Background
The Net makes it easy for an unhappy
customer to badmouth a merchant to millions worldwide. But what
happens when the
consumer is wrong? What happens to the good will of the merchant? How
does the merchant correct the situation? And what happens if that
merchant is not active online? That's the dilemma facing Garpac
Corporation, a specialized software company that has been in business
for over three decades.
Six years ago, on June 29, 1993, Milton Bradley, a small bridal
apparel company in New Jersey (not affiliated with the game
manufacturer) purchased Garpac's apparel software for $5,000.
Additionally, Milton Bradley entered into an agreement with another
company (Cut & Sold Computers) for $16,400 of custom programming,
making the initial purchase of the system $21,400.
This year, Milton Bradley's successor sued Garpac, claiming the
software was not Y2K compliant (Milton Bradley Corp. v. Garpac
Corporation, Supreme Court of New York Index No. 600463/99 January
25, 1999). They also claimed (falsely) there was a class action suit
against Garpac, and that news spread rapidly throughout the Internet.
Of course, each time somebody heard it, they added something to the
story. And Garpac's competitors had a field day with this news. Worse
yet, David Roth, president of Garpac had no idea this was happening
until a prospect asked him about the class action suit! (David is not
very active on the Internet).
A judge in New York stayed the action, since the original contract
calls for binding arbitration between the parties. Milton Bradley
ceased doing business a couple of years ago, and transferred the
license to Bram International, which subsequently transferred it to
Bradco, Inc. who brought the suit. What is interesting in this matter
is that Garpac, while not obligated to do so, offered a new software
package to Bradco for free, charging only for implementation services,
which Bradco rejected.
With the prospect of a potential class action suit removed by the
judge, an arbitration action can only address a small license fee for
software that was used for seven years. The "Y2K" suit is a clear
example of someone attempting to take advantage of the buzz words of
the industry to make a killing.
Cleaning Up
The Mess
The issue now, is what Garpac ought to do to clear it's name. First
David Roth searched the Net looking for any reference to Milton
Bradley v. Garpac. Without too much trouble, he found three sites.
One choice is to file a
defamation suit, like the 130- year-old brokerage firm M.H. Meyerson &
Co. did in a suit (filed in Superior Court in Hackensack, NJ) against
several Internet users on allegations they posted defamatory messages
against the company to drive down its stock.
While the Securities
and Exchange Commission wouldn't comment on Meyerson's allegations,
they are investigating other similar allegations of possible stock
manipulation by users of chat rooms and message boards. An increasing
number of companies have been complaining about allegedly false
Internet messages.
But the Meyerson suit
won't help Garpac; at least not yet. There were two issues: the Y2K
suit with Milton Bradley, and the rumored class action suit. Garpac
doesn't don't know who started the rumors! Was it Milton Bradley or
aggressive competitors? Or was it simply a rumor getting twisted as
more folks passed it on? Let's face it, anything having to do with Y2K
made the news this past year. And in Garpac's case the Y2K suit was
posted on a number of lawyer's sites, Y2K information sites and
discussion lists.
Internet
Solutions
Garpac hired my new media marketing firm GAP Enterprises, LLC to
clear the Garpac name. We researched the matter using search
engines, in order to see which sites and discussion list archives
contained references to the matter. In each case the advanced search
features was used to dig deep. The most logical search element was
"Milton Bradley v. Garpac" which yielded some results. Then we
searched on "Y2K" with "Garpac" as a sub element. Then "class action
suits" with "Garpac" as a sub element. In each search more information
was obtained.
For those law firm sites which referenced the matter, a message was
sent to the managing partner, main contact or webmaster if a contact
could not be found. The message simply stated the results of the
action and asked that the sites be updated.
For the discussion list archives, a note was sent to the list owner
asking that an update be posted to the list. The archives were
checked a week later. If the update was not posted, GAP will join the
list and post the update. In cases where there was a lot of discussion
in the archives, GAP joined the list to start the thread once again.
The same announcement was posted to various discussion lists where
issues like this are discussed, i.e., Y2K, marketing, consulting and
law lists. The intent is to bring attention to CyberLibel issues, and
to the Y2K near-hysteria being being perpetrated by consultants and
"Y2K Experts."
A press release was distributed to 3,500 media contacts making them
aware of the issue. Since Y2K is newsworthy, and since this matter has
a strange twist — Y2K and CyberLibel — it makes great copy. The
targeted media included newspapers, computer, business, legal, finance
and advertising publications — those whose readers should have a
vested interest in such a topic.
Finally chat rooms are being combed to see which are discussing or
have discussed this matter, and the record is being set straight.
Offline Garpac has reprinted the press release and any articles that
have been printed and are including them in their company media kits
which are given to prospects. They are also sending a letter to
existing clients and prospects to set the record straight.
Will all this work? Nobody knows. Unlike a retraction in a newspaper
printed on page 87, when the original story was front page news, this
is a pro-active approach, which will hopefully clear Garpac's name,
and create enough of a stir to get business people to watch their
backs and to be alert to what can happen to them.
###
