As of this posting, several bloggers are in uproar against Nuffnang for banning Sisuahlai for a post with an image that the web2.0 advertising agency feel maybe be defaming them.
Going through Sisuahlai's blog post, it seem like Nuffnang was responding to the wrong issue followed by the wrong actions. The consequence of it was the negative responses it got from fellow bloggers.
Sisuahlai has taken down the post which included Nuffnang's reason for banning him. Cached post showed that Nuffnang wasn't happy with the image of the evolution of mankind that ended with the fading of the image to a bank robber.
Nuffnang responded by banning Sisuahlai for two months.
This made Nuffnang looked heavy handed and created a perception for the web2.0 agency only allows members who say good things about them and ban members who are critical about them.
From the initial post, Sisuahlai asked if the 30 (Nuffnang)/70 (bloggers) division of ad revenue fair to participating bloggers.
Ironically, Nuffnang responded to Sisuahlai but it was the banning because of the image that overshadowed it.
Wrote Nuffnang,
But as Web2.0 company, responding via Nuffnang blog or a comment on Sisuahlai's blog was expected.
Furthermore, Nuffnang could have explained that it felt disturbed by the "evolution of man" banner created by Sisuahlai and might cause many to misinterpret the image that it seem like Nuffnang was being positioned as a robber.
This could have been done with an entry in Nuffnang's blog, but it seems the blog is only used for advertising its clients or themselves.
An email respond, with a confidentiality clause, made Nuffnang seem very Web1.0.
Banning Sisuahlai made Nuffnang look very heavy handed, pre-Web1.0.
Wasn't Web2.0 all about bringing the corporation closer to their buyers?
Going through Sisuahlai's blog post, it seem like Nuffnang was responding to the wrong issue followed by the wrong actions. The consequence of it was the negative responses it got from fellow bloggers.
Sisuahlai has taken down the post which included Nuffnang's reason for banning him. Cached post showed that Nuffnang wasn't happy with the image of the evolution of mankind that ended with the fading of the image to a bank robber.
Nuffnang responded by banning Sisuahlai for two months.
This made Nuffnang looked heavy handed and created a perception for the web2.0 agency only allows members who say good things about them and ban members who are critical about them.
From the initial post, Sisuahlai asked if the 30 (Nuffnang)/70 (bloggers) division of ad revenue fair to participating bloggers.
Ironically, Nuffnang responded to Sisuahlai but it was the banning because of the image that overshadowed it.
Wrote Nuffnang,
To finally address your concern, Nuffnang remains a private company and we will not disclose our operating cost and or give more details plans of our payout structure as this information can and will be used by a competitors against us.As a company and private entity, Nuffnang has the right to say no.
But as Web2.0 company, responding via Nuffnang blog or a comment on Sisuahlai's blog was expected.
Furthermore, Nuffnang could have explained that it felt disturbed by the "evolution of man" banner created by Sisuahlai and might cause many to misinterpret the image that it seem like Nuffnang was being positioned as a robber.
This could have been done with an entry in Nuffnang's blog, but it seems the blog is only used for advertising its clients or themselves.
An email respond, with a confidentiality clause, made Nuffnang seem very Web1.0.
Banning Sisuahlai made Nuffnang look very heavy handed, pre-Web1.0.
Wasn't Web2.0 all about bringing the corporation closer to their buyers?
Comments