In today’s blog “The Politics of Marketing” written by Stuart Smith out of the UK he has made false allegations about StrawberryFrog which are emphatically untrue.
It’s unfortunate that this blogger sees fit to use the internet as a way to make untrue accusations and several blatant exaggerations.
It is no secret that people would be interested in acquiring StrawberryFrog. We have a unique global position. What a shock. Every year StrawberryFrog is approached by possible buyers interested in the agency because of our innovative approach, great track record and our significant blue-chip clients like Proctor and Gamble's global Pampers account, Pepsico and Emirates Airline. We have consistently wooed and won huge global accounts in competition with major corporate agencies.
I always wonder how stories of this sort come up – what is behind the tone and how facts can be so off base. Our business is doing well in the economy, there is one ongoing contract dispute with a former employee, and the claim that our suppliers in New York are not being paid is utterly false.
Which begs the question: what are the motivations behind the “unimpeachable” anonymous source for which Stuart Smith relies on his information. Could it be that a network agency is feeling threatened by our success and trying to undermine us through underhanded means? I suppose that is one approach you could take to try to poach clients. It’s very slimy, but it’s an approach.
BTW, Stuart Smith never tried to contact me about this story. It’s true that bloggers aren’t journalists, but you’d think they’d want to get their facts straight.
Comments