A couple of years ago, friends in Wellington, who own a businessâletâs call it Xâwere approached by a US company with the same name, though in a slightly different industry.
They wanted my friends to give up their page name facebook.com/x to them, and suggested that they should be facebook.com/xnz.
No suggestion of payment, just a âyou should considerâ, and if I recall correctly, something to do with how much bigger they were.
This was a really strange argument from someone in the US where their cultureâs often based around the plucky individual taking on bigger players.
How many myriads or even millions did CondĂ© Nast pay to get style.com from Express all those years ago? If youâre that much bigger, maybe you could have afforded it? Or maybe you were just being cheeky, thinking you could get something for nothing. Well, not quite nothing. A little bit of bullying.
Basically, taking away all the legalese and wank designed to make my friends hesitate, the Americans were upset that someone got in there with a Facebook page name years (nine years, if I recall correctly) before they did. How dare these Kiwis!
âHow should we respond?â asked my friends.
âYou can either (a) ignore them or (b) tell them to go to hell,â I advised. I think they chose (a). After all, thereâs no point replying to one-sided rudeness.
Iâm reminded of this story because of emails from another US company recently and, again, stripping away the rudeness and implying I was a liar, boils down to them not really liking their First Amendment. Not when someone else exercises it fairly.
Americans arenât alone in being dicks about something but these particular two companies sure donât like other people doing things that they can equally do. They trotted out a level of rudeness from the outset that you seldom see from their country, where regular Americans try their best to be nice.
A third case was from the UK, where we received a threat from the agent of a fading celebrity whose crowning achievements were probably some soap opera and shooting for FHM in the 1990s. I donât recall the circumstances in depth but I can tell you that that woman has not had much coverage since, by us or any other publication. Choose the wrong people, and you flush your goodwill down the toilet. Who’d touch you now, when there are plenty more stories that we can pursue with fewer headaches?
I donât know where the rudeness comes from, but I presume itâs a superiority complex that hides the fact that their arguments bear little merit. The result is that they damage their brands or their client’s reputations in the process.
If you encounter it in business, then it’s a cinch that they don’t really have much to stand on. They feel bullying is their only means, because if they argued it rationally or faced the issue honestly they wouldn’t get what they want. It’s worth keeping an eye out for, and not waste your time on.
Posts tagged ‘legalese’
Baseless threats
27.08.2021Tags: 2010s, 2021, bullying, business, correspondence, email, Facebook, friends, law, legalese, reputation, UK, USA
Posted in business, culture, publishing, UK, USA | No Comments »