I sometimes pine for the days of old at SotP and SFDB where the comments used to sizzle as debates raged and adjectives flew freely and unmercifully. But, alas, things have changed. Twitter has flourished and my comments consist of a little more than a drive-by sentence or two. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for whatever I get but every now and then you just need to air the old brain out.
That's why I was happy to see that Miami Beach 411's Social Media Day post that I had mentioned in Wednesday morning's Sift had caught fire and the comments were sizzling in a debate over whether Sugarcane Raw Bar and Grill had screwed over Social Media Day attendees by not offering them any drink specials. I have to say that I was quite impressed with Social Media Douchebag's performance in the comment thread as it brought back fond memories of old blogging days. Check it out for yourself.
I kinda sorta straddle the fence on this one. While I think that Sugarcane didn't do all they could have to accommodate a large and socially media savvy group of people, the fact is they didn't have to, and the resulting response from some of the social media group was, in my opinion, inappropriate. "Eff Sugarcane!" because they didn't provide cheap drinks all night? Please.
Get your smartphone and move along if you have to drink alcohol but can't afford it.
******
Sugarcane responds in the comments of MB411's post and takes the high road.
******
Sex and the Beach adds her thoughts in a blog post.
.
42 comments:
I agree with SMDbag. I discussed w/ some peers last night at an event after reading yesterday and seeing some tweets about it. It's a ridiculous case of entitlement and borderline extortion (do what we want or we'll say all sort of nasty stuff about you using social media). As a matter of fact, isn't that what Yelp was doing with their advertising that caused restaurants to call them out?
Thanks for the link but your "check it out for yourself" link is not highlighted/underlined so you dont really know it's there.
I was so surprised to see a separate post on this @sfdb.
The Monica Brown thread trumps them all at Miami Beach 411.
SteveBM, the link won't be highlighted if you have already visited that page. I have the same issue all the time. I kind of have to guess where the link is because "visited links" appear in the same color as regular text.
I'm on the fence about this one too, but leaning toward SMD.
SteveBM,
Are you the Social Media Douchebag?
Regarding what is called the "visited links" color...if you've visited a site the color was showing up black. It's been like that since the changeover took place and it was never mentioned before so...
But I've changed it to a subtle shade of gray. Hopefully that helps make your SFDB Experience that much more pleasurable.
And Steve, regarding Miller's question, you're allowed to take the 5th.
.
Rick, that is VERY helpful! Thanks for modifying the template.
Rick,
The issue of the links has totally been brought up before. I remember I said something and Gus did as well. And maybe Maria, but I'm not sure.
It becomes a problem when you link something that is not in bold within a block of text.
Now that you've changed it, it makes a world of difference.
BTW, Sugarcane just left a lengthy response in the comments section.
I remember the comments being made about the regular links, but not the visited links. No matter. All is good. Whatever I can do for my SFDB readers, I do.
.
hopefully, sugarcane doesnt think all social media types are like that.
Well said, Anonymous. You sound like a smart guy/lady. ;-)
On behalf of Miami Beach 411, I apologize to SUGARCANE and yourself if anyone was seriously offended.
My only excuse is, with it being a holiday to celebrate social media people, we may have gotten carried away with our own celebrity.
Next time, we'll plan better and be on our best behavior.
Gus Moore
Miami Beach 411
I wish this had not been published and much less on 411. There are other ways to deal with dissatisfaction in terms of customer service, etc;
If anything, it would have been more appropriate for Carlos' other site, Social Media Puto, which is very tongue in cheek and makes fun of social media.
Social media requires a certain amount of finesse and tact just like in any other venture involving people and events.
However, I'm sure some good will come out of this. Sugarcane has responded well.
Oh, I don't know Maria. I think everyone took something from the discussion and, as a result, things might be a little different next time.
That should benefit all.
.
Finesse and tact have never been my strong suit.
What ever your stance is on this issue, people were complaining that night. And they complained about Sugarcane after 4SquareDay.
And I've covered social media for MB 411 several times before and nobody has complained.
