Skip Links

Network World

Paul McNamara

Was the Nokia PR guy just doing his job? Jerking me around? Or both?

By Paul McNamara on Thu, 01/25/07 - 10:08am.

You make the call: Is this tale nothing more than inside baseball? Sour grapes? Or a classic example of how difficult it is to get a straight answer from a company that doesn't want to give one?

Background: On Jan. 13 in Vallejo, Calif., a man was seriously burned in a fire that the on-site investigator initially insisted began when the cell phone in the victim's pocket ignited. The news didn't make the Sunday papers, but Monday and Tuesday saw the story explode worldwide in newspaper, radio, TV and Internet reports. Missing from all of those reports was the name of the manufacturer and model of phone, not because reporters didn't ask but because officials in Vallejo were inexplicably keeping that information secret.

Critical point to keep in mind: The fire investigator did tell Nokia no later than Monday that its phone was involved.

By Wednesday I'd had my fill of the stonewalling and started contacting major cell-phone makers, which led to one of the more bizarre exchanges I've had in 30 years of reporting. Here's my first e-mail sent Wednesday afternoon to Nokia spokesman Keith Nowak:

Hi Keith,

I am trying to find out which company made the cell phone that was involved in that fire over the weekend that left a California man injured. Could you please find out for me whether or not this was a Nokia phone, or let me know who could do that. I would appreciate a reply whether the answer is "yes, it was one of ours," "no, not ours," or "we don't know." The fire investigator told me that he did notify the manufacturer, so if it was Nokia someone there should know.

Nowak's reply:

Hi paul...afraid i have not heard of this yet, but i'll keep my ears open and let you know if anyone brings it up with me...

Alarm bells ring immediately. As any good public relations professional will tell you, the job is not to keep your "ears open" and report back "if anyone brings it up." (Can't you just picture Nowak in the company cafeteria, ears cocked, listening for any hint of an answer to my query?) No, they're supposed to find the right people, ask the right questions and report back. … Except, of course, when the company doesn't want the right answers made public.

But I'm willing to give Nowak the benefit of the doubt at this early point in our exchange. Perhaps he just dashed off a reply and used more casual language than might have been wise. Certainly he didn't mean what he wrote to be taken literally. My next try minutes later:

Hi Keith,

Thanks for getting back. … I really would appreciate getting a definitive answer from someone regarding Nokia's involvement/non-involvement, since this "mystery" has been ongoing for days now. Again, thanks for your time.

PAUL

Nowak's prompt second reply:

You'll know if i hear anything....

Again with the "if I hear anything." … At this point those alarm bells are so deafening I can barely muster a civil response. But here's what I came up with:

Hi Keith,

I honestly don't mean to be snippy here, but I'm afraid I am not fully understanding your replies (I've been getting the run-around from other vendors, so perhaps I'm too touchy today). Does "you'll know if I hear anything" mean that you will ask the appropriate people and get back to me with a definitive answer? Because a literal reading of your first reply coupled with a literal reading of your second reply would indicate that you're merely keeping your ears open. Again, my apologies in advance if I'm reading this too literally, but I didn't want there to be any confusion as to my needs and expectations.

Thanks again,

PAUL

Nowak's turn:

Paul...not keeping anything from you...i've seen the same story, but have no idea if the phone in question was ours or not. If it was, i'm sure i'll hear about it soon, and can share what i learn.

Jiminy-crickets, man, the whole world is going to hear about it soon. I'm asking you to pick up the phone or walk down the hall and please ask someone. And note the change over only half an hour from "afraid I have not heard of this yet" in the first reply to "I've seen the same story" here.

Here's try No. 4 from me, and this time he makes me stoop to bringing my wife into the discussion:

keith: i swear that my wife and i have conversations like this sometimes. I'll try again: Are you going to *actively* seek an answer to my question *today*? Ask the people within Nokia who *would* know one way or another? Or have someone else ask those people the right questions? Again, from a literal reading of your reply, I get the impression that you're telling me that you're simply going to wait to be informed and then, if that should ever occur, you'll share it with me. That's not what I'm asking you to do for me. And, to be perfectly honest, I'm now starting to wonder if you're not being intentionally obtuse.

Intentionally obtuse: a polite way of saying I think you're jerking me around, which is a polite way of saying I think you're lying. And, of course, I was fudging the "starting to wonder" part, since that had been my suspicion from his first e-mail. Here is Nowak's reply and the final chapter of our Wednesday exchange:

Paul...I'll try to keep it simple as possible. I don't know. I've asked my internal contacts. They don't know.

