Topic: Views

Reputation industry Views

Steve Wynn Defamation Lawsuit; Privilege Abounds (But Not How You May Think) 0

defamation privilege
Will Steve Wynn win his latest defamation battle? Will defamation privilege play a role?

Gaming mogul Steve Wynn is at the eye of a Massachusetts legal hurricane. His decision to build a casino in Charlestown has a sparked a “concern storm” amongst some residents and representatives. Detractors believe a high-priced casino in the area will prove detrimental to locals; they also want a public vote on the matter.

The clash has spawned a defamation lawsuit, in which “privilege” will likely play a key role.

Legal Documents to the Media Lead to Libel Claim

Camp Wynn contends that anti-casino activists got a little too chummy with the media. You see, some legal documents ended up in the hands of the Fifth Estate. How? Nobody knows. But according to Wynn, those documents included harmful falsehoods about his business practices.

What issues is Wynn protesting? What did the “rogue subpoena” say that sparked his defamation lawsuit?

  • He allegedly employed two former Massachusetts state troopers;
  • Officials may have unethically engaged a criminal about the land on which the casino will sit;
  • Team Wynn orchestrated a secret meeting regarding a “felon’s” land interest.

The gaming mogul swears, “Nah-ah; never happened.” And since Wynn guards his reputation like the Titan guards Braavos, he filed a defamation lawsuit. (Wynn did; not the Titan.)

Wynn’s take on the matter:

“No individual or company who presents themselves honestly in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by any measure of fair play, should be subjected to the defamatory political abuse that we have experienced, and it is our intention to finally deal with it.”

Will “Privilege” Apply In This Casino Defamation Case?

What factors will affect Wynn’s defamation lawsuit? Like any slander or libel plaintiff in the U.S., to emerge victoriously, Wynn will have to satisfy the four pillars of defamation, which you can read more about here. Within that framework, “privilege” will likely be a hotly debated factor.

Why?

So-called “privilege” – in the legal sense – plays a significant role in United States defamation law. Standards vary between jurisdictions, but generally speaking, privileged speech is protected because of an expected or practical need, which serves judicial proceedings, privacy or the public good.

Hypothetical Example of Privilege in a Defamation Lawsuit

To wit: Let’s say a woman named Jane tells authorities that she thinks her neighbor, Jack, is a child abuser. She says Jack’s kid always has bruises, and she can hear screaming all hours of the day. But it turns out that Jane’s wrong; Jack’s kid is just a loud klutz who spends all day screaming and falling. Peeved at the accusation, Jack sues Jane for defamation. In this case, Jane may be able to claim some sort of “privilege.” After all, officials don’t want to discourage vigilant citizenry in the face of potential criminality. Remember, we’re all supposed to “say something” if we “see something.”

Types of Defamation Privilege

Sometimes, statements made in the course of an employment review are protected by privilege. Same goes for board meetings, professional consultations and other types of relationships. Doctors and their patients sometimes enjoy certain privilege; as do attorneys and their clients, plus married couples.

Jurisdiction Matters When Litigating Privilege

To be clear: whether or not a statement is privileged depends on the circumstances of the case and jurisdiction.

Absolute Privilege & Qualified Privilege

There are two types of “privilege” – absolute and qualified. Absolutely privileged statements are usually immune from successful defamation actions. In cases involving qualified statements, the plaintiffs’ must meet a higher proof standard to win.

In Wynn’s defamation case, the subpoenas may be classified as privileged legal documents – whether absolute or qualified is yet to be seen. As such, a judge will probably consider:

  • First, whether or not the “leak” was allowable (not all leaks are legal; officials made sure of that after being “pwnd by Assange”);
  • If the judge says, “No, the leak wasn’t lawful,” then the case will most likely switch gears. But that scenario is unlikely. Possible; but unlikely. If, however, the judge labels the leak “allowable,” then the next question becomes:
  • Was publicizing the information admissible? If yes, then Wynn may not triumph. IF the language is deemed absolutely privileged – even if untrue — the suit will die.
  • If, however, the statements fall under the umbrella of qualified privileged, then Wynn still has a shot. He’d just have to satisfy a higher level of proof.

Curious if “legal privilege” would apply in your case? Speak to a defamation lawyer about the specifics of your situation.

