Stupid Magilla Watch: Getting a Reader Smackdown

A piece I wrote and published in Direct’s Newsline and Magilla Marketing last week seriously pissed some readers off and they weren’t shy about expressing their irritation with me in the comments section after the article.

In the piece, I reported that direct mail spending will drop 39% during the next five years from $49.7 billion in 2008 to $29.8 billion in 2013 and that e-mail would pick up some of the slack, according to a study released by media research and consulting firm Borrell Associates.

That some Direct Newsline readers would not take kindly to Borrell’s assertions wasn’t surprising. Newsline’s readership is primarily direct mailers, after all.

However, a few gave me a serious ass whipping and it wasn’t entirely undeserved.

“Were you not feeling well when you wrote this article? Or did you have to dash this off quickly before deadline? Or was this just filler on a slow news day?” wrote Dave Stringer.

“Because this Borrell ‘study’ is utter nonsense -- illogical, self-serving, public relations BS. (And I ought to know because many years ago I used to get paid by a PR firm to cobble together junk just like it!)” he continued.

And he continued kicking my ass for more than 1,000 words.

For the record, I was feeling fine when I wrote that piece—at least no worse than I usually do as a result of the previous evening’s martinis and/or beer—it was a slow news day and I did dash it off quickly before deadline. It happens. However, that’s not a good excuse.

T Miller wrote: “So, DIRECT, are you becoming an advertising mouthpiece for Borrell or are you actually still a TRADE publication for all direct media?

“Of course Borrell is going to ‘report’ the demise of mail versus e-mail since that's their business! I'm surprised at you, DIRECT! Any trade publication on Direct Media worth their salt knows that multi channel marketing is most effective which means the integration of mail, TV, e-mail AND web campaigns. This article is very nearly offensive. How about actually reporting facts instead of skewed POV?”

Lutz Schremmer wrote: “Really? Ken, stunning that you would even print this without even the slightest journalistic questioning as to the metrics/basis of this ‘study?’ (Maybe they e-mailed you a pdf screenshot of their crystal ball?) Sounds like a rehash of what the Jupiter Media's were saying a decade ago about the internet replacing DM. Sure for many e-mail has become the sliced bread of customer communication, but for most marketers it's still can't hold a candle to DM for new customer acquisition. Funny how it's typically firms with vested self-interest making these 'studies'....Borrell sells $1995 Webinars on their Web site that help companies sell online-Go figure. I guess I better get in line to sign up!”

OK, OK, I get it already. The study was transparently self serving and I should have at least noted that fact, if not spiked the piece altogether. Man, these guys are tough.

Here is my defense, lame as it may be.

First, May 20 was an agonizingly slow news day.

Second, Newsline’s not my gig. I was filling in that day for my colleague Richard Levey who was on a well-earned vacation. It was one more deadline on top of all the others I already have.

However, here is where I really screwed up: I didn’t take more than a perfunctory look at Borrell’s Web site to figure out what its business was about. Obviously, if I had, I would have realized how self-serving the study was and handled things differently.

The mistake was a particularly bad one for me to make since I’m constantly criticizing other reporters for mindlessly regurgitating so-called studies.

To be honest, I probably would have run with the story anyway. It was compelling. But I would have at least noted that Borrell has a vested interest in saying such things.

Studies done by non-independent industry entities are always self serving. The only thing ever in question is the degree. For example, if an e-mail service provider comes out with a study on social networking, it’s a safe bet the company has social-networking capabilities it wants to tout. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the study is worthless.

By the nature of their relationships with clients, vendors have intelligence-gathering capabilities that are worth exploiting if they’ll allow it.

However, a study by an e-mail technology provider on the benefits of bringing e-mail capabilities in-house would be worthless, just as would be a study by an e-mail service provider on the benefits of outsourcing.

It’s all a matter of judgment and, obviously, I could have exercised a little more of it last week.