B.L. Ochman Responds to SES Conference Notes Row
As i gave B.L. such a hard time in reporting legal concerns of SES speakers yesterday it seems only fair that we not leave her response simply as a comment in the original conversation. Here's what she had to say:
First of all, what qualifies me as a search engine optimization expert is the SEO work I have done for clients for the past 10 years, optimizing sites for natural and paid search.
My clients' sites consistently rank in the top of their categories and I have written extensively on SEO topics in my newsletter and blog and in articles published in MarketingProfs, ExpertPR and several others.
No malice is intended in my sale of this report. I have not quoted anyone, shown slides or included information directly from any conference speaker.
I have included information that represents my conclusions about the best current practices in SEO that were discussed at the show.
I sell the report as one of many reports I offer through my site. Selling reports is one of my sources of income. I have had only one return in several hundred sales of six reports so I have to believe that people find the information useful.
What I've done in my search strategies report is compile information.
I am deeply sorry if doing so is offensive to anyone.
B.L. Ochman
Now, there were a number of conference speakers from SES that were not happy with B.L.'s actions so let's have their response to the above here in light of what Ms Ochman had to say....
Apology appreciated
It is allways appreciated when someone apology offending anyone else by their actions. So that is well taken :) However, I think the response requires a few comments ...
so I have to believe that people find the information useful.
I think this is besides the point. People find illegal MP3 download sites usefull too but that dosen't make them legal - NOT that I am saying that is what you do. It's just not a very good argument for the legality of your work to say people like it. Popularity has nothing to do with it.
You have probably already seen much of the debating going on about your report and I don't think I've got much more to add (more than plenty has been said already). I think Jill very well sums up her feelings, and the feelings of many fellow speakers, when she say something like: "I just don't like it". We can continue to discuss the details of the issue or not but by the end of the day I believe many speakers, maybe the host and maybe Jupiter, will end up with that same feeling: We just don't like it.
What you do may, or may not, be illegal. From what Danny say Jupiter feel there is probably not much they can do. But still, that dosen't mean any of us likes it. We don't have to like it.
The question for you is: How good is that for you that so many people apparently don't like what you do?
From a PR point of view I think you could learn some from Rustybrik - the way he reached out to the community at the first question of his right to do the kind of reporting/blogging he have done from sessions was perfect. He does have the advantage that everyone can see his work and judge it. You, on the other hand, have the disadvantage that most of us haven't seen your report. If I was you I would probably have done more to secure the support from Jupiter, the host and the speakers - that could have saved you from a lot of this mess.
FWIW
I did see that on B.L.'s site, she's decided to change the name of the report, and I think that is a really good idea!
Is this really a problem?
I think a lot of people have jumped in a bit quick. Selling a report about the show is not that different to a journalist writing a report on a show. It will only sell to people who weren't there anyway - and the show's over now. B. L. paid to learn, and she's utilising that knowledge. I just can't see why people 'just don't like it'.
i'm kinda split on this one...
on the one hand, it is kinda like (niche) journalism. depends on how exact of a copy it is, imho. if it's word for word what someone else has researched, i think it's wrong. or maybe only wrong if she doesn't list the sources of the 'quotes'?
on the other hand, it sounds like she basically used the sessions as jumping off points to add her own opinion.
the name of the report was maybe a bad idea?
Maybe it was just the title
If she had released the paper with the title - "What I learned from SES NY 2005" would that have caused so many problems?
Everyone spends the $1500 to learn stuff and the organizers, hosts, speakers, journalists, attendees all know that.
Her comeback if anyone complained about it would be that she spent $1500 plus travelling & hotel to attend and she is just trying to get a return on her investment.
I can't help putting my journalist's hat on here. If I had registered as press, I would have had at least one publication in the hat to cover the hotel, travelling and initial fee. I would then look for other pubs (probably in Scotland and Netherlands) to pick up smaller pieces. I would then do follow-up pieces re-stating a lot of the main points a few weeks later and tied to another on topic story.
I could easily get paid 4 or 5 times for the same conference.
Back in my music journo days, almost every time I did an interview for the newspaper I worked for, I would always re-hash it for Jackie, Patches and Blue Jeans teen mags under a pseudonym or other publications where I am not bylined and there are millions of these.
Most, if not all freelance journalists do this. It is how they make money and keep their entitlement to the card.
What SES could have done
At the top of her report BL includes this -
I don't believe she can legally prevent anyone from quoting (fair use), but her message is quite clear.