Fake followers, thought leaders and the Streisand Effect - how one marketing chap refused to cease and desist
In 2003 Barbara Streisand launched a $50 million lawsuit to supress an online photograph of her coastal California home. Before this unprecedented action, the photograph had been downloaded from the internet a grand total of six times (including twice by her legal team). Within a month, however, the image had been viewed in excess of 420,000 times. In short, it was a spectacular own goal.
All round good egg, Mark Etingchap
The tendency for legal action to inadvertently publicise sensitive information has since been dubbed the ‘Streisand Effect.’ Although it is useful for this phenomenon to have a name, any boob with half a brain can see the danger of taking legal action to supress secrets. The Streisand Effect is such an obvious clanger, in fact, I never expected to actually see it in action first hand. Just over a month ago, however, I was given just such a chance. In an ill-advised attempt to supress a post on my blog, MarketingChap.com, an American authoress threatened legal action against me if her name was mentioned in said post. What follows is a gripping tale, I assure you. Here is the full story:
I returned home from my club one evening to find my manservant Perkins in a most distressed state. An employee of the self-proclaimed ‘thought leader’ Deborah Perry Piscione had sent an email accusing me of slander (she really meant libel, but it is so hard to find good help these days). She went on to state that her legal team was drafting a ‘cease and desist’ letter to prevent me mentioning Ms Perry Piscione in my upcoming blog post about fake Twitter followers. If I did mention Ms Perry Piscione, I was told, I could face legal action.
If you have never been accused of slander (or libel) before, I can assure you it is an unnerving experience. It was true that I had planned to write about Ms Perry Piscione. Her Twitter account appeared to have recently acquired over 18,000 followers in one day, and I had asked for comment. I was only planning a brief mention, however. I certainly had not envisioned landing myself in a California courtroom.
The first thing that must be done in a crisis, of course, is to have some tea. Perkins wheeled in a pot of Darjeeling without prompting, and after a sinew-strengthening cup I quickly regained my nerve. “Perkins,” I said, “send for Mr Ravensdale at once!”
My chum since schoolboy days, Poppy Ravensdale is a well-known reprobate. Much to everyone’s shock, however, he did spend several years in America attending a well-respected law school. He does not actually go so far as to practice law, of course, but he was the next best thing to an American lawyer to hand. Once he arrived I told him all. He ruminated briefly, and then sketched out the legal facts for my benefit.
“A cease and desist letter,” he began, “is often a mere bullying tactic. It sounds menacing, but it has no legal power on its own. It is simply notification that legal action may be taken in future if a certain activity is not stopped.”
I breathed a sigh of relief. No danger of landing in the clink just yet. “Please continue, old top,” I said.
“No doubt you felt cowed by this email at first reading, but really she’s done you the most enormous favour,” Poppy explained.
This was unexpected. “Do go on,” I demanded.
“From what you tell me there were no grounds for suing you for libel anyway, but now that you’ve been sent this email you need only describe it and the events surrounding it in your blog post. The fact that you have been sent this email is undisputable, and you therefore cannot be found guilty of libel for reporting it.”
As soon as Poppy had said these words I experienced a dramatic shift in mood. Ms Perry Piscione had inadvertently given me a free pass. By attempting to quash my blog post she had only served to provide me with much more interesting material. And, as a bonus, I was inoculated against any negative consequences down the line.
“Crikey!” I shouted.
I pride myself on fair play, of course, so before going public with my account I offered Ms Perry Piscione 24 hours to change her mind. She rebuffed this offer, however, and merely restated that the cease and desist letter was indeed en route. The following evening, with an entirely clear conscience, I fired up the laptop, took aim, and blogged with vigour.
I dare say, it will not surprise you to learn that the post was an enormous success. With over 300 social shares and over 3,000 page views to date, it has easily outstripped any of my previous efforts. Poppy Ravensdale was right. The threat of a cease and desist letter was an enormous favour.
The results for Ms Perry Piscione have been predictably disastrous, however. While she has decided to ride out the debacle in complete silence, my blog post appears set to dog her for some time to come. As I write, my post appears in tenth position when searching her name on Google.com, and a shocking fifth on Google.co.uk.
And yet, I take no joy in Ms Perry Piscione’s undoubted discomfort from this episode. It has served me well, but I have no desire to promote myself at the expense of others. I hesitated for most of a day before actually deciding to publish, in fact. But her emails made me feel bullied, and I was not willing to let bullying go unanswered.
Despite my misgivings, I have found this experience extremely enlightening. Although long aware of the dangers of the Streisand Effect, I had never understood how thoroughly it places all of the cards in the hand of the chap you wish to silence. A more ill-advised course of action could scarcely be imagined.
Much to my disappointment, my much-promised cease and desist letter has still yet to arrive. If it ever does come I plan to frame it and give it pride of place on the mantle. It would make such an interesting conversation piece, you see.
Mark Etingchap is the CCO (chief chap officer) of MarketingChap.com. You can find him on Twitter @Marketing_Chap.