[Observer] Free Publicity Isn’t Always Good Publicity

Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 1:16 PM
2 Comments

About five years ago, The New York Observer started a publicity campaign called The Power 100 where they selected 100 notables in New York Real Estate circles, put them on a list and threw a party to build loyalty and hopefully attract advertisers. It was a fun thing to be a part of. It wasn’t scientific and it wasn’t a serious endeavor nor was it taken seriously. It was just fun and created appreciation from those selected.

I was part of the list in three of it’s first four years. Myself and many others blogged about it. The effort got a lot of attention for NYO which was the intent.

I’ve always liked and respected the reporters there (still do) and I love the flagship NYO publication. I’ve subscribed for years and have been a regular source of market information for the publication.

However this year the publisher changed the methodology by switching it to their other publication The Commercial Observer and excluded media types and most residential types unless you owned a brokerage or sold a few apartments north of $20M.

Of course I’m down with that.

However I didn’t expect the publication to be mean about it. (Not to be confused with snark.) The Commercial Observer published a list of who was cast off (your’s truly) without disclosing the methodology change.

Imagine your kid applying to college but they don’t get accepted – only the college decides to publish their name in a list with all those who weren’t accepted?

I think the “Out” list is just as interesting as the “In” list – here’s a sample.

• Bill Ackman – Pershing Square Capital
• Serena Boardman – Sotheby’s
• Timothy Dolan – Archbishop, RC Church of NY.
• Steve Cuozzo – New York Post
• Si Newhouse – Conde Nast
• Howard Rubenstein – Rubenstein Communications
• Steven Rubenstein – Rubenstein Communications
• Sheldon Silver – Speaker NYS Assembly
• Lockhart Steele – Curbed Network
• Jay Walder – MTA

I’m going to start a new list “The Tepid 25″ since the word “Power” is a bit obnoxious.

Ok, enough of this drivel already. Back to work.

UPDATE: Here’s the response (tweet) to my post although they neglected to include my link and changed the topic – the social media person at TCO treated this as opportunity to expand the conversation thread rather than addressing the issue of right versus wrong. In media relations this technique is called “reframing the conversation” since my post was addressing how they mocked people being removed as being “Out” in a fit of self-importance, although many are sources for the publication and have been long time friends of it. When you don’t disclose your methodology you can’t do what they did. It’s simply wrong. No, it’s mean.

So here’s a lesson on what not to do on Twitter when your actions are challenged:

CO: Dear @jonathanmiller, you provide your list of the 100 Most Powerful, we’ll publish in our pages 2 weeks from now. Sincerely, The CO #co100

JM: @commercial_nyo yes I’m sure you would. #disconnect

CO: Weak RT @jonathanmiller @commercial_nyo yes I’m sure you would. #disconnect

UPDATE2:
We just got invites to attend the Power 100 party, presumably to celebrate our touted removal from the list. Really? JS needs a sit-down.

2 Responses to “[Observer] Free Publicity Isn’t Always Good Publicity”

1. Cheryl says:

   May 15, 2012 at 3:09 PM

   Well that was a bonehead! jeez.
2. Litchurch Plaza says:

   May 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM

   They should have included some explanation about the change in methodology or at least have skipped the list of those that did not make it.