And when they’re hurt, they punish teenage girls by shutting down their summer camp:
For Reel Grrls, the problems began May 12, with a 98-character message on Twitter.
After Baker announced her job change, a Reel Grrls employee wrote: “OMG! @FCC Commissioner Baker voted 2 approve Comcast/NBC merger & is now lving FCC for A JOB AT COMCAST?!?”
Turns out that a Comcast executive in charge of sponsoring the Reel Grrls summer program was reading and wasn’t pleased. Last Friday, Comcast Vice President Steve Kipp wrote Reel Grrls an e-mail with a link to the tweet, saying the cable giant wouldn’t contribute the $18,000 it had promised for the film camp.
“I am frankly shocked that your organization is slamming us on Twitter,” Kipp wrote. The tweet “has put me in an indefensible position with my bosses. I cannot continue to ask them to approve funding for Reel Grrls, knowing that the digital footprint your organization has created about Comcast is a negative one.”
Steve Kipp needs to learn that the “digital footprint” that’s negative about Comcast’s decision to hire one of the FCC board members who approved their NBC merger is called “the Internet”.
The Ancient Randonneur
Look, the world is ending this Saturday anyway, so why worry? BTW have you gotten your rapture insurance?
Benjamin Cisco
Don’t suppose it occurred to Monsieur Kipp that Comcast’s negative digital footprint was SELF-INFLICTED?
__
No?
__
Carry on, then.
PurpleGirl
@The Ancient Randonneur: I loved this:
I wonder if the seller got any takers for the insurance. I think I’m spending tomorrow outside my apartment, watching for the Rapture. Much hilarity will ensue on Sunday.
lonesomerobot
a lot of times I agree with you, mistermix, and even this time I agree with the basic premise that Comcast executives are assholes. But frankly, I find it quite stupid for an employee of an organization that is taking advantage of outside funding to criticize a 5-figure backer using the organization’s Twitter account. There are things you just don’t do.
Now, had the employee used a personal Twitter account it would be a different story. But according to the article, it was the second time the Reel Grrls Twitter account was used to criticize Comcast. This to me qualifies under “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Ultimately I still don’t think Comcast should’ve pulled the funding, but what position does that put charitable giving if the charity is basically allowed to publicly embarrass their donors? Are the donors obliged to keep on giving?
gnomedad
Apart from “OMG!”, I would characterize the tweet at “news”.
gnomedad
@The Ancient Randonneur:
Too late.
JGabriel
WaPo:
Someone ought to collect $36,000 and contribute it to Reel Grrls with a note that says, “Thanks for hurting Comcast’s fee-fees.”
.
cleek
@lonesomerobot:
i read that tweet a few times. i don’t see how it’s a criticism of Comcast. looks more like a criticism of Baker.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@lonesomerobot:
sure, but two things.
1) who would really have known about it, had comcast not cancelled funding? self-inflicted damage.
2) reelgrrls will probably make up the 18k, just from people who hate comcast, or compete with comcast, particularly on the movie side of things.
i think it might have been fairly savvy to break the yoke of comcast. a risk to be sure, but that’s life.
PeakVT
@mistermix – I believe “fee fees” should be hyphenated, but the authoritative source for all internet traditions does not have an entry for the phrase yet.
Obama is to blame for this sad situation, of course.
JGabriel
via PurpleGirl:
The smart play for Camping is to have his staff tell everyone he’s been raptured, and if you’re still here, well … God’s will, ya know? Sorry about the hellfires.
.
lonesomerobot
@cleek: I’ve worked in the non-profit world. Rule number one is serve the purpose of your mission statement. Rule number two is do no harm to your donors. This story about Baker and Comcast has been alive for a few days now, and it’s not good publicity for Comcast. Anyone can draw the line from Comcast to Baker’s vote to Baker’s eventual job. Even from that Tweet. And I don’t see how the Tweet at all serves the mission statement on their website.
PurpleGirl
@lonesomerobot: I agree with you. Whoever sent the first twitter should have been read the riot act. The second one should not have been sent. You can comment on your donors privately, to your colleagues and friends but you do not comment publicly, on Twitter or Facebook or in e-mail or anyplace. The grantor/grantee relationship is delicate and while the grantee’s employees do not have to love the grantor, you should be discreet privately with criticism.
Grantors are under no obligation to continue giving any entity a grant or other form of support. That is understood in the field and is written into almost all awards letters.