Chat with A Lawyer about Your Reputation Challenges

Have you been pelted with a defamatory attack? Has someone smeared your reputation?

Ready to fight back?

You have legal options – and not all of them are a lawsuit.

Contact Kelly Warner law. A unique firm where the partners work on every case, at Kelly / Warner, you won’t be in the hands of a novice associate. Let’s talk; we can help.

Article Sources

Arsenault, M. (2015, October 7). Wynn sues for libel in latest salvo over casino – The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 2, 2015, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/10/06/wynn/KkTzsMIMPkWKo1u5MKd6TI/story.html

Steve Wynn’s unwelcome, and unnecessary, libel lawsuit – The Boston Globe. (2015, October 7). Retrieved November 2, 2015, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/07/steve-wynn-unwelcome-and-unnecessary-libel-lawsuit/krMdwlUJsl8kkv62D966bN/story.html

Source: Kelly Warner Law

What the Janice Duffy Ripoff Report Story Means 0

Ripples in the world of ripoff report. With recent news about Dr. Janice Duffy going after Google directly for the negative autocomplete suggestions pertaining to how it says negative suggestions pertaining to her name.

In this court case we are going back to 2011 when she filed suit and we are still not done with this intriguing case circa 2015. The shaming website has been making headlines lately but the wild thing is if Dr. Janice Duffy had just come to Profile Defenders for help she would have been able to save herself a lot of the troubles that she has seen over the last 4 years now.

Read more about this story and inquire about how we can help you with your online reputation issues today.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/court-rules-google-hyperlinks-auto-complete-defamed-janice-duffy/story-fnjwmwrh-1227584540597


Source: Profile Defenders

Major Section 230 win in Florida 0

Section 230 fight WIN in the Middle District of Florida (a notoriously hard place to win a defamation case – and any case at summary judgment)…just in.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2474380/220-order-granting-summary-judgment-against-roca.pdf

