Two examples requiring fact checks:
- Via the NEMOA website (click here for the article), you are told that co-ops "insist" that e-commerce brands contribute their names/transactions to the co-ops. "Insist" is an interesting word, because it gives pure online brands the opportunity to say "no", which they do (they tell me they say no), and when they say no, they get to rent the names you freely contribute - and the co-ops keep all the money. At least two co-ops sell your names to e-commerce brands. Ask a CMO at an e-commerce brand - fact check the issue for yourself! Then ask yourself why you are happy being ripped off?
- Via the print industry (click here for the article). The article misleading states that catalogs in the mail are down 84% since 2007 (the DMA says the total is about 40% ... so either the DMA is understating the problem or the print-centric article is overstating the problem, either way, you have a trust issue, don't you?), and then the author of the article blames you, the cataloger, for not having a strong enough presence on Capital Hill. We know the metrics are factually untrue. Catalogers struggled for two reasons ... the collapse of the global economy ... and e-commerce growth that rendered cataloging unnecessary for many customers. The reason is clearly not about having a strong presence on Capital Hill. My goodness.
There are way, way too many good, honest vendors, printers, paper reps, trade journalists, industry conferences, boutique consultancies, and independent consultants out there. Way, way too many good ones. Kind ones. Honest individuals. Folks who work nights and weekends to make sure your campaigns get out the door. Folks who work hard to make sure that there are good presentations at conferences. Their reputation should not be soiled by biased, misleading, inaccurate statements that protect the financial agenda of co-ops and/or printers.