If people want to make up the ComCast grant to Reel Grrls, that’s fine, but Reel Grrls needs to hold some meetings with their employees about not using office accounts for personal use and the ethics of working at a non-profit.
(I formerly worked in a non-profit for 15-odd years and 7 for them were in development/fund raising.)
JD Rhoades
@PeakVT:
I have to say it: this “fee fees” thing really makes me cringe.
Just one man’s opinion.
lonesomerobot
@Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal: Now that’s more like it. And I agree, Comcast’s best move would have been to stick to their commitment for this year but decline any future support.
Let me make it clear that I’m no fan of Comcast, but the Reel Grrls organization isn’t a political one (according to their mission statement), it’s for young women to get a start in the film industry. For as much praise as you might get for going after the mega-corp, you’re also alienating other potential corporate donors and possibly parents of future attendees of the camp. Running a commentary on your organization’s Twitter account on politically-tinged topics does nothing to serve the mission of the organization.
In fact, one could argue that Baker was actually realizing her “power, talent and influence” as a woman in the media industry. Direct quote from the Reel Grrls mission statement.
mistermix
PurpleGirl and lonesomerobot —
I have to agree that Reel Grrls staff was pretty dumb with that tweet, but Comcast’s retaliating by pulling the funding from this year’s camp is equally petty and stupid. Look at all the bad PR they’re getting. The smart move would have been to quietly discontinue funding, with no reason given. Instead, they will probably be funding Reel Grrls until the end of time, because the minute they pull funding, the story gets another airing (“Remember when Comcast backed out of their pledge to fund a camp for teenage girls – well, they’re at it again”)
I realize that the from the perspective of someone who works at a non-profit that Reel Grrls committed a real blunder, but they lost $18,000. Comcast’s behavior has gotten them hundreds of thousands of dollars of free bad publicity. So who’s the bigger idiot?
JD Rhoades
@mistermix:
Their behavior has been doing this for years. They clearly don’t give a fuck.
gene108
The Internet, which will be brought under Comcast’s complete control, once Net Neutrality is revoked.
I mean if it wasn’t for Comcast spending money to build faster internet connections, we wouldn’t be having Twitter and other internet related content. I bet they think it’s only fair that they are allowed to exert complete control of the Internet’s content because of this.
gene108
@JD Rhoades:
And what choice do people have for an alternative high-speed internet service provider?
I could dump Comcast Cable for satellite dishes. Verizon hasn’t gotten around to putting FIOS in my neighborhood yet.
They sort of don’t have to give a hoot because of their monopolistic dominance in their markets.
JD Rhoades
@gene108:
Which is why they don’t give a fuck. Everyone I know who’s ever dealt with Comcast has reported that that’s pretty much their corporate culture: “Where you gonna go for Internet, nerd-boy? Now shut up, sit your ass down, and eat your bowl of crap.”
WereBear
I agree that it was stupid to use a COMPANY ACCOUNT.
This is part of the working world and anyone’s learning curve.
But if Comcast doesn’t want people criticizing them for blatant bribery, they shouldn’t do it.
Omnes Omnibus
@mistermix: The question is how badly does Reel Grrls need the money? Comcast both doesn’t care all that much about its reputation and, to the extent that it does, has PR people to clean up its messes. This is one of the problems with being dependent upon charity; you must be meek and mild so as to not disturb those who give you money. This, then, relates to a large point about social safety nets. If whatever safety net that exists is provided by churches and charities, the recipients must avoid pissing off their “betters,” lest the charity stop. If it is provided by the government as something to which people have a right, then there would be no penalty for the poor and downtrodden speaking up. Why do you think Republicans favor charity over government? Just a thought.
mistermix
By the way, I forgot to mention that Reel Grrls got their money back and Comcast took a big poop on the VP who cut them off:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/nonprofit-sees-comcast-funding-yanked-restored-after-critical-tweet.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29
lonesomerobot
@mistermix:
Erm… it’s a tie? My argument is that potential corporate donors to this organization will be wary if they know the organization has no qualms about publicly castigating them. And again, what’s this have to do with the mission of this organization? Seriously, as a non-profit, if you can’t stick to your mission then you’ve gone off the rails. If I were a potential donor, this would scare me away.
I do see how Comcast has damaged themselves in this instance. I’m not here to praise them, but still I see the Reel Grrls response (they’re doubling down on it right now on their website) as short-sighted. They might get a boost in donations now but long-term they could very well be hurt by this. They should have reprimanded the employee and enacted a new policy on making public statements on behalf of the organization. They haven’t exactly been the adult in the matter, and now they seem to be happy to be petty right back to Comcast. These aren’t the actions of a well-run organization and that could ultimately hurt them.