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ROCA LABS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:14-cv-2096-T-33EAJ
CONSUMER OPINION CORP. and
OPINION CORP.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on cross-motions for
summary judgment. Plaintiff Roca Labs, Inc. moves for partial
summary judgment as to Counts I and II of the Amended
Complaint, as well as to all eight affirmative defenses pled
by Defendants Consumer Opinion and Opinion Corp. (Doc. # 172).
Consumer Opinion and Opinion Corp. filed a joint response in
opposition (Doc. # 187), and Roca filed a reply (Doc. # 194).
Consumer Opinion and Opinion Corp. move for summary judgment
on all claims brought against them by Roca. (Doc. ## 148,
173). Roca filed a response to both (Doc. ## 186, 189).
Consumer Opinion and Opinion Corp. each filed a reply (Doc.
## 192, 193). All cross-motions for summary judgment are now
ripe for this Court’s review.
Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 220 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 31 PageID 9954
2
I. Background
This action was originally filed by Roca in the Circuit
Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, in and for Sarasota
County, Florida on August 8, 2014. (Doc. # 1-1). Consumer
Opinion Corp. and Opinion Corp. timely removed to this Court
on August 26, 2014, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
(Doc. # 1).
The Amended Complaint contains 11 counts. (Doc. # 114).
The counts are listed below:
Count I: violation of FDUPTA against Consumer
Opinion;
Count II: violation of FDUPTA against Opinion
Corp.;
Count III: tortious interference with a contractual
relationship against Consumer Opinion;
Count IV: tortious interference with a contractual
relationship against Opinion Corp.;
Count V: tortious interference with prospective
economic relationship against Consumer Opinion;
Count VI: tortious interference with prospective
economic relationship against Opinion Corp.;
Count VII: defamation for statements on
pissedconsumer.com against Consumer Opinion;
Count VIII: defamation for statements on
pissedconsumer.com against Opinion Corp.;
Count IX: defamation for statements on Twitter
against Consumer Opinion;
Count X: defamation for statements on Twitter
against Opinion Corp.; and
Count XII:
1
declaratory relief against Consumer
Opinion and Opinion Corp.
(Doc. # 114).
1
The Amended Complaint skips from Count X to Count XII.
Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 220 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 31 PageID 9955
4
body. (Doc. ## 114 at ¶ 49; 117 at ¶ 49). In Step 4 the third
party fills out additional information, such as contact
information, whether she or he is “pissed” or “pleased,” the
reason for being “pissed” or “pleased,” and the dollar amount
of the loss suffered. (Doc. ## 114 at
¶ 50; 117 at ¶ 50). The
third party is free to pick “None of the above” when
describing the reason for being “pissed” or “pleased” and may
then describe the problem in her or his own words. (Doc. #
114 at ¶ 50) (screenshots); (Doc. # 117 at ¶ 50). The final
steps are all optional. (Doc. # 114 at ¶¶ 51–53)
(screenshots); (Doc. # 117 at ¶¶ 51-53).
Furthermore, posts from pissedconsumer.com were posted
to Twitter. (Doc. ## 148-2 at ¶¶ 11-13; 186-3 at 262, 282,
288-290; 189-2 at 262, 282, 288-290). Randomly selected posts
from pissedconsumer.com were tweeted from a related Twitter
page; the tweets contained a link to the related post on
pissedconsumer.com. See (Doc. # 148-2 at ¶¶ 10-14); see also
(Doc. # 186-3 at 288-290). Other than trimming the posts from
pissedconsumer.com in length to fit within Twitter’s 140
character limit, no substantive alterations were made to the
posts-turned-tweet. (Doc. # 148-2 at ¶ 14).
To provide a sample of the complained of posts, such
posts include: “This product sucks. It’s expensive, horrible
Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 220 Filed 10/21/15 Page 4 of 31 PageID 9957
6
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party. Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742
(11th Cir. 1996) (citing Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g
Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993)). A fact is material if
it may affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.
1997). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing
the court, by reference to materials on file, that there are
no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at
trial. Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256,
1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). “When a moving party has discharged
its burden, the non-moving party must then ‘go beyond the
pleadings,’ and by its own affidavits, or by ‘depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’
designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590,
593-94 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
If there is a conflict between the parties’ allegations
or evidence, the non-moving party’s evidence is presumed to
be true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the
non-moving party’s favor. Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla.,
344 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2003). If a reasonable fact
Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 220 Filed 10/21/15 Page 6 of 31 PageID 9959
8
district court set a discovery deadline of November 30. Id.
The defendant served the plaintiff with a request for
admission pursuant to Rule 36(a) on November 25. Id. The
plaintiff failed to respond in any manner and, yet, filed a
motion for summary judgment. Id. The district court found the
request for admission was untimely served and granted summary
judgment in plaintiff’s favor without considering plaintiff’s
failure to respond to the request for admission. Id.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Id.
Specifically, the court rejected the defendant’s admission-
by-default argument because the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that a district court may set a discovery
deadline. Id. By serving the request for admission on such a
date that would not allow a response before the discovery
deadline lapsed, the defendant failed to comply with the
court’s order. Id. at 605-06. Thus, the district court was
free to disregard the plaintiff’s failure to respond when
ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Id. at 606.
Similarly, this Court set a discovery deadline of June
15, 2015, and ordered discovery requests be served “so that
the Rules allow for a response prior to the discovery
deadline.” (Doc. # 49 at 1, 3). Despite approximately 6
months’ notice the discovery deadline would lapse on June 15,
Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 220 Filed 10/21/15 Page 8 of 31 PageID 9961
10
some form of relief from the discovery deadline set by this
Court. Although Roca sought an extension of time, it was only
“for the limited purposes of completing the depositions at
issue.” (Doc. # 169 at 6); see also (Doc. # 165 at ¶ 5).
Moreover, this limited extension was sought after the
untimely service of Roca’s First Request for Admission.
Compare (Doc. ## 143, 165), with (Doc. # 172-1 at ¶¶ 4-5).
Roca also did not move to shorten the time period for Consumer
Opinion and Opinion Corp. to serve their responses to the
First Request for Admission, or compel responses.
3
District courts have broad discretion to enforce their
scheduling orders and manage their
dockets. Chudasama v.
Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997);
Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th
Cir. 2002). Accordingly, as the court in Laborers’ Pension
3
The parties were twice placed on notice that advocacy does
not include game playing. (Doc. # 162 at 3) (reminding counsel
“that [a]dvocacy does not include ‘game playing’” (quoting
Pesaplastic, C.A. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 799 F.2d 1510,
1522-23 (11th Cir. 1986))); (Doc. # 184 at 5) (stating “The
Court admonishes the parties and counsel that ‘game playing’
will not be tolerated”). “When a party . . . uses [Rule 36]
. . . with the wild-eyed hope that the other side will fail
to answer and therefore admit essential elements . . ., the
rule’s time-saving function ceases . . . .” Perez v. Miami-
Dade Cty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1268 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, the
Court resolves the issue of timeliness by adhering to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Case Management and
Scheduling Order.
Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 220 Filed 10/21/15 Page 10 of 31 PageID 9963