Remember this is late Wednesday afternoon, the Vallejo fire has been rip-roaring worldwide news since Monday morning, the fire inspector informed Nokia of its involvement no later than Monday, and Nowak is unquestionably the correct contact person, as we'll see in a moment.

Before leaving the office Wednesday evening I told a few colleagues that it was my considered opinion that Nokia made the smoking phone … and I dearly regret not having committed that thought to this blog at that time.

Here's the kicker: Within a few hours of Nowak's fourth parrying of my question, the fire inspector would be telling another reporter that he had met with Nokia engineers at about the same time I was wrestling with Nowak, that he watched the Nokia guys test the phone, and that he came away convinced that he had been wrong in his determination that the phone started the fire. (The victim's lawyers remain unconvinced.)

On Thursday Nowak had no trouble finding either the confirmation that it was a Nokia phone (information that had been available within his company for days) or his voice, as he was quoted in many newspapers trumpeting the fire inspector's change of heart.

But, hey, I don't mean to imply that Nowak didn't keep his pledge to keep his ears open and let me know if he heard anything. I received this next e-mail from him just before 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, otherwise known as the better part of a day after news organizations coast to coast (including Network World) had reported the information he was now finally willing to share:

Just landed back in new york, and seems a lot happened overnight. We ended up sending an engineer to assist the local fire investigator, and the conclusion from the investigator was that the phone was not the cause of this fire. In fact, both the phone and battery were still in working order. So, turns out the gentleman was carrying a nokia phone, but it had nothing to do with the cause of this incident.

I started to draft a response, but couldn't find the right words absent all my favorite curses. So, Keith, please consider this account my thank-you for getting me that information.

(Update: Some of the PR industry bloggers are starting to weigh in on this, as in here and here, for example. And this one where Peter Shankman notes that "Nokia hemmed and hawed enough to make a dress.")

Welcome Farkers, regulars and assorted passersby. If time permits, might I suggest a look at these recent Buzzblog items:

Google's Webspam expert channels Chris Rock in debunking 'undetectable' link claim

Offer from Dell: "Look, Ma, no Windows"

Service asks you to give up your SS and credit card numbers ... for safety's sake?

Wikipedia "hiding" links from search engines.

Want the safest spot for your data center? The pickings are slim, geographically speaking.

Fighting child porn vs. ruining innocent lives.

Google engineer shares a life lesson: Don't tell the bank your checks were stolen.