PurpleGirl
@mistermix: I agree that Comcast should have funded this year and then not renewed the grant in the future. But Reel Grrls has has to get serious and strict about their employees’ use of Twitter/Facebook and comments about funders. Funding is voluntary and you have to respect that. If the employee wanted to slam Comcast, she/he should have used a private account that went to personal friends. Other funders may not appreciate knowing the criticism happened.
Believe me when I say, my boss and I had definite comments on any number of our organization’s funders (and their spouses). Comments were made in private, not where a funder could have heard or found out about it.
lonesomerobot
@Omnes Omnibus: Right on. This is a huge issue because some donors like to take the opportunity to treat you like paupers, so they can feel … magnanimous (ironically). It’s a bizarre culture and you can’t criticize it, or you get no money, pauper!
Kirk Spencer
@JD Rhoades: Where you gonna go? Depends on where you live. In some areas and cities there are other providers.
They have their own problems, but it is still competition.
lonesomerobot
@mistermix: Good for them but the damage (in BOTH cases, IMO) is already done. If Reel Grrls doesn’t learn from this also and adjust their public approach then the whole episode will have been for naught.
Joey Maloney
On the ReelGrrls twitter page right now, their last 50 or so tweets are all @mentions saying, “Thanks for calling attention to the Comcast story!”
Silver Owl
What upset the prima donna? The OMG! or that people found out that Comcast hired one of the people that approved their deal? Typical shady deals between rich peeps.
Was everyone suppose to play dumb for the rich titled guy? Do a Baghdad Bob impersonation? Give him a blow job?
mistermix
I think lonesomerobot and PurpleGirl make good points. One thing I’ll add: once Reel Grrls was in the position they’re in, they really had no choice but to double, triple, quadruple down and make as much noise as possible because they’re radioactive for corporations no matter what they do. I expect they won’t be around in a couple of years because of this dust up, but at least they’ve saved their program for the coming year or so.
Lol
@18: I think you mean they spent the money given to them by taxpayers to build a network significantly faster than the one they actually delivered. Comcast and other telecoms basically ripped the gov’t off in the deal.
Observer
Reel Grrls is also sponsored by a local billionaire, the millionaire former employee of another local billionaire, the foundation of a billion dollar software corporation in partnership with the Black Eyed Peas, plus a bunch of other really high profile people and orgs.
Comcast doesn’t even make their page for a list of sponsors:
So I’m not going to worry too much about this.
Observer
Fight Rule #27A: don’t pick fights with people with really really rich and extremely powerful friends.
JM
Why do you think they got into b-school in the first place? It’s a way to feel like the man they’re not.
PurpleGirl
@Observer: See their full list of donors at their Annual Report for 2008. Comcast is listed there, along with a number of other corporations and foundations.
I wonder if they have an annual report that is more recent than 2008. An outside audit, annual report and tax return (Form 990) are done every year.
Foxhunter
And this is where Comcast reinstates the funding, blaming the ‘mix-up’ on a lone wolf in the corporate ranks.
Via Ars Technica.
Observer
@PurpleGirl: I guess my point was that “Comcast shuts down their summer camp” was a bit overblown.
Most “summer camps” don’t have JP Morgan Chase, Bill and Melinda Gates, Paul Allen, the mayor office of Seattle, governor’s office, the Black Eyed Peas on speed dial.
slag
@lonesomerobot:
And this is why the nonprofit system is broken. A lot of their work should be paid for through taxes. Not through the oblige of the sourdough noblesse.
Our system is totally f’d up when, say, environmental groups have to depend on the magnanimity/pr strategies of companies like Exxon to help them do their work. Totally f’d up.
beergoggles
@mistermix:
Obviously not Comcast since it hasn’t hurt their bottom line any. When ur over half the oligopoly I don’t think it really matters.
MattR
lonesomeorobot and PurpleGirl – You may be right in reality about what will happen if you criticize your donors, but I have a lot of respect for organizations who won’t let that silence them. And it sounds like ReelGrrls is in that group
lonesomerobot
@MattR: I tend to think that an “OMG!” Tweet, not at all related to film-making or anything specific to the organization’s mission, is really the most low-hanging fruit of free speech in this case. That statement of support would be substantially more valid to me if the subject of this dust-up were an actual film about the FCC/Comcast episode, created by one of the attendees of the camp. The statement itself only furthers the notion that this group would be a risk as a potential funding target for corporate donors.
