By now, many of you know the name theRednerGroup and the tweet I sent regarding Duke Nukem. I did what 15 million people do every day, I vented on Twitter.

It was a brain fart of epic proportions that registered on the social media Richter scale.

I was working late and received an e-mail from my former client, 2K, asking if I had seen one particularly negative review of Duke Nukem. I would like to stress that the e-mail from 2K only pointed out the diatribe. The e-mail did not contain covert instructions on how to post something insidious on Twitter.

I read the review. It was a scathing diatribe masked as a review. Hate is a strong word, but I believe after reading his review it is fair to say that the reviewer hated the game. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, but I would like to believe journalists adhere to some standards of fairness and professionalism, even when publishing a negative review.

Opinions are never wrong. Reviews, when backed by fact, are always correct regardless of the score. The reviewer's story was downright mean spirited.Opinions are never wrong. Reviews, when backed by fact, are always correct regardless of the score. The reviewer's story was downright mean spirited. It’s as if the reviewer had a grudge and finally found an outlet to unleash his hostile brand of negativity. The review goes so far as to disparage the people who poured thousands of irreplaceable hours of their life, spent absent from families and loved ones, into the creation of this game.

I overreacted when I read the review and I vented on Twitter. It was an act of passion on my part that lacked objectivity. In my opinion, someone had gone over the top to attack the game and those who spent their lives trying to make it. Ultimately, I committed a cardinal sin in marketing.

However, I did not physically harm or steal or disparage anyone with my Tweet. At the end of the day, I made a rash decision, but one that does not define me as a human being. Some things are more important than others. What is most important to me is that I am lucky enough to have the love and full support of my friends, family, many colleagues, journalists and one incredible woman.

A bedroom-turned-office is home to theRednerGroup. Some days, when I grow tired of my surroundings I can be found working from the public library or local coffeehouse. I try to keep a low overhead. At theRednerGroup I man all positions normally found in a big agency. I am the new business generator, client liaison, media pitcher, clip hunter, accountant, etc. I love my job and my clients and I fight for them every single day.

Sometimes, when I have too much work, I hire talented freelancers to assist me, but normally I do everything myself. I fight and hustle every day to succeed. I battle against other agencies, some of them with office locations around the world, for new business. I go into competitive pitches with my presentation that I alone create, and then I am judged against other presentations from big time PR agencies.

It’s the little guy against big corporate agencies. In all honesty, I love it and thrive on it.

Over the course of the Duke Nukem Forever PR and marketing campaign, I spent every day working as its evangelist, virtually traveling from writer to writer trying to spread the gospel. Whatever the client asked for, I went above and beyond to deliver. Duke Nukem Forever was a labor of love for me.

I believe that if someone were to read all four tweets about the Duke Nukem reviews, in their entirety, they would see that I was clearly frustrated. I unwisely picked a public forum that millions of people use every day to vent and I have paid the price, but I would like to believe that I paid that steep price with some level of dignity.

My tweet did not name names or point specific fingers. I made a blanket statement. My anger was directed at one story that had gone too far in my opinion, to which I am entitled. That story and the writer will remain nameless. I am not interested in shouting matches and I cannot compete with a large site with tens of thousands of followers. TheRednerGroup is only me, and that writer could bring another onslaught upon me with the click of the enter key on his computer. In hindsight, what I should have done was contact that writer directly and had an adult conversation about the issue, as I have done in the past.

Continue reading ...

What makes for a scathing, derogatory, uncalled-for, venomous review? That is hard to describe but you know one when you read. It stands out, like Shaq in a crowd of kindergarteners.Since my next door neighbor introduced me the Atari 2600 when I was a kid, I have been a gamer. This year alone I have played or replayed several games on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 including Duke Nukem Forever, Borderlands, Borderlands DLC, Crysis 2, Homefront, Alan Wake, Portal 2, Mafia II, LA Noire and several other games. If you ever saw theRednerGroup tag on your team during a match of Call of Duty: Black Ops on XBLA, it usually meant you were going to lose except on the Nuketown and Firing Range maps. On all other maps I was a one-shot bullet magnet.

I have been so fortunate in my career. Over the past 10 years in public relations, I have had a video game fan’s dream job. I have worked on some of the biggest launches and titles in this industry’s history. I have seen behind the curtain. I have met many wonderful people. I love the video game industry.

At this point I would like to address my tweet and give you a behind the scenes look at theRednerGroup’s reviews process. Life is filled with choices and there are always consequences. There is nothing that we do that doesn’t have repercussions. Many times they are small and unnoticeable. Sometimes they slap in you the face or explode. If we are lucky, none of the bad repercussions are permanent.

First and foremost, I do not support the McCarthy era notion of blacklisting. My tweet was not some social media form of the Waldorf Statement. I never used the word blacklist in my tweet. That term appeared in a story on Wired.com. I said that there were some reviews that had gone too far and that I was going to re-evaluate our reviews process (it was just one review and it wasn’t even the lowest scored review). I have already apologized for my blunder and will not do so again.

Publishers are under no obligation to send out copies of their game for review. They reserve the right to pick and choose who they want to send their game too, just like writers have the right to publish a review in any manner they choose. It’s call selection. It’s a choice. Hopefully all PR professionals make their selections based on any and all data available. They should weigh past coverage, personal information gathered from conversations and past dealings. I personally have sent first person shooter games to one editor knowing that he likes FPS games, but then not sent him a copy of a game based on our national pastime because I know he finds baseball boring. That’s not blacklisting. It’s a selection process.

