Can you hear me LMAO from across the Atlantic as I read this from my mobile on the beach? You have trumped Luis in a NY minute for hero of the day! Mad props.
I believe that would be "Laughed my ass off," Dennis, which is not at all inappropriate in context. My take on l'affaire Weil is a little more thin and sardonic.
Dennis Howlett
· 2 years ago
I imagine Ms. Weil must be reaching for her own brand of brown trousers right about now. If so, I'd recommend she also secures a set of bicycle clips. Keeps everything in the right place.
Better still go get a gig at Huggies.
Robert Gorell
· 2 years ago
Dennis,
I think you misunderstood the intent of Jeff's post, but it's understandable. Like you said of him and Debbie, I can't expect you to take my word for it just because I know him ;) Still, an "apologia" for my post it was not.
Jeff and I are known to disagree for sport, but not here. Beyond sympathizing with Debbie for making a decision she obviously regrets by taking on a client I know (without question) we'd have passed-up, he was simply asking "who makes the rules?" He also wanted to poke fun at the "hall monitors" -- in other words, not me for calling out alli, but the people calling out Debbie by name.
So, do you feel he was apologizing for Debbie or for my post? It would help if you'd clarify, because I think the way he chose to link to my post was confusing.
Regardless, I don't know Debbie personally, but we all knew when I first blogged it that she was retained by GSK. (We're not much for political correctness, though, so nobody minded my blogging it.) My post wasn't meant as a personal attack on Debbie, but at the company itself for bringing such a product to market in the first place. It was a dumb move, in my opinion, taking on the client. I think I've been clear about that by default. But somebody had to get that check; it just happened to be Debbie. (Ochman's blog makes that point better than I did.)
As it turns out, a good friend of mine worked on the campaign at some point (no relation to Debbie's work). I found out about it when her husband, who I'm also friends with, called me, pretending to be angry about my post. I began to apologize to him before checking myself, making it clear I wasn't sorry, and asking if his wife was upset with me -- all before he let me know that neither he nor his wife cared; they just wanted to grab a drink after work. Cracked me up...
Anyway, I stand by what I wrote about alli. It's a gross product, and something I'd never put my name behind (to say the least). Debbie may feel the same right now. What remains more difficult for me to reconcile, though -- beyond people getting paid to market it -- is that people would consider crapping their pants a fair trade for weight-loss. Pretty sad...
Your blog's hilarious, by the way. I subscribed.
steve clayton
· 2 years ago
watching with interest - I rekon everyone is allowed on FU in the blogosphere. I'd like to think I would be :)
Dennis Howlett
· 2 years ago
@Robert: thanks for the additional explanation. I too stand by what I've written on the basis I am making a general point about blog risk, illustrated by what I see although I concede that knowledge is always imperfect.
@Steve: sure - agreed. I'd not like to count the number of times I've exercised poor judgment in many areas of my life. To me however, this is way beyond poor judgment. It's an object lesson in two things: hypocrisy and stupidity. To me, that combination creates a bit of a trust issue which I find difficult to reconcile with Ms Weil's 'status.'
I think it was Shel Holtz who said something like: If it doesn't pass the taste test don't go there. That's a good bit of PR advice IMO.
Dimitar Vesselinov
· 2 years ago
Dennis, I believe you are too harsh on Debbie. We are human beings, we make mistakes. Yes, the blogging revolution eats its own children.
Dennis Howlett
· 2 years ago
@Dimitar: where do we draw the line?
One of the things I write about a lot is ethics. There's a reason. I see too many incidents of questionable ethical behavior written off in an 'oh well' kind of fashion.
In this case, Ms. Weil is held up by some as a person of 'guru' status. If that's the case then you are held to a higher standard than others.
So while I agree absolutely it is human to err (heck I do it all the time,) it is at best a tad foolish to repeat the behaviour.
The least she could have done was take a reality check and rather than dig her heels in was to have acknowledged there have been genuine concerns. But no - she insists she was right. Guaranteed to get people going IMO.
All Comments
Better still go get a gig at Huggies.
I think you misunderstood the intent of Jeff's post, but it's understandable. Like you said of him and Debbie, I can't expect you to take my word for it just because I know him ;) Still, an "apologia" for my post it was not.
Jeff and I are known to disagree for sport, but not here. Beyond sympathizing with Debbie for making a decision she obviously regrets by taking on a client I know (without question) we'd have passed-up, he was simply asking "who makes the rules?" He also wanted to poke fun at the "hall monitors" -- in other words, not me for calling out alli, but the people calling out Debbie by name.
So, do you feel he was apologizing for Debbie or for my post? It would help if you'd clarify, because I think the way he chose to link to my post was confusing.
Regardless, I don't know Debbie personally, but we all knew when I first blogged it that she was retained by GSK. (We're not much for political correctness, though, so nobody minded my blogging it.) My post wasn't meant as a personal attack on Debbie, but at the company itself for bringing such a product to market in the first place. It was a dumb move, in my opinion, taking on the client. I think I've been clear about that by default. But somebody had to get that check; it just happened to be Debbie. (Ochman's blog makes that point better than I did.)
As it turns out, a good friend of mine worked on the campaign at some point (no relation to Debbie's work). I found out about it when her husband, who I'm also friends with, called me, pretending to be angry about my post. I began to apologize to him before checking myself, making it clear I wasn't sorry, and asking if his wife was upset with me -- all before he let me know that neither he nor his wife cared; they just wanted to grab a drink after work. Cracked me up...
Anyway, I stand by what I wrote about alli. It's a gross product, and something I'd never put my name behind (to say the least). Debbie may feel the same right now. What remains more difficult for me to reconcile, though -- beyond people getting paid to market it -- is that people would consider crapping their pants a fair trade for weight-loss. Pretty sad...
Your blog's hilarious, by the way. I subscribed.
@Steve: sure - agreed. I'd not like to count the number of times I've exercised poor judgment in many areas of my life. To me however, this is way beyond poor judgment. It's an object lesson in two things: hypocrisy and stupidity. To me, that combination creates a bit of a trust issue which I find difficult to reconcile with Ms Weil's 'status.'
I think it was Shel Holtz who said something like: If it doesn't pass the taste test don't go there. That's a good bit of PR advice IMO.
One of the things I write about a lot is ethics. There's a reason. I see too many incidents of questionable ethical behavior written off in an 'oh well' kind of fashion.
In this case, Ms. Weil is held up by some as a person of 'guru' status. If that's the case then you are held to a higher standard than others.
So while I agree absolutely it is human to err (heck I do it all the time,) it is at best a tad foolish to repeat the behaviour.
The least she could have done was take a reality check and rather than dig her heels in was to have acknowledged there have been genuine concerns. But no - she insists she was right. Guaranteed to get people going IMO.