the nokia fire phone article

0

here is what some people think of that brilliant journalism: Looks like the Nokia guy did a good job of not making the situation worse. I admire the Network World reporter for admitting to the world he is an inconsequential gnat buzzing around his industry's ass. 2007-01-25 11:51:30 AM DeadZone [TotalFark] Wow, a 4th rate reporter for a 5th rate weekly whines his ass off because he wouldn't actually do his job and investigate something for an article, expecting the company to give him whatever he wanted because he actually figured out how to send an e-mail. I'm so impressed with this guy's professionalism! And his ability to perform investigative journalism! I called the PR guy, but he wouldn't help me! Wah! He gave me a runaround! Boo-hoo! 2007-01-25 12:04:31 PM Paedophile_Deluxe [TotalFark] Whether the Nokia guy was lying or being "intentionally obtuse", it doesn't make this writer look any better when he gets all pissy. "Give me a scoop, goddammit!" 2007-01-25 12:47:14 PM Scooby's'pawn [TotalFark] And if the Nokia guy confirms that it's their phone before knowing if it was their fault yet, the reporter rushes a story about how Nokia causes a fire but denies it's their fault. Talk about negative PR. I would have stonewalled the reporter too until I knew the results of the test and had a confirmation that it was actually the phone and no third-party parts that caused the fire. There is absolutely no reason for Nokia to admit that it's their phone until then. 2007-01-25 01:12:50 PM brap [TotalFark] Reminds me of my brief stint in investor relations. Bad press = "sounds like a buy opportunity." 2007-01-25 01:24:11 PM Svengali4Life The Nokia guy wasn't going to say anything to get himself fired. The reporter is an idiot for expecting him to. 2007-01-25 01:26:03 PM squidloe [TotalFark] Why does any manufacturer owe this (guy) anything? The PR guy absolutely did his job. He controlled the information. And DeadZone nailed it. This reporter is a lazy fark who was sitting there waiting for the info to come to him so that he could have the story first. If I was the editor or publisher of the magazine I would have this guy fired in an instant. 2007-01-25 01:29:50 PM Sweet182 [TotalFark] Is that a Nokia in your pocket? Or are you just happy to see me? 2007-01-25 01:33:15 PM bingethinker The PR guy is a (bad word) too, but that's his job. If a PR guy tells you it's a nice sunny day, carry an umbrella. 2007-01-25 01:52:43 PM BrotherTheodore That'll teach him to use a Johnny Cash classic as a ring tone. 2007-01-25 02:39:06 PM RoyBatty Does that headline make any sense? I don't think that headline makes any sense. 2007-01-25 04:51:09 PM sens [TotalFark] I'm a tech reporter too, and I'm no big fan of PR people on many days, but the story was a very minor news item picked up on the wires by a lot of outlets, even though there was precious little information about the phone or the fire or anything else, including how they knew it was the phone that started it. It was garbage and I closed it shortly after opening it. For this guy to expect an instant response to a story whose facts weren't completely known from a PR person is just plain ridiculous. Ooh, look at me, I'm a hardass reporter! I don't take no for an answer! I'm gonna be the Woodward and Bernstein of... cell phone fire reporting! Does he have any idea how massive a company Nokia is? How many e-mails a press contact for such a company might receive in a given day? How many issues such a person might have ongoing at any given moment? How very low on the totem pole his annoying little mosquito e-mails are? And maybe how rudeness and finger-pointing accusations might not be the best way to get prompt and polite answers from such a person? I have to say, the reporter comes away looking like the (bad word) on this one. What was he going to do if and when he got confirmation, anyway, write a big story about how it was Nokia? About how Nokia was engaged in an evil plot to set fire to innocent crotches all over the world? And finally, making this whole thing mooot is the fact that once the smoke cleared, it was discovered that the phone had nothing to do with the fire in the first place. This tells you what morons a lot fo the tech media can be -- this guy should be thanking Mr. Nokia for saving him from having to write a very embarrassing retraction and apology. But of course, he probably wouldn't have done that, woud he? He'd just take the story down and pretend it never happened, and go home to his lonely basement apartment to dream about what his next big scoop might be. Maybe it'll even be that big one he's been wanting to write, about the gory details of Steve Jobs' dry cleaning bills. If only Steve didn't shred and recycle all the garbage that leaves his house. That son of a (bad word), how dare he? I think I'll write a nasty blog entry about him. 2007-01-25 04:51:29 PM Arbitrator Well, that was a waste of 5 minutes.

I ditto the only response I see here

0

The reporter -- if you can call him that -- is a lazy bum. Ever heard of picking up a phone? Maybe call the fire inspector, get your facts, then call Nokia? Don't blame the PR guy for your laziness. He got what he wanted out of you: a lazy and codependent reporter with nothing to write about.

What an idiot

0

I think the reporter from NetworkWorld is an idiot. If the PR guy says he didn't know anything.. maybe he didn't know anything. Would you really expect a PR guy to provide a whiny reporter some sort of
scoop that would make his company look bad? At best the PR guy is going to have some sort of statement written by corporate honchos about something like this. That will be all he is going to say about the subject.

I think the reporter ought to act like a reporter and get the facts by doing some investigating rather than writing a bunch of trash for me to read. Doesn't NetworkWorld have editors?

On the other hand, Paul has a point

0

You know if Paul was simply investigating the phone itself then I might agree with you. But the investigation changed and he ended up investigating how Nokia PR handled the news. I think he had an honest complaint. Instead of the Nokia PR rep stonewalling it might have been better to admit that they were aware of the situation and were actively investigating the matter; and that until such time there was a conclusion it was improper to comment. That would have been honest and straightforward. Obviously Nokia was aware of the matter and they sent and engineer to investigate. Simple truth. Too many times companies opt for the runaround. Which I believe, they believe, we believe. But most of the time we recognize such delaying or misleading tactics and it pisses us off. Maybe it would have been different if Dell and Sony had not just had serious problems with their batteries. When this story first broke I imagine a lot of people wanted as straight an answer as they could get. With no runaround. Nokia was certainly aware of the situation and still in the process of investigating. Why didn’t they just say so. If If they didn’t have an answer yet, they could have just admitted it. Either this PR rep had his head under a rock, or was just feeding Paul a line. As customers we have to wade through enough everyday trash without having to get the same stuff on something potentially this important. If you choose to accept the trash they feed us, so be it. But I am a firm believer that if you want to be fed something else, you first have to refuse to accept the garbage.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Welcome, visitor. Register Log in
About Buzzblog