E-MAIL: |
|
|
DISCUSSION: |
|
CNN WEB SITES: |

|
|
TIME INC. SITES: |
|
|
CNN NETWORKS: |
|
|
SITE INFO: |
|
WEB SERVICES: |
|  |
Consumers fight corporations on Web, but protests costly
By CNN Technology Correspondent Rick Lockridge
March 17, 2000
Web posted at: 7:20 p.m. EST (0020 GMT)
 |
VIDEO |
CNN's Rick Lockridge looks at what's behind some Web sites critical of certain companies. |
| Windows Media |
28K |
80K |
| | |
|
 | QUICKVOTE |
|
| | |
|
|  | MESSAGE BOARD |
|
| | |
|
YUBA CITY, California (CNN) -- A California woman won a bittersweet legal victory this week against an extermination service that pestered her for years after she placed complaints against the company online.
Carla Virga's site is one of more than 1,000 angry consumer protest sites that have cropped up on the Internet, many with unprintable Web addresses. Some have legitimate customer complaints, others random belly aching.
Virga sued Terminix after discovering what she said was $20,000 