to a marketplace requires significant language skills. I'm going to strongly suggest that you ensure you have native English-speaking promotion and marketing support. While I applaud your efforts to communicate in English, your skills are not strong enough to communicate with your English-speaking marketplace."

OR

"I don't mean to insult you, just trying to be frank, but even Frankenstein's monster had better command of the language than you do. if you intend to communicate with English speakers with this kind of writing you might as well shut down your business and and go home ."

Both say the same things. But in very different ways. And, by the way, the polite version is shorter than the rude one.

Hey Michael F.

Big pennies, small change: it's all just opinion.

True enough, using comedians as a representation may, I'll admit,
be an error of judgement, and that error is mine.

However, using the comedic observation of Ron White was meant metaphorically, not as a true model for how anyone ought to interact with questioners. One look at the clowns on Wall Street and Madison Avenue ought to be enough to put that to rest.

And as to Phil's last point above (Hi Phil), sometimes, just coming out and telling a questioner flat out that they're an idiot may, in fact, be the kindest thing to do.

Not always, sure. But sometimes.

True story for you: The now deceased husband of a former colleague of mine in the UK used to have a tiny, tiny sign in the living room window of their home.

Their house was in a beautiful, picture-postcard "yee olde" English village and the village was often used as a backdrop for BBC Dickensian television plays.

The village therefore drew thousands of tourists, many of whom had no shame and would prove their point by blatantly trespassing and walking up garden paths to peer into windows.

The wee sign appeared as a final straw when one of their neighbours—who had a half stable door as their kitchen door—one morning found a total stranger hanging over the lower half of her door while cooing at some unseen accomplice that "Ooh, they've got a fridge in this one!"

The aforementioned sign was spotted by a neighbour. It was
half the size of a cigarette packet and its message was clear but informative. It said: "Thank you for looking in my living room window. Now f___ off!"

Again, I NEVER set out to be overtly sarcastic. Sometimes I am,
yes and when I am it's meant with comedic intent. But most of the time, I do my best to be genuinely helpful.

To quote Roy H. Williams, author of the Wizard of Ads books
sometimes, "the risk of insult is the price of clarity".

Indeed.

FIN!

Gary, I meant that good naturedly. I hope you saw that. Apologies if I failed to communicate the good feeling behind it.

Phil and Shelley . . . I wrote that myself, yes, but I did base it on Phil's language to make my point. I don't think it rises to the level of character assasination, but I apologize for the offense, since it was not intended. I did however intend to use that language to make my point.

Not to rake a dead horse over the coals, but is it worth noting that the emotional reaction to my, let's call it, parody (a fraternal twin of sarcasm) is perhaps akin to what quiestioners feel when they receive a sarcastic answer from one of us?

My intent was to share my strong, personal feelings about etiquette and approach to the answers we offer, and then to open it up to the others to comment. If it's starting to become a flame throwing contest, I'll close it down.

Shelley, is there some way for me to increase the points offered on this so I can give all those who took the time to put their minds to this a bigger number of points each?

Two last points and then I'm REALLY done.

Michael F., yes, I saw your good natured intent. I just wanted to clarify for, well, for the sake of clarity.

Beth, I've no clue what was going on when you first came on board. I've only been contributing since April this year and to the best of my recollection, no one's said "Who the hell's the Bloomer bloke?"

I'm just some bald bloke who knows a teeny bit about marketing. You are, of course, bang on. Without people marketing is SOL. Of the two,
I be honest and say I think I know more about people than I do about marketing. All I attempt to do (sometimes lamely I know) is to connect one with the other.

From my standpoint I'll continue to call it the way I see it, because I think to do otherwise can sometimes do more harm than good.

However, I WILL take more time to think before firing off something that has potential to be taken the wrong way.

"And they all lived happily ever after. The End"

Gary, it's water under the bridge.

But I'll babble like a brook some more...

Having been invovled in communities for the past 5 years (personally and professionally) I know that every one takes on a different persona...just like the KHE has.

I think to the outside world, the KHE is, well, just not such a warm and fuzzy place to hang out. Yes, yes, I know...marketing is serious business and the consultants who have made the KHE their home do so because they garner, hopefully, business from providing expert and professional advice. I get it.

I guess what I am trying to say is that no one is an expert in everything marketing. Heck, in today's marketing world even Philip Kotler is no longer a marketing expert...at least not until he wraps his head around social media completely (which is he is doing) and how it is affecting marketing as we know it. From that perspective, I think a step back might be in order...

BTW, I did say "Who the hell's the Bloomer bloke," but no one had an answer because it wasn't a marketing question... ;-) (I jest!)