What ever happened to Brand.com? 0

brand.com

Brand.com was a major player in the Reputation industry and earlier this year I

brand.com

What happened to Brand.com Reputation Company

had a new, prospective client tell us that Brand.com was no longer responding back to their emails mid campaign. The client also told me they had heard they shut down. I could not believe this as I followed them since their ReputationChanger.com days and they seemed to run a really tight ship. I was from Baltimore and they were somewhat local as they were located in Philadelphia and I planned to network with them one day.

I stumbled across the below article which details what appeared to happen to Brand.com. A sad story indeed.

 

The domain is for sale. The emails are dead. The top execs are gone. The office is dark. What happened to online reputation management firm Brand.com?
The Brand.com office was quiet.

Located toward the end of a narrow hallway on the seventh floor of the Curtis Center’s east wing, its big glass doors were locked. The lights were off. All that was left was a big white “B” cut out of a blue square — the company’s former logo — affixed to a white wall overlooking the receptionist’s desk.

Behind the receptionist’s desk stood an orange superhero, with his fists on his hips and a shit-eating grin on his face. He wore a maroon cape around his chiseled shoulders and a belted pair of underpants to match. The logo on his chest, which bulged steroidally, read “RC.” Reputation Changer. That was Brand.com’s former identity.

But what had happened to Brand.com was unclear. Where did everyone go? We were there to find out.

After receiving a mayoral welcome in 2013, after announcing the addition of former Gov. Ed Rendell to its advisory board just last November, the company had quietly gone silent.

Let’s start at the spring of 2013.

The future was looking bright for the online reputation management company, which made a splash by nabbing the Brand.com domain from MakerBot VP Chuck Pettis for, reportedly, $500,000. It announced that it was rebranding from Reputation Changer to Brand.com and moving from West Chester into Center City. Its success was built on charging $7,500 or more to clean up a company’s online reputation.

That fall, Mayor Nutter cut the ribbon on the 7,000-square-foot office, celebrating the company moving 120 staffers into the city and its expected growth of 100 more that year alone. The company boasted perks like a chair masseuse and a personal trainer, both of which would come in a few times a week.

Now, the company appears to have shuttered its Philadelphia operations. Its once-prized domain is now for sale, according to to DomainNameWire.com.

President and COO Mike Zammuto left the company in November. He’s now president of Chaikin Analytics. When reached for comment, Zammuto wrote at length about his excitement about joining Chaikin Analytics and how Philly’s finance-technology community is promising. “I think FinTech is going to be the big thing for a while,” he wrote in an email.

He declined to elaborate on the circumstances surrounding his departure from Brand.com, citing a separation agreement.

The company lost 70 staffers in 2014 through layoffs and turnover, a former staffer who asked not to be named told us. Another former exec, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the staff had shrunk to 60 when he left last fall.

No one who still works at Brand.com (at least according to their LinkedIn profile) has returned our messages, the company’s phone numbers have been disconnected and all the emails we’ve sent to Brand.com email addresses have bounced. The company opened a small New York City office in late 2014, said one former sales staffer, but it’s not clear if it’s still open. Brand.com’s website is still up, however. A lawyer representing Brand.com contacted us after he got word that we were working on a story. He agreed to take questions via email but did not respond to them.

###

Amid the radio silence from Brand.com reps, we found these clues about the company’s sudden disappearance.

Brand.com left its office in the historic Curtis Center at 601 Walnut Street and did not leave a forwarding address, a receptionist for Keystone Property Group, which manages the Curtis Center, told us. A staffer from Locks Law Firm, which has an office across from Brand.com, said that the company had been gone since January. Keystone Property Group leasing manager Scott Paymer declined to share details on the company’s lease, though a source familiar with the terms who asked not to be named said it was a five-year lease.

