Game Over for One Insanely Abrasive Video-Game PR Guy
adweek.com
adweek.com
I'm not particularly convinced that the principals at N-Control aren't all that dissimilar to Paul Christoforo, or that he's not still somehow involved.
[1] His entire website is plagiarized: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AnMPztotGCGadE1s...
[2] A previous example from 6 months ago: http://www.natesnetwork.com/Poor-customer-service
[3] They were dropped by a previous marketing firm when they brought Christoforo onboard: http://kotaku.com/5871400/cut-paul-oceanmarketting-christofo...
[4] The man can't even spell, much less formulate a vaguely grammatically correct sentence.
> To put it more plainly: picking apart a small typo here is gratuitous.
Yes, that's true, but when dropping the following, Caesar's wife must be above reproach to avoid comedic side effects:
> [4] The man can't even spell, much less formulate a vaguely grammatically correct sentence.
I completely missed that one (and it's much more deserving than "can't"). I assume the size of the word caused most reader's eyes to flow right through it.
You win, regardless; ponderously was the intended word, aiming to convey the implication you've described.
That said, I wish the focus was on N-Control as an organization and the seemingly bizarre shadowy world of business they may inhabit, rather than my small missteps.
Deleted comment
While I understand that I risked the ire of grammar (and spelling) nazis by invoking an argument for professionalism in communication, let's be honest: a small typo is a far cry from a seemingly near complete inability to articulate a coherent thought.
To put it more plainly: picking apart a small typo here is gratuitous.
Deleted comment
He was cheap.
> A search through Florida's public Department of State Division of Corporations database reveals that Kotkin [inventor of controller] and Christoforo are listed as officers in a company called Afternoon Artists. Afternoon Artists was registered this July.
Of course, I wouldn't call it the most reliable of sources, and the reportage from the likes of this site are a bit too impassioned, but it's interesting to note how there might be more to it all than meets the eye.
[1] http://kotaku.com/5871479/pr-trolling-ocean-stratagy-out-of-...
Paul Christoforo was also pegged a user of anabolic steroids [1] and has been accused of domestic violence [2].
Regular updates at Examiner.com [3].
[0] https://twitter.com/#!/TheSchwartz173/status/151883626227838...
[1] http://kotaku.com/5871400/cut-paul-oceanmarketting-christofo...
[2] http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/4224/article/ocean-market...
[3] http://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-national/ocea...
The PR guy has been or will be held accountable for his actions, in the form of losing his job or his business, so to go even further than that feels somewhat like mob justice. I don't think that's a particularly good thing, and no one directly involved (ie. PR guy, Penny Arcade guy, and irate customer) comes out of it very well.
The document is from "Superior Court of California, County of San Diego" and speaks of a case concerning domestic violence. Whether it's just a police report or an announcement of a criminal case, I cannot discern.
Sure, it could all be a very well thought-out P/R routine. All P/R is good, right? Except now you've got hundreds of one-star reviews on Amazon, a league of pissed-off kids, and your company name connected to this guy for all eternity on the Googles. Is that worth it?
That said, I think you're right. This wasn't a carefully orchestrated campaign to get press; it was just one guy caught being a douche.
> "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
"David (Kotkin) said it was a LLC for a charity that was never actually created," he said. "He bought the name thinking Paul would be involved, but nothing came of it. The company never actually existed."
Someone else now runs @OceanMarketting to promote indie games, and there's also an @OceanStretagy.
Speaking for myself, I couldn't answer the following question off the top of my head :
"True or False : Intensive Pronouns contain the same words as Reflexive Pronouns – they just have different terms of usage and function."
Intimidation?
Look at the mug on this guy: http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.gameranx.com/img/11-Dec/paulchristof...
Him telling them how it is doesn't change anything. Its as if he has committed a crime for saying what every customer facing worker thinks on a daily basis.
When you're being paid as a mouthpiece, what you're thinking has absolutely no bearing on what you should be saying. What you should be saying is the company line, with all the accountability and courtesy that implies. You don't get to blow off steam on the same people whose money helps pay your rent.
> Him telling them how it is doesn't change anything.
On the contrary - him "telling how it is" has changed the company's fortunes dramatically, taking an unreleased product and bombing it with one-star Amazon reviews, for just one toll of the damage, here.
This isn't how you run a business.
Nobody sees a problem with this? This guy is an asshole, yes, but one bad email shouldn't mean your booth gets cancelled at a major video game show.
What if I wanted to do the same thing, but for a political opinion? would that be okay?
Most people miss the human aspect to business. It's one of the most crucial elements that affects marketing, branding, customer service, sales, etc. If people hate you, no matter how much they like your products, you eventually fail.
'The personal, as every one's so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, TAKE IT PERSONALLY. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here — it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under -with a -wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it PERSONAL. Do as much damage as you can. GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. That way you stand afar better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference, the ONLY difference in their eyes, between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a tough life and that IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL, mil, fuck them. Make it personal.'
QUELLCRIST FALCONER
Things I Should Have Learnt by Now
Volume II
I'm going to run a software convention and exclude anyone associated with the GNU or how about anyone that is homosexual?
I know there have been cases that have come up on HN where people have been legally excluded and because it was against the ideals of the majority of the community, it was "discrimination". I don't like this guy either, but if you allow this sort of behavior, don't complain when there are other groups excluded in the future.
and btw, it's not how you run a business. If he was an asshole when he's there, then just kick him out. It's very unprofessional and childish to exclude someone from your show based on feelings and emotions.
How do you conflate imposing consequences on one person's bad behavior, over which they have full control, with excluding homosexuals? Seriously. Is this is a thing where you haven't fully woken up yet and you're just typing to type? Because I've done that and it's the only reasonable explanation what you're saying here.