And thanks for hanging out with me on Twitter, I have enjoyed our conversations there! :)

Phil, hmmm, perhaps you could have addressed me too? I am here, you know. :)

Phil and Beth, (and indeed, one and all)

I like your combined thinking and perhaps Beth's points
NEED to be separate threads.

As to the KHE not being a warm and fuzzy place? Perhaps sometimes, yes. But not all the time.

Yes Beth, at first, I was a little apprehensive about chipping in ANY contributions on the KHE. All those names in that orange box with their huge number of points and there I was with BUGGER ALL in terms of equity. BUT ... everyone's got to start SOMEWHERE.

The key is action, and, of course in not being put off—in not giving up. I've seen too many people stop dead when they encountered even the tiniest roadblock. When what they bloody-well ought to be doing is saying "Well if THAT won't work, let's try THIS!"

When people lack resilience or staying power, when they lack
the moxie to come out swinging WHEN or IF their position is challenged or questioned—harshly or nicely—then, I think, those people not only lose face but perhaps some kind or marketing Darwinism kicks in.

Survival of the fittest is one thing but in marketing and business, as in the natural world, it's an organism's (or businesses) ability to change (and to learn and adapt as a consequence of those changes) that matters. That, and an ability or willingness to pass those changes or traits on.

As to "us and them". Hmm?

I can see how this feeling MIGHT be visible, but isn't it the nature of the beast? Isn't it in the nature of ALL forums where there are those in the know (so to speak), those who, if you will "get it", and who, when asked, are not shy about giving advice?

Of those people asking the questions, my observation is that they fall into one of three groups:

1. Those who WANT to "get it" but somehow, it eludes them and who, when they DO get it are UTTERLY DELIGHTED to have received the help they were looking for.

2. Those who, as above, WANT to "get it" but somehow, it eludes them and who, when they DO get it are OUTRAGED to have had their "brilliance" shown up for the (sometimes) misguided and addled chain of loosely linked pies in the sky it really is.

3. And those who THINK they've got it but who are, in reality doomed to be forever clueless REGARDLESS of the advice, opinion, wisdom, and experience they receive.

There might well be other groups but at the moment, I can't think of them. I think it's often groups 2 and 3 that attract the most sarcasm. Perhaps to prevent offending people perhaps no open forum is right for those who are perpetually doomed to remain shrinking violets.

But at some point, if the need or the desire to REALLY know the answer to one's question or quest is strong enough, the fear of POSSIBLY being denounced or of having one's ballon publicly burst MUST be overcome to enable one to know, either for sure, or, at the least, to be just that better equipped to adjust one's course so that one's ship might FINALLY set sail in the right direction.

If one, as a questioner, ISN'T prepared to take that risk, and if KHE contributors are, by the same token, unwilling to get
a better sense of the position the questioner is in, and, as a consequence, be a little gentler on the questioner, then no one wins.

It's only by jumping in that we make a splash or leave an impression: good or bad.

The answer, then, must be balance.

Shelley, your point about newer contributors is one I took to heart several days ago:

https://www.marketingprofs.com/ea/qst_question.asp?qstID=31034

—although why anyone ought to feel intimidated by me is beyond me, really it is. I'm just some bald Brit who writes too much.

I still don't have a clear impression of quite how my input is received, nor, in truth do I care too much about points. I'll write 700 words to answer a 25 point question just as much as I'd write 100 words for a 3,000 point question.

But what I do my best to avoid is belittling the opinions of other contributors—no matter how new or well-established they may be.

I don't expect everyone to agree with every opinion I put forward and as proof I've exchanged off forum e-mails with Randall, Michael G., and others to clarify points (from which I've learned a great deal).

So why do I answer questions here? To use what knowledge I have to help other people. If I can. And Beth, thank you. I also enjoy our chats on Twitter. And may there be many more.

Right. Now I really AM done! Thank you and goodnight.

Gary B.
Wilmington, DE, USA
Follow me on www.twitter.com @GaryBloomer

Since I started this, I am in the enviable position of owning The Last Word.

Thanks to everyone.

Actually ...

Gary, not exactly sure the KHE meets the definition of a forum (even though it's called that). It's more of a Q&A site or message board... "You ask, we tell." There really isn't any conversation except amongst yourselves when these types of posts come up.

I'd like to see it become a forum or a community because that's what I personally like to belong to. Perhaps that's another discussion for another day. :)

Well, OK, I overestimated my power

I meant, overestimated my power to get in the last word

Gary, maybe we should ask questions first and give answers later? Might work...

Michael, sorry about the last word thing... :)

i want to know that this is the good time to invest in stock exchange?

========================================
vernon getzler