FON USA Advisors, AGAIN
Today there was a WSJ article written by Rebecca Buckman that tries to create a scandal of FON’s use of an advisory board. I’m a little disturbed because as the US Country Manager it was my responsibility to help build the USA advisory board. If you want to know why we choose the people we choose, simply look at my original posting several months ago announcing the board and the fact that they would be compensated, titled “FON Advisors and our Passionâ€. I said it then and I will say it here again. Their involvement in FON has nothing to do with money. Most of the advisors when invited to join the board were not told about compensation.
In Rebecca Buckman’s attempt to scandalize our advisory board she neglected to mention that each of the board of advisors was carefully chosen for their background not for their influence. For example we choose Wendy Seltzer who fought for privacy rights of internet users all over the world during her years at EFF to make sure we do the right thing.
I have an amazing amount of respect for our advisory board and their integrity. These are successful entrepreneurs, lawyers, politicians and writers. To insinuate that they would be involved with FON, for any other reason then the fact that they believe in what FON is doing is really quite absurd.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
It’s very interesting how this article is taken to be a personal attack on the individuals. I don’t read it that way at all. It’s a story about how hard it is for outsiders to track down the details in blogs of who is connected to what. The fact that months ago, disclosure on compensation was posted or that some of the advisory board mentioned it and some did not doesn’t demonstrate an ethical problem at all. Rather, it demonstrates the difficulty of people in business–the Journal’s core readership–in sorting out all of the factors that lead to someone’s opinion.
I don’t see anything in the article that suggests that the advisory board has done anything unsavory. Rather, it’s a story about how bloggers, motivated by causes rather than cash, can lose sight of being as explicit about all the factors involved in their entanglements.
It’s a bit of a tempest in a teapot. I’m sure that this reads differently inside Fon and the board than outside.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:14 am
DISCLOSURE: I support FON.
I agree with Glenn.
I did not sense the personal attack at all. My fists unclenched while reading the article.
Perhaps Ejovi and Martin (in his blog) are overreacting?… but perhaps, too, that is a premeditated overreaction…?
Storm creation around a cause is a skill acquired over time, almost an art… even if the storm does start in a tea pot, it could always Katrina.
Oh, no, that famous post by Martin on originality comes to mind.
February 13th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
The WSJ article is written in such a way as to be seem neutral. However, the subtext is clear: watch what the blogger journalists say because they might very well have other motivations. Dan Gillmor no longer works as a journalist, and the other blogger journalists could have handled the whole thing in a better way. I describe myself as a journalist blogger–I am a media professional working in the blogging format to publish business related news and interviews and trends. There is a difference.
The difference is in journalism we keep a Chinese wall between our coverage and advertisers. But the advertisers are also hiring PR companies to influence the journalists to write about them! And that happens to me all the time (except I don’t have advertisers yet.) The difference in the mainstream media world is in the fact that that it is “accepted” as okay. It is okay for journalists to meet with, attend events, parties, etc with companies or their representatives that in many cases are also their advertisers. Mainstream journalists say they are unaffected, just as the bloggers say they are unaffected by their contacts. And it is true for both sides–but lets face it, it doesn’t look good.
This arrangement between mainstream media and advertisers has been going on for decades. I think people would be very interested in knowing about how the media “sausage” is made–and we know the punchline about watching the sausage being made
But also, you chose the blogger members of your advisory board very deliberately. They know about your subject area, and you know them because they pop up on your radar screen. And you put them on your board, and in the press release because you they are known by many others–and that lends credence to your company. Otherwise it is just an interesting little startup…In some ways, I think the blogger journalists were taken advantage off and I’m very surprised they didn’t see this coming…