The fact of the matter is that the Tweets contribute basically nothing to the stated mission of the organization.
MattR
@lonesomerobot: I disagree. I think the state of the Internet is very relevant for filmmakers, especially those who would be making less mainstream films and are looking at alternate distribution channels. To me the Tweet contained useful information for those in the organization.
Cris (without an H)
Um, phone company? I’m not saying this just because I happen to work for a land-line telco.
lonesomerobot
@MattR: I would agree if the Tweet itself made an actual connection to their mission — perhaps even saying “Comcast opposed to Net Neutrality – bad for filmmakers”.
I guess I’m saying if they really want to argue that their tweets are relevant, the Tweets should also make an attempt to teach something that relates to their stated mission, and not just offer a critical opinion that doesn’t connect the dots.
arguingwithsignposts
@Cris (without an H):
Depends on if the phone co. has DSL to the neighborhood. Which it might. I use a phone co. for my high-speed, but the only other option is cable. not much choice there.
shortstop
@Omnes Omnibus: Excellently put.
MattR
@lonesomerobot: Have you read their Twitter feed? I just glanced through it and they talk about the FCC, media mergers, net neutrality and “media activism” quite a bit. Also, when the merger was first announced they tweeted “NOOOOO!!! FCC approves NBC/Comcast Merger!”. So it is not like their opposition was a shock to Comcast.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
I vote for “all of the above” in the “Who’s the biggest idiot?” poll, but especially number three.
1. The employees who used the corporate twitter account to flame a contributor should receive the bastinado. I worked for a non-profit for six years, and the cardinal rule is nobody flames donors without permission.
It’s not easy to raise money– lots of people doing good work out there and not many people who can afford to contribute– so you don’t piss on people who give you a revenue stream without considering the action very, very carefully. That means the executive director has to sign off, and that person will probably check with at least someone on the board.
You want to voice your conscience as a private citizen, terrific. You should realize that if your cover is blown, that the executive director or the board might need to throw you under the bus.
But grunts don’t get to make that decision for the organization. Especially not for a twitter account, which has no subtlety and really is just a way to vent the id.
2. A very similar rule applies to donors, for reasons that should be obvious right now. The decision to de-fund a charity cannot be made by one person and does not get made immediately after an event.
If you do it right away and you tell them why you did it, they can run screaming to the press and do infinitely more damage to your brand.
Which is why the VP got tossed under the bus. He probably did have the authority to do it, but he didn’t have the authority to leave fingerprints on his knife.
The correct way to do it is to bite your tongue for a few months and then never give them another cent. When they ask you why you cut their funding, give them a toothy grin and blame the business cycle and shifting priorities.
3. The prize idiot is the executive director, who says she isn’t sure if she wants the money and wants to reserve the right to flame donors in the future.
The proper way to respond is to be gracious and pretend like it was just one bad apple in the barrel– which it might in fact be.
If you do think they wanted to do you and you whipped them up with the David v Goliath schtick, the proper way to handle it is be nice and then come back and ask them for five times as much money next year, figuring they won’t dare to say no.
When you pull a stunt like the Director just did, what normally happens is that the donor stays, but they talk to their buddies and all the co-sponsors disappear next year.
(Which, personally is OK with me. There are tons of good non-profits out there and the ones who act irresponsibly give everyone a bad name– making it tough for all of us to get money. And they usually end up folding anyway, because people who do stuff like this do other stupid stuff and non-profits can’t survive unless they are very, very smart.)
MattR
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV: I have to fundamentally disagree, but that is because I think we have different views of Reel Grrls. From what I can tell, they consider activism to be a central part of their mission. Perhaps not active lobbying, but informing their members about issues that they think are important (and doing so in a non-neutral way). As such, I am neither surprised nor disappointed that they will not censor their views in order to raise money for their programs. Having said that Comcast has every right to decide not to partner with groups whose goals run counter to their corporate mission, but by doing that they risk exposing to the public exactly what that mission is.
CreativeAnarchy
At first read I was with Comcast on this one. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you but Reel Girls didn’t tweet that. A free citizen unowned and fully uncontrolled by Real Girls tweeted that on her own time and she has every right to her opinion free from the ethics of an organization that she works for. Steve Kipp obviously took action in a tantrum. Had he thought things out he might of seen better of angering a group of future film makers. If Comcast doesn’t feel comfortable that people they’re handing out charity to might say something bad, then they should stop behaving unethically or stop sponsoring activist groups.