For any campaign, I have 200 to 400 copies available for media purposes. I normally receive more than double that in media requests. For Duke Nukem Forever, I received even more requests that normal. That means I turned down hundreds of requests. Originally, before we had to push the launch from May to June, I recommended only sending a few copies out for review. We knew the game would receive a wide array of scores, from low to high. I recommended sending no more than 10 percent of what eventually went out.

It is my job to generate consumer awareness and excitement through positive media attention in order to drive sales. I had handpicked certain key editors that I felt would enjoy the game for what it is. I based my selections on previous coverage and personal conversations. It is a selection process. The idea was to generate the highest possible cumulative scores for the game at launch. Consumer interest in a product tends to peak at launch. The game’s short delay made my plan impractical. We did not implement the plan.

At the end of a PR campaign, we prepare to send out final retail copies of a game for review. We put together a media list of writers who will receive it. The games go out and we begin following up to see if we can get a sense of what the writers feel about the game. When a writer publishes a review with an undesirable score, so long as the review is fair and the critique is backed up by facts, I respect their opinion. Reviews are subjective. They are one person’s opinion and opinions are never wrong.

It is my opinion that when someone exceeds their journalistic integrity and publishes a scathing, derogatory, uncalled-for review, I have the right to question it. Integrity isn’t a badge that can be waved around to suit your situation. It is a lifestyle. If you ask for a copy of the game for review, you have an ethical duty to provide a fair review of the game. You do not have to like the game. You do not have to publish a glowing review. However, you must be fair and accurate. You owe it to your audience, yourself and the video game community.

Of course, a writer can publish whatever he wants, but it doesn’t mean that he or she should be entirely exempt from consequences. Actions always have consequences. By the same token, when a PR professional takes to Twitter to vent in an unprofessional manner, he should prepare to face consequences.

What makes for a scathing, derogatory uncalled, venomous review? That is hard to describe but you know one when you read. It stands out, like Shaq in a crowd of kindergarteners.

Continue reading ...

Why would I send out a product for review to someone who has previously shown that they unfairly write over-the-top stories? If I walked up to you today, and you hit me in the face as a form of greeting, do you think that I should I approach you again tomorrow? Would you?One question I get a lot is how do we in PR decide who gets a game for review. We cater to sites that are featured on Metacritic. Sales teams live by Metacritic. The better the score, the easier it is to sell games and so we as PR people provide those Metacritic sites a steady diet of content and games for review. For those sites not on Metacritic, I judge them by the following criteria: If you have provided my game with a consistent stream of coverage, I provide you with a copy of the game for review.

I do it this way because I feel it is fair. I receive many requests for copies of the game from outlets the day before the game launches. Some of these last minute requests are from writers that do not have a forum to publish early stories, so I take care of them. They tend to be writers at magazines, and broadcasts and newspaper journalists. I also try to add new contacts as well because new sites appear all the time and they tend to bring fresh perspectives. I have a kinship with new and upcoming sites because I know their struggles being as I am an upstart PR agency myself. They fight to compete against the bigger sites and I like to try to help them grow.

The writers I decline are from sites that have not provided my game with coverage previously and have a forum to publish previews and post content prior to a game’s launch. Sometimes I decline a request because I am already out of copies. And sometimes I decline a review request based on the tone of a previous review or coverage. That happens very rarely, but it does happen. In my opinion, my methods are fair and just.

Our job is to promote and protect the game. Why would I send out a product for review to someone who has previously shown that they unfairly write over-the-top stories? Let’s look at this in a different context. If I walked up to you today, and you hit me in the face as a form of greeting, do you think that I should I approach you again tomorrow? Would you?

Hardworking people, including myself, spent thousands of hours away from family and friends working on Duke Nukem Forever. The game is what it is, but we poured our hearts into bringing the game back from video game purgatory. That single story hurt and I acted rashly, vented my frustration and I am paying for my actions, more so than you know. Shouldn’t the journalist have to pay for his? Should I continue to support him?

It is not a publisher’s job to blindly send out product to everyone for review. Just because you are writer does not mean that you are entitled to a free copy of the game for review. You are entitled to publish your review in any way you see fit, just as publishers have the same right to pick and choose who receives the game to review. Please remember, there are other ways to get a copy of the game for review. You can always buy it.

As PR professionals, it is our job to protect the game we represent. We should not supply games to journalists who are capable of such hatred. Life is too short to surround ourselves in such baseless hatred. We should focus on the hundreds of other writers who are capable of being fair, even when writing a poor or low scoring review. Reviews are subjective but fairness should always be a constant.

To the journalists out there that I have worked with for years, I value you and what you do. Almost all of you are always fair, professional and wonderful to work with. You publish reviews that provide deserving games with praise as well as those that are less deserving with low scores. You provide your readers with well thought-out critiques backed by fact and your honest opinion.

There are always going to be a few people out there who are not fair and who work outside the lines of ethical behavior. To the countless number of honest and fair working journalists I respect your opinions. They are never wrong.

See Also: - Duke Nukem Forever’s PR Threatens To Punish Sites That Run Negative Reviews