Of course, those stories all had a positive spins and everybody loved sharing the stories and seeing their pictures and quotes in the videos.
So here is an article that wasn't exactly positive but it generated plenty of much-needed discussion.
Perhaps people would prefer this discussion to remain in the privacy of DMs or emails or whatever, but isn't social media all about transparency?
I will be doing a follow-up and I will be including the comments made by Social Media Douchebag, so I will ask again, SteveBM, are you that commenter?
SMD took some strong swipes at some of the other commenters, so I'm curious why the need for anonymity if you happen to already have an online presence with your blogs and through Twitter?
That is, if it really was you.
Some people seemed shocked that we would expect discounts on social media day.
Perhaps we've become spoiled but it's not that uncommon.
Restaurants and bars down here have done it quite often. It's part of their social media strategy.
And Chevy has gone all out in lending us cars, including a 2011 Camaro I drove for a week when they knew I couldn't afford no such car (I was very clear on that when they asked if I wanted to test-drive it).
But they were happy that I tweeted about it and posted videos and photos on FB.
Did anybody buy a Camaro because of me? I have no idea, but people were made aware that it was a pretty cool car.
So as I've said, perhaps we've become spoiled. And that can be viewed as entitlement in the eyes of some.
And maybe that's why some would have preferred this discussion to have remained more private.
But it's all out there now and I have no regrets.
Carlos....I don't know who SMD was, but it doesn't matter.
I'm always amazed how people love to turn an argument that they're usually losing into a conversation about the other person's anonymity. If he would have dropped the name "Jorge Garcia" would that have made his points any more or less valid? Would you have googled "Jorge Garcia" to see what made him such an expert on social media?
The answers, in case you're struggling with that, is no.
And before anyone starts demanding people's names on this blog, you better be ready to give out your home phone number and address, birthdate, social security number and kind of car you drive, because until you stop being "anonymous" yourself, you have no standing to be making such demands from others.
.
Wow. Just wow.
I want to know who SDM is so that I can buy him a drink and discuss this more in depth.
Rick,
There you go, taking the extreme again on the discussion about anonymity.
There are many of us who have established our online presence, including you. You are anonymous to a point and that's fine.
But if you have something to say to me on my blog or on MB 411, you use that online presence that we know you as.
So even though most people might not know how you look like or where you live or whatever, they know who you are.
The problem I have is when people with an online identity feel they have to hide that identity they have created when they want to take jabs at others who are using their established identities.
I know you don't get it, Rick, because you're very sensitive about this issue.
But I also know you don't appreciate when some have left criticizing comments on your blog under different names because you have accused them of being from Babalu.
Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But if they were from Babalu, they should have said they were from Babalu.
So defend SDM all you want, but he revealed himself to be a chickensh_t.
I do have a problem with people that I know [either through ip address or writing style] coming to my blog and criticizing me under a sock puppet name. I suppose if I were MB411 and I had proof that this was someone who was doing that then, yeah, I might have a problem with it.
But I don't think that's the case here and to turn an arguably productive discussion about social media into an inquisition about someone's identity is, as I said over at MB411, pretty lame.
.
It's all part of the same discussion, Rick.
You're supporting SMD because you supported what he said. If it were the opposite, you would not be so supportive.
That much is obvious.
The way I look at it, if you have something to say, then stand behind your words.
Otherwise, shut the hell up.
"The way I look at it, if you have something to say, then stand behind your words."
Some words stand on their own merit. They don't need propping up by an identity.
"Some words stand on their own merit. They don't need propping up by an identity."
It would seem to me, that those are the words you would want to stand behind.
Unless, of course, you're chicken sh_t.
Um, I did?
See my name just above the comment?
OK, now we're going to play, "Who's on First"?
WTF
My response is incy orrect. I overlooked the word "the" in your comment which makes your statement an entirely different one.
But I would respond to your actual statement and say that no, not necessarily.
Taking anonymous jabs is like being a ninja. The really good ninjas, the ones who are effective, leave the victim crying out, "Who did that?"