It turns out that Brand.com had another office space, too: a 4,500-square-foot space in the nearby Public Ledger building in Old City, for which Brand.com signed a five-year lease in the spring of 2013, months before the flashy Curtis Center ribbon cutting, according to the source familiar with the deal. It was a sales office, said the former sales staffer who asked not to be named. Brand.com was looking into subleasing this office last fall, according to the source familiar with the deal.

A few months later, in December, Brand.com reached out to realtor-to-Philly-founders Dan Gummel, inquiring about office space at the Bourse in Old City, which had recently been public about its mission to attract startups. One week later, a Brand.com staffer told Gummel the company was likely going to move all its staffers into the Public Ledger building office, Gummel told us.

Brand.com did not get any tax incentives to move to the city, said the Commerce Department’s Luke Butler. The company was eligible for job creation tax credits, but Butler said the city could not disclose if those credits were used, citing state and local laws.

What’s more mysterious is that Brand.com appeared to be on some sort of upswing or transformation.

In November, the company got a new CEO: Dave Armon, the New York City-based former COO of PR Newswire. That news came with the launch of a “groundbreaking platform” for content marketing, plus the announced addition of Rendell to the company’s advisory board. (The only other mention of the Rendell news was this article in Metro US, which appears to have been commissioned by Brand.com. “Reporter was commissioned to write this in-depth article,” is the only disclosure.)

Armon’s hiring pointed to Brand.com’s new direction: less online reputation management, more content marketing.

See, Brand.com had been quietly running another arm of the business called News Headquarters since mid-2013, at least according to the company’s Twitter. They landed a flashy three-letter domain for that one, too: nhq.com. News Headquarters billed itself as a service for publishers and PR firms to “commission reporter-written articles.” Its tagline? “Journalism redefined.” (Editor’s note: Could this have been one?)

Why the switch? One exec who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it was because last spring, Google got more aggressive on SEO tactics and that made the SEO and reputation management business harder. Strategies the company had previously used stopped working. Clients were getting angry and demanding their money back. (Most notably, according to an Ars Technica report, a Seattle public utility demanded a $17,500 refund last summer after Brand.com’s services failed to work for its CEO.)

So the company pivoted.

It looked more and more like a “large-scale PR firm,” the anonymous exec said, and it seemed more sustainable than relying on Google and its finicky algorithms.

But it wasn’t without consequences. The company had to downsize.

One former staffer said of the circumstances in late 2014: “Everything was tanking. People were leaving. Morale was really low.” Still, he doesn’t regret the experience, he said.

The sales staffer who asked not to be named also remembered his Brand.com days fondly. He wrote in a LinkedIn message:

Brand was exciting and fast paced – very dot.com in the early 2000’s feel – lots of high energy. Work hard, play hard philosophy. We cranked techno music on the sales floor – and it was a really exciting company. We always had snacks or energy drinks handy – and it was not a 9-5 job, it was work as long as you wanted job because every additional hour you worked could mean more money for you and for the company.

We spoke briefly with News Headquarters Vice President Myles Fuchs last fall, when we called about Brand.com’s Google penalties. Fuchs did not respond to our recent requests for comment about the changes at the company.

This past January, we were in touch with Armon and Chief Operating Officer and Chief Content Officer Jonathan Cooper to set up a meeting to hear the latest about the company’s new direction. But the day before our scheduled meeting, Armon said he had to be in New York City and canceled.

Plans never came together for another meeting and the next time we checked, just four months after he had joined the company, Armon appears to have left Brand.com. The company is no longer listed on his LinkedIn. He’s now the Chief Marketing Officer of a New York City media company called 3BL Media.

Cooper, a former Digital First Media VP who worked at Brand.com for seven months, left the company in January. He’s now working in media consulting and also founded a craft beer card game, according to his LinkedIn. Armon and Cooper did not respond to requests for comment.

Several Brand.com sales execs (they had many) also departed, including VP of Sales Jay Steffey (now at Cint), VP of Sales Strategy Steve Driben (now at Comverge) and Senior VP of Sales Chuck Evans (now at IBM). Brand.com Chief Technology Officer Kinkar Saha, who appeared to have worked remotely from India, left the company in November after almost four years in the role. Ron Gamble, the company’s creative director of two-plus years, also left last summer. None of them responded to a request for comment.

