To be ignored

Following on from my previous post regarding On Line Opinion, it seems that some people would like to continue to imagine and create their own version of events.

One of the issues is whether or not me complaining about the comments was what caused the ANZ and IBM to withdraw their sponsorship, or, as some suggest, they withdrew because of the article and not the comments.  I think the answer is both.

The email from the ANZ in response to my request says, amongst many things this:

Whilst ANZ’s advertising does appear on this site, I can confirm that we do not have a sponsorship relationship with Online Opinion and do not endorse their content and opinions.

While they may have withdrawn support because of the overall piece, they did indeed pay attention to my email, took the trouble to return my email and told me what they were doing.

From my initial email to Young and his refusals to remove the comments, I started writing to the advertisers within a couple of hours, there was little point in waiting really, and as already stated, I had outlined to Young that that was my intended action.

It is my intention to make this issue known to your sponsors, I’ll be expressing my dismay to them

Full copies here.

I don’t know if anyone else complained.   There seems to be some notion that I have been trying to gain publicity.  For what end?  Apart from my name appearing on a few blogs around the Internet, I’ve hardly become a household name, and in fact I’m not overly excited about all the attention this has generated.

There was also some suggestion that I changed my own website by removing content so as to avoid people landing on an article about Gillard and marriage equality.  Just to set that right, this blog was intended for the 2010 election campaign, and has not be used since just after last years Federal Election.  The only change I made was the landing page, that is, instead of landing on the “About Me” page, which was sensible when I was running for election,  when you type in you now get my most recent blog.  I started using the blog again when I realised people where visiting it to find out about me, and this seems like the appropriate place to post this information.

And again, to reiterate the issue, as far as I’m concerned, I acted alone, I took it upon myself to challenge the vilification on a website that is an issue for me.  Right from the start I told Young I was going to talk to the sponsors.  I have made no demands on anyone or told anyone how to respond.

It seems to me that Young is attempting to shift the focus from his original post where he claimed that I was an activist and was lobbying the advertisers:

Which leads us to the question of whether it’s right for someone who disagrees with my publishing decisions to go to people who supply us with advertising and pressure them to withdraw that advertising?

And this in one of his latest rants:

He’s been very quick to claim credit for this, even though, as I keep saying, there is actually no evidence that anyone took any notice of him.

Well, I know that two companies took notice of me. ANZ and IBM, the same two companies that have withdrawn from the advertising agency.  And as I have said, while other companies did respond, they more or less said it wasn’t their problem.  And again, mostly I was just ignored, whether deliberately or unintentionally I’ll never know.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.