They left their mark.
Carlos...you can call it anything you want, but it's been my experience that there are two ways to telegraph to everyone reading that you're losing a debate on the internet: a) mock the other person's spelling and/or b) question their anonymity.
It's the equivalent of shooting up flares and sending out an SOS.
.
Actually, the first debate ended when Sugarcane posted its response.
As I said, I'm going to do a follow-up and incorporate Sugarcane and SMD's comments.
And I was just asking SteveBM if he was SMD.
And that started a whole new debate with you and Scott jumping to SMD's defense.
But it's a simple question that SteveBM has yet to answer.
Just out of curiosity, why is it so important for you to know? What will you gain from that knowledge? And how will you use it? For good or for evil?
I really didn't intend to debate. But I just find some things worth commenting on.
Several people have emailed me, DM'd me, texted me and called me regarding the identity of SMD.
A few who were keeping up with the debate but not participating.
Unlike the articles I write on PINAC, where I get a bunch of readers from around the country commenting, most who have never met each other in person, this particular debate involved people who know each other in real life.
And SMD's comments were particular offensive to some people.
So it's only natural that people are curious about SMD's identity because they can very well find themselves having a drink with him in any future gathering.
We all can disagree on issues as I have with you and Gus and Maria and CLJ and many others from time to time, but I also know that if I see you guys in real life, we'll be cool and not let it affect our friendship.
Sometimes, we can continue the debate, as me and you have done, but it's done in a respectful manner.
As much as I disagree with Rick, if I ever run into him in real life, I know we can have a normal conversation as we did the first and only time we met in real life a few years ago.
The problem I have with anonymous sock puppets is that they lose that sense of respect that you normally have between two people debating who know and respect each other in real life.
If somebody that has hung out with us in real life and has acted all cool with us, then takes on an anonymous identity to insult us during an online debate, then that person is a hypocrite.
And we would like to keep this in mind next time we see this person in real life.
It appears as if my comments here are being deleted. I emailed Rick about it about two hours ago, but he never responded.
So let me just give summarize in what I had written but never showed up. Well, it did show up - I have a screen shot that shows it did - it just didn't last.
It's important Scott because most everybody involved with that debate knows each other in real life.
It really doesn't matter whether you agreed or disagreed. We've all done that before and have been able to continue our friendships in real life.
But many of the people involved with that thread and a few who were not participating but observing were wondering who this Social Media Douchebag was.
If somebody is going to have such a strong opinion as he did while belittling the others he was addressing, then we want to know who he is because we just might find ourselves having a drink with him in the near future.
Me and you have had our intense debates and we've hung out in person and laughed it all off.
Believe me, I don't expect everybody to agree with me 100 percent of the time. I can be pretty radical and stubborn in my opinions.
And I am also a huge First Amendment advocate, so I support people to express their opinions.
But if somebody is going to be berating and insulting us from behind a sock pocket, we want to know who he is just in case we find ourselves hanging out with him in person.
People want to know where they stand with other people.
Just an example, Mike Pancier from Babalu is not only my lawyer but he is my friend. And we disagree about the Cuban issue and the republican/democrat thing but we agree on a lot of things and we don't really talk about that.
But if I find he is hiding behind a sock pocket taking shots at me, I'm going to be like, wtf, and I will call him out on it.
He won't do that. That's just an example that we are all adults here and we can disagree without having to hide behind a sock pocket.
Carlos.....the length of some of your comments are apparently causing them to be flagged as spam.
I was out enjoying my evening away from the computer and just published it.
.
No worries.
And for the record, the reason I didn't contact Sugarcane before writing the article, I just didn't want to wait a week before they went through the corporate channels to prepare a response for me.
I knew they would see the article and I knew they would comment eventually, although I had to ask them because I told them I was doing a follow-up.
But they gave a thorough explanation and I was happy.
Everything came out in the open and that was the ultimate goal after all.
They have people to handle it and eventually it was their PR and Marketing Director from NY who did.