Strange occurrences seemed to follow Brand.com around, including the time the online reputation manager had to do damage control on its own online presence after a series of alleged cyber-attacks got the company penalized on Google. Or the time when former COO Zammuto was the victim of an alleged $500,000 Bitcoin extortion scheme, where the blackmailers “threatened to smear the reputation of Zammuto and his company.”

Even cofounder Rich Gorman doesn’t know what’s going on with the company. Gorman, who said he founded the company with Justin Singletary and one other man he declined to name, said he stepped away from the business in 2013 after the Bitcoin extortion scheme “spooked” him.

“I lost my enthusiasm for the business at that point in time,” he said in a phone interview Tuesday night.

His understanding is that Brand.com was undergoing a “reorganization” but that he didn’t know anything past that.

Two staffers we spoke with said that Gorman was still involved and would come to the office in 2014, though Gorman maintained that this was not the case. Singletary, on the other hand, was hardly ever around, the staffers said. Singletary did not respond to a request for comment via LinkedIn.

Gorman admits to past issues that have dogged him online since. When asked, he said that those issues had nothing to do with the founding of Brand.com. He declined to discuss his other business ventures, though he and Singletary appear to have another company together: the Savannah, Ga.-based fulfillment center business Fulfillment.com. (Singletary lists himself as a “managing member” of Fulfillment.com, while a 2014 Arizona court filing associates Gorman with the company.)

So what now? The exec who asked to remain anonymous said the last he heard, the company was entertaining acquisition deals. Meanwhile, some Brand.com customers are still waiting for justice, so to speak.

“He really pulled a fast one on everyone, including Mayor Nutter,” said disgruntled customer and local entrepreneur Anthony DiMeo, who points the finger at Brand.com’s former COO Zammuto. DiMeo, who says he paid the company $3,000 for online marketing, said the company stopped answering his calls in February.

Original Source – http://technical.ly/philly/2015/03/11/what-happened-brand-com/

We learned shortly thereafter that

Brand.com has filed for bankruptcy

The company has $1.9 million in debts and $104,000 in assets, according to court documents. “If you show me an internet entrepreneur that hasn’t failed, I’ll show you someone that isn’t an internet entrepreneur,” said co-founder Rich Gorman.

Brand.com is underwater.

The Center City tech company, which seemed to vanish into thin air earlier this year after a splashy domain purchase and a mayoral welcome in 2013, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last month, according to court documents. Chapter 7 means that the company must sell off its remaining assets.

The company owes more than $1.9 million to nearly 70 people and organizations — including $52,000 to former landlord Keystone Property Group, nearly $200,000 to services like Salesforce, LinkedIn and content recommendation startup Taboola and more than $200,000 in pending lawsuits from former employees and clients. It reported a total of $104,000 in assets, the bulk of which is office equipment like computers, furniture and phone systems.

The company reported making $11.8 million in revenue in 2013 and $8.5 million in 2014.
rich gorman

Rich Gorman. (Photo via Geekadelphia)

When reached for comment, cofounder Rich Gorman, who is listed as the chairman of Brand.com on the filing, wrote in an email: “If you show me an internet entrepreneur that hasn’t failed, I’ll show you someone that isn’t an internet entrepreneur.”

Gorman, 32, a Chadds Ford resident, according to state records, said the company ran out of funding when it tried and failed to pivot from reputation management to content marketing. It attempted to pivot after Google “changed its policy on reputation management, and penalized the 2 largest ORM [online reputation management] companies (Brand.com & Reputation.com),” he wrote.

Gorman continued:

Essentially overnight all of the tools that we utilized didn’t work. Google even went so far as to remove both Brand.com and Reputation.com from its search engine….

What I learned quickly was that you should never build a business model that is dependent on another platform, especially an SEO play on Google’s platform. e.g. Brand.com’s success was dependent on Google’s algorithm. Business was great until Google’s engineers decided that they would change their algorithm [to] adversely [affect] many of the tools we used at the time to run ORM campaigns.

Gorman had previously told us that, contrary to employee reports otherwise, he was not involved with day-to-day operations of the company after 2013. In February, he told us that he did not know what had happened to Brand.com. Now, he says that in fact, he did make “key contributions” to the business in 2014.

