The InfoWorld Scrum – Public Relations and Reputable Sources

If you’re plugged in to the technology media (and perhaps even if you’re not), you’ve probably heard about the fiasco going down within the IDG family of publications, particularly Computerworld and InfoWorld. It’s kind of a convoluted story to those outside of enterprise tech (although ZDNet’s breakdown is fantastic), but there’s a solid moral here so I’ll break it down via bullet points.

• Devil Mountain Software (DMS), a small software company based in Florida, regularly released memory usage benchmarks and other data through their test suite and Windows-monitoring solutions relating to Windows software and operating systems on a regular basis, usually disproving official efficiency and use ratings from Microsoft.
• As ZDNet points out, IDG publications, often InfoWorld’s blogger Randall Kennedy and Computerworld’s Gregg Keizer, tended to be first to run with this news. However, DMS information has been used in broader outlets like All Things D and USAToday.com to name a few.
• Often quoted or referenced in these articles was DMS’ CTO, Craig Barth. Keizer pointed out that he had spoken with Barth via telephone between 15 and 20 times since 2007.
• On Friday, February 19, 2010, after some digging by Keizer, Randall Kennedy admitted via e-mail to him that he and Barth were the same person.
• Firestorm ensues.

Needless to say, Gregg Keizer has apologized to his readers for using Craig Barth as a source and Randall Kennedy has been removed from his blogging post at InfoWorld. Computerworld has gone so far as to add a disclaimer at the top of any article referencing DMS or the fictitious Craig Barth. Whether or not the statements from “Craig Barth” or the data from DMS are factual and accurate, what Randall Kennedy did is simply unacceptable – he pretended to be someone he’s not to get in the news.

Here’s how public relations plays into this whole snafu:

• The sources any reputable PR firm provides will always be the genuine article. If you get a false source from us, it costs us greatly in terms of reputation and income. It’s a risk 99 percent of agencies won’t take.
• We do the vetting on our side. As stated above, it’s in our best interest to get journalists a reputable source from a client, so we do all the vetting before pitching. Good agencies will also have source bios and background ready for the reporter or fact-checker, just to make things easier.
• We don’t want to look bad and neither do our clients. This plays into the two above points – our business hinges on our reputation, which in turn is based on how well the agency is regarded in the media. If we are known for providing solid sources, our business grows – if we are infamous for providing barely literate sources that aren’t who we say they are, our firm fails.

Would PR have stopped the Devil Mountain Software debacle from exploding? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing journalists should know that they can rely on is sourcing from a PR firm – our sources are real and we stand by them. At least SpeakerBox does.

--John Terrill