We've communicated through email and it's all good.
Also, many of you are offended by the video. LOL.
That was all done as a joke. Blame it on all me. I was leading the chant of "F_ck you, Sugarcane" and asked people to do the same.
This is Miami humor. It's not always toned-down.
I know some of you laughed at the video. Admit it.
Carlos, it's not Miami humor. It's just crass and classless.
I read your comment on the MB411 post trying to defend the video saying, "It was all done in fun. These days, we can tell each other to f. off and it’s not a big deal."
These statements, along with the sea of words you've spilled forth in defense of this whole debacle, read more like a horrible attempt at deflecting accountability. This is the kind of argument you make when you're in grade school. "Oh, I was just kidding."
Sure, say that you take responsibility. I read it. But saying, "ok, I'm responsible" and then trying to justify it or pass it off as humor just diminishes any sense of sincerity and believability.
I think I'm done with this now. I forget what an energy suck "debating" with you is.
Must. Get. Nesquik.
Oh, by the way, hats off to Gus to publicly apologizing.
It's a stunning to consider that just five years ago almost to the day, this blogging community reacted adversely to any kind of corporate sponsorship of their meetups.
(see http://criticalmiami.com/2006/08/07/UmnosorrytheMiamibloggerswillNOTbegathering )
Now, there's apparently a huge outcry because Sugarcane didn't offer specials to the community?
But is there really? We gathered at Sugarcane, we had a good time, and then we moved on to have dinner elsewhere. No outcry. No controversy. End of story.
Now, as the organizer, I am the first to admit I should have negotiated for some specials and I have said so in comments on MB411. Although it's hard to estimate exact numbers from Facebook RSVPs -- because an RSVP on Facebook does not indicate commitment -- it was evident we were going to have over 100 people. When you bring so many people to a venue, it really is customary to request specials, and I failed to do so. I had a busy work and travel schedule, but that's no excuse. The blame lies with me and not with Sugarcane. There is no controversy. End of story.
Now consider that the event co-organizer, Sebastian, did contact Sugarcane ten days in advance to say we had picked their location for social media day and communicated the Facebook link. They themselves admitted to knowing about this event ahead of time, in the comments at MB411. Leading up to the event, Sugarcane could see the RSVPs climbing up through 100, 150, 200, 220 people ...
Consider also that Sugarcane repeatedly tweeted about the event in advance, including:
"Rain Rain... Go Away! Don't you know it's #SMDay and #Miami will be at @sugarcanerawbar!!!"
"You did hear that it was Social Media Day, didn't you? Guess where #Miami's gathering is taking place ... http://bit.ly/jUigAH"
"We are! RT @TheLCSocial: 2 days until the #smday meetup at @sugarcanerawbar Miami just enough time to study the menu! Who's as excited as we are?"
Could Sugarcane have taken the extra step and created a special deal for us? Of course they could have. They knew what was happening and they were happy to be a part of it. Did they take that step? No. Were they obliged to? Of course not. While it might have been a really nice gesture on their part, they are of course not to blame.
I am.
Carlos is a friend and he didn't put me on the spot in the article. He could have. I believe he also could have tried to get Sugarcane's side of the story before writing the article. Surely journalists face the challenge of waiting for "the corporate channels to prepare a response for me" all the time, but that's the way it is. The story is not complete until all sides are queried.
One positive thing about all this is to see that the community cares and is present. That really is very refreshing.
Apologies for the long comment. I'll cross-post this to MB411.
Alex....just two things here.
One, we might as well be light years away from where social media was 5 years ago, as you well know. 'Nuff said there, I think.
Two, as I recall there were only a few of the blogging community who weren't comfortable with the corporate gestures being made with that meeting. And I would be willing to bet that Alesh would still be against attending an event with corporate sponsorship today. Just a guess.
My problem with this whole thing was that damn video. I know Carlos now says that it was tongue in cheek but when it was first posted the whole vibe was a whole lot of nastiness directed at Sugarcane. To make matters worse, Sugarcane responded with as much class as that video didn't have and just made the group look even that much more pitiful.
