I owe Mike an apology. Mike, you may recall from a previous column,
was the night clerk at the DoubleTree Club Hotel in Houston. He gave two
customers a hard time after they showed up late one night and found
their "guaranteed" room had been given away. This prompted the creation
of a very entertaining website denouncing DoubleTree's customer
I had suggested that Mike personified a serious issue, the fact that in
the digital age "one well-placed idiot ... can cause great damage to the
reputation of an entire company." But it turns out Mike was not the only
idiot. He seems to be the product of a carefully cultivated culture of
For if you visit the website where the original presentation used to
reside (www.craphound. com/misc/doubletree.htm), you'll find it has been
removed at the authors' request, after they received a stern letter from
the hotel manager. The same manager also threatened the site itself,
insisting that his and the hotel's name be removed "as you do not have
my permission to use either."
(The presentation can still be found at
www.hyperorg.com/misc/DoubleTreeShow_file/frame.html, and hopefully will
soon be available at my site, www. holmesreport.com.)
DoubleTree's response illustrates the difference between being concerned
with image, which the hotel clearly is, and being concerned about your
PR, which it clearly is not.
Image is about perception. It's about the face you show to the
PR, on the other hand, is about reality. It's about character, the way
you conduct business, and how you behave toward your stake-holders.
Companies that care primarily about image want to hide their blemishes.
Those that care about their PR want to know when customers spot a flaw,
because only then can they correct it.
The Cluetrain Manifesto, one of the best business books of the internet
age, explains why smart companies listen to dissatisfied customers
rather than attempting to silence them: "Paranoia kills conversation,"
it says. "And lack of open conversation kills companies."
This begs the question of what the company's PR professionals were doing
while the company was demanding removal of the presentation.
One possibility is that they knew nothing of the manager's decision to
resort to threats, in which case they need to pay more attention to
what's going on inside their company. Or perhaps they knew what was
going on, understood how stupid it was, but were powerless to act
because the lawyers had taken charge, in which case they are working for
a company that has no regard for PR and would be wise to seek
professional fulfillment elsewhere.
The final possibility is the most disheartening: that they knew of the
company's response and went along with it, in which case they have sold
their profession short.