It's the same kind of overdramatic reaction that TechCrunch is known for. The email even said that TechCrunch had no obligation to comply. Probably some guy called Moviefone and said, "I see you guys own TechCrunch now, can you ask them to change their story?" and the guy said, "Uh, I guess I can ask for you, but no promises...", and then wrote that email, and now TechCrunch, in typical fashion, is blowing something way out of proportion, which in turn generates more publicity for itself, AOL, The Source Code, and Moviefone anyway.
I don't see much to praise here. The intentions might have been good, but otherwise it's a waste of space and time for everyone that isn't getting publicity out of the deal.
The original email is pretty much relationship management 101. Client Y asks for X, you observe that X is well outside your area of responsibility and not likely to happen, they ask you to make enquiries, so you email the relevant person and then diplomatically reword their response. We passed your feedback on to TechCrunch. TechCrunch were grateful for their invitation to your event and noted they had not been advised of any publishing restrictions. They observed the abrasive, sceptical tone of the article is their house journalistic style and that far from damaging readers' perceptions of your film, it is likely to have raised awareness of your film in a key target market. The editorial freedom of TechCrunch is very important to AOL.
I've sent emails along the lines of "X enquired whether their press release sent yesterday was newsworthy" and even "X has asked for [something] because [reason] and I am sure the answer will be no. Please confirm that that is the case" before.
I can perfectly understand TechCrunch's motivations for publishing: "Hey, we're standing up against AOL like we said we would. Now give us more pageviews", but only assume the rest of the chorus of hostility directed towards the carefully worded email emanates from people who don't have to deal with corporate customers on a daily basis, or can afford to tell them to jump off a bridge.
You're right, and that makes sense from a client services standpoint. But it's totally unacceptable for a news organization.
And maybe I'm splitting hairs, but there's a difference between "the client wants to know why you didn't cover this event" and "the client doesn't like the editorial voice used in your coverage please try to change it in the future"
Moviefone is not a news organization. They emailed TechCrunch and they sounded skeptical that TechCrunch would oblige. TechCrunch received email and utilized it to create an instance of classic attention/pageview whoring.
I hear ya. But I think maybe my main point didn't get through. I'm not praising TechCrunch, or speaking to their intention at all.
I'm delighting in the outing of a well-worn Hollywood practice that ideally will not work as well as they try to court the Internets. If any publicist, PR firm, or studio starts to feel even a little self-conscious about massaging a story, i think that's great. And regardless of TC's intention, I think that's a little more likely after today.
I don't see much to praise here. The intentions might have been good, but otherwise it's a waste of space and time for everyone that isn't getting publicity out of the deal.