I'd say it was a low point for social media in South Florida. On the bright side, there's no way but up from here.
Thanks for the comment.
.
While everybody seems so impressed and guilt-ridden over Sugarcane's response, let's not forget that it was written by their PR and Marketing Director in NY two days after the story started making the rounds.
In other words, she gets paid good money to put out the fires.
But the fact is, the anger against Sugarcane that night stemmed not really from the lack of discounts, but from the rude service of the bartenders.
We've come to accept that in Miami as just part of the scene, but I personally don't put up with it.
I either speak up, walk out and/or never return to an establishment because of bad attitudes from the establishment.
By the time we got to Jimmy'Z, everybody was pretty pissed off.
Social Media Day or not, we want to be respected and appreciated for our business.
It's ironic that those business that do give us discounts, even some that don't take a dime from us, treat us like customers should be treated.
But when we went into Sugarcane, we were treated like sh_t.
It's true that I was chanting F_ck Sugarcane and egging people on to say that, but it's also true that the people who did come out on camera are people who are very diplomatic (unlike myself).
So you can imagine how peeved they were to say that on camera, even if it was done in jest, which it was. We were all laughing about it.
Perhaps I focused on the lack of specials on Social Media Day in my article, but that was because I was mocking the whole Social Media Day to begin with.
I had gotten a little annoyed with the "Happy Social Media Day" tweets throughout that day.
But I was also pointing out that the corporations have no problem cashing in on it, even if it is a fictitious holiday.
We didn't take them by surprise with this Social Media Day event. They had advanced notice and they were even tweeting about it, as Alex pointed out.
The whole point of the article was to remind the people who involve themselves with social media is to not forget how valuable their business is.
Unfortunately, it turned into a whole pissing match and now some people are embarrassed.
Screw that, we have nothing to be embarrassed about. They treated us like crap at Sugarcane.
Here we are bringing in 150 paying customers and they were like, screw you, we'll serve you with an attitude (when we actually get around to serving you).
Unfortunately, people in Miami are accustomed to that, so they just take it for granted.
This whole debacle was really a wake-up call to businesses that we won't put up with crappy service.
The days of writing letters to the manager are over.
We will tweet and blog about our displeasure.
And in my case, I will create videos that get the point across.
Unfortunately for me, Carlos, I am to blame and not the venue. I chose the venue and I clearly failed to negotiate specials. The establishment is not obligated to create specials for us. Arguably, it could be a wise marketing decision to create goodwill by extending us a special, but obviously there is no obligation.
What you are feeling is that they did not reciprocate our altruism at having chosen them as the location for our (worldwide) made up holiday. And now we react with moralistic aggression, because we feel we gave more than we got.
On the other hand, consider that we met up in a first-rate establishment, that there was great ambiance, and that we had a good time.
Yes, they were understaffed for the number of people who showed up. It's not the first time it happens in Miami.
And the only person to blame for that is me, for not having organized better. It's a bitter pill to swallow so publicly on Miami's best read blogs, but it is a blessing for me as a lesson learned the hard way. I will do better next time, as I don't like to let my friends down.
Get it, Carlos? Point the finger at me, not at the establishment.
It's your fault that they had bad attitudes?
That would be great if you can negotiate good customer service beforehand, but you would hope Sugarcane would insist on it, regardless of our tweetup.
They knew about the tweetup. They knew about the numbers. They knew it was Social Media Day (and I really hate myself for capitalizing it because it just makes it more official than it should be).
Yet they did not prepare their staff for us?
And that's your fault?
A little off-topic, but my readers for two years have been encouraging me to promote a National Photograph a Cop Day and I've never done anything with that idea because, well, it might be fun, but WTF.
We have too many National Bullsh_t days as it is.
As long as we're passing blame around, let's blame the Social Media Douchebag for accepting dismal service and paying top dollar for it.
Not to bring back a dead horse, but ...
Here is an article about how Anthony's Coal Fired Pizza is using social media.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.