“I was not involved in the business during most of November, December, and January, therefore when we spoke last, I was still wrapping my mind around what happened at Brand.com,” he wrote.

Gorman said that despite its fate, he’s proud of what the team accomplished.

“While it’s really sad to see the Brand.com venture end, I must tell you that it was a fun experience,” he wrote. “A lot of great people put a ton of sweat equity into the business, and the ORM industry showed a lot of promise circa 2011-2013.”

Brand.com cofounder Justin Singletary is also listed on the filing as a debtor, alongside Gorman. Brand.com staffers previously told us that Singletary was rarely around the office.

The filing sheds a little more light on company ownership: the majority of Brand.com is equally owned by Gorman (via his company, Gorman Economics) and Creative Estates, LLC, a company that has been linked to Singletary in a court document. But there’s another company with a minority stake: Lydia Security Monitoring. The CEO of Lydia Security Monitoring, which does business as COPS Monitoring, is Ira Riklis, whom one former Brand.com exec had named as an investor.

Riklis himself appears to have been dogged by online reputation issues and now has a strange online persona. Attempts to reach Riklis were unsuccessful as of press time.

The filing names Michael Griffsby and Ryan Andrews as treasurer and secretary of Brand.com, respectively, though mysteriously. Griffsby does not appear to have any online footprint and it appears that Andrews has scrubbed his online persona of any connection with Brand.com (though we did find this Google+ post that names Andrews as the company’s Chief Legal Officer).

According to the filing, Brand.com sold its domain for $300,000 to what’s listed as “Silicon Valley.” The company had purchased it for a reported $500,000 from from MakerBot VP Chuck Pettis. Brand.com also sold NHQ.com, the domain for its content marketing identity News Headquarters, for $10,000. The Brand.com Twitter account has also been sold.

A public hearing will be held in the coming weeks, said Christine Shubert, the trustee who was assigned to the case. Though the hearing is public, only Shubert and creditors — those who Brand.com owes money to — are allowed to question Gorman about the bankruptcy.

Meanwhile, former Brand.com president Mike Zammuto appears to have brought some former staffers to his new gig at Paoli-based fintech startup Chaikin Analytics:

Former Brand.com director of talent management Paul Sweeney now serves in the same role at Chaikin.
Former director of user experience Pete Campbell is now Chaikin’s director of video and content marketing.
Former IT director Chris Meier now runs IT at Chaikin.

Original source – http://technical.ly/philly/2015/05/04/brand-com-bankruptcy/

 

There are interesting ‘insider’ comments on both articles and worth a read as well. I hope you enjoyed this cautionary tale about what happened to Brand.com. Thanks for reading.

Reputation Management Industry Growth Accelerates 0

The last six years has seen a marked growth in the number of companies offering reputation management services. Their clients are more than just

reputation management industry

reputation management industry

youthful revelers who have made ill-advised posts to social media websites. Reputation management is “the new black” in corporate strategy, according to Bruce Rogers, Forbes magazine’s Chief Insights Officer. “In their fight to increase revenue, grow market share, increase the stock price, attract and retain the best talent, and secure their license to operate, companies are turning their focus on their reputation,” he writes.

In short, reputation management is becoming big business! In addition to newer businesses, global public relations companies are increasingly focusing their offerings on online reputation management and online reputation risk. It is, Bruce Rogers says, a growth industry.

The new online reputation management businesses help their clients suppress and even erase negative or unflattering content from the World Wide Web. Sometimes it involves a self-inflicted wound – negative content put there by clients themselves. In other instances, negative material is put there by someone else. Reputation management firms work with them all, large and small.

“I believe that we are heading into an era where there will be the equivalent of a “WikiLeaks” moment for everyone,” said the chief executive of one such firm. “Every two weeks we find new and novel ways that people can be harmed on the Web.”

He warned that since the Web is constantly changing, it is impossible for people to keep track of what they have shared online in the past. The likelihood is very high, he went on, that something will come back to affect them negatively later.

Even staying off the Web may not be an effective strategy for avoiding negative content. “Most of the harm doesn’t come from dumb stuff you’ve done yourself,” the CEO said. “Someone could have taken a photograph of you, put it online, and tagged you in it and it’s there forever.”