One of the great things about running your own business is that you get to decide your values and navigate by them. Deciding one of your values is never to reward people who are assholes to your customers is an entirely reasonable call.
So, if I start a restaurant and decide that only Christians can eat here, would that be okay with you? After all, non-Christians may tarnish the quality of the restaurant.
If I decide to not hire people with earrings, are ugly (let's say I have a hooters), or I just don't like, I would either get lawsuits for discrimination or from the ACLU.
How is this any different? and why shouldn't I also be able to choose whom I do business with?
Second, you are in your rights to do those things. You can't discriminate based on race, age, gender or religion; tats, piercings and ugliness are fair game.
If you are in the US, CA or EU you should read up on what the local human rights/civil rights laws entail.
Edit: There are exemptions for "members only" places, which is different than public restaurants. but then you would no longer be a restaurant but considered a club. For example, the gym, curves, is members only. One of the membership requirements is being a woman. If they decide to open a coffeeshop on the side they wouldn't be allowed to have it open to the public. It's either fully open or mostly closed, now in between.
Really, when you think about it, not being a christian is a choice (which is why I didn't mention race, age, or gender). Just like this guy being an asshole.
It's not much different. Someone is getting excluded from business because another group doesn't like them.
Its called judging a man by the content of his character and/or skills. Its not discrimination. Someone with Parkinson's is unfit for a bomb disposal unit. Someone with arts degree is useless as Rocket scientist and useless at a NASA convention.
Having ill-considered opinions down voted isn't a violation of your right to free speech (which was never guaranteed in a private venue in the first place, by the by).
Instead, it's an expression of everyone else's speech. You're allowed to be wrong. Others are allowed to point it out.
I don't see a problem with it -- I assume it's largely a PR move. If it'll produce an overall positive reaction from the public, it's a good move, right? You're not suggesting there's something illegal about canceling their booth, are you?
> What if I wanted to do the same thing, but for a political opinion?
It depends how unpopular that opinion is. If you choose to exclude someone who's a vocal Nazi, it'd probably be smart move to publicly distance yourself. If it's someone who just disagrees with you on tax policy, it'd probably do you more harm than good to try to exclude them on those grounds.
I don't think you could even get away with it. If there were a large enough group of people that were excluded, you would have enough lawsuits in court to put you out of business.
Hooters has had lawsuits due to only hiring "attactive people". There as a guy that sued a bunch of night clubs in New York city due to "free drink ladies night"..and he won.
It absolutely is. If I were running an event like PAX, I wouldn't want someone like that ruining the perception of the quality of my event. Event organizers are on the hook to curate the quality of their associated partners.
Those customers not only buy branded merchandise, but are also the reason that PAX is profitable, because those gamers buy tickets to PAX, and then go to the convention and buy gaming-related goods.
The vendors are not the customer. They're important, but secondary to the gamers by a wide margin.
What Mike has done is to show, in a very concrete way, that he will stand up for his customers, and in any business, that's a solid move.
Actually no, unless PAX has a very unusual business model (which I've seen attempted by one event organiser once, and it didn't go well) the vendors are more important than customers.
Obviously, both are technically customers, as both pay money and if you lose 100% of either group your event is dead. But generally speaking vendors are considered more valuable - largely because each single vendor is worth X visitors in revenue (where X > 1).
This is still a good move by PAX though, because a.) PR, they got to be part of this story, b.) The exhibitor they banned (for all we know they weren't even going to have a booth - PAX might have just banned someone who wouldn't have been giving them any money anyway) was small enough that the lost revenue was small, and I imagine very replaceable with another exhibitor; meanwhile the upside in PR and what consumers think of them is greater, as a small move shows people that they can trust PAX events to only host "good" companies.
It's not "one bad email," it is a series of emails demonstrating a pattern of ridiculous and entirely unacceptable behavior. Behavior that is unbecoming of any businessperson, and not someone I personally would associate myself with if possible.
I believe there was an article awhile back about employers looking at Facebook profiles when hiring. I find this perfectly acceptable.
However, many people here in the HN community felt it was a "violation" (even though Facebook is a public place).
"It's not "one bad email," it is a series of emails demonstrating a pattern of ridiculous and entirely unacceptable behavior. Behavior that is unbecoming of any businessperson, and not someone I personally would associate myself with if possible."
My problem is that if you did this in any other sort of setting, there would be lawsuits about discrimination.
Really? Penny Arcade is kicking him out for being an asshat, not because he's black, gay or Muslim. Don't businesses have the right to refuse service? If Penny Arcade is breaking a contract then a suit over breach of contract is fine, but I doubt that occurred & Penny Arcade can revoke vendors from PAX as they please per contract/TOS.
As far as your Facebook example, if an employer was to contact a person who looked drunk on their Facebook & said "This doesn't seem to be a very professional image you're putting out for yourself." and the person replied back saying "Fuck you asshole cunt faces, suck my balls". I think the business has every right to not hire that person.
On the other hand, Mr. Christoforo and by extent Mr. Krahulik have set up what could be the best even at the next PAX East: Paul Christoforo as a dunk-tank clown. Not only would nerds be able to have a go at a real, live villain, but it would also serve to provide the required kiss and make up portion of any public blowout.
Yes, I remember the Godaddy witch hunt, the people jumping to conclusions, and the list of businesses that "support sopa".
It was only supported because you were on the side against sopa. If there was a witch hunt for something you didn't support, you would be against it.
I just wish more people would do the right thing, even if it is against their ideals.
> Yes, I remember the Godaddy witch hunt
> I just wish more people would do the right thing, even if
> it is against their ideals.