Comments on: Are Private Conversations History? http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php Max Kalehoff On Marketing, Media & The Edge...Plus Bonus Insights On Start-Up Culture & Raising Kids. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:57:48 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Joseph Hunkins http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-368 Joseph Hunkins Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:11:52 +0000 http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-368 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" 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”

]]> By: Greg Verdino http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-367 Greg Verdino Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:25:50 +0000 http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-367 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... 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…

]]> By: Greg Verdino http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-366 Greg Verdino Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:25:27 +0000 http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-366 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... 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…

]]> By: Greg Verdino http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-365 Greg Verdino Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:24:49 +0000 http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-365 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... 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…

]]> By: Noah Brier http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-364 Noah Brier Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:52:06 +0000 http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_history.php#comment-364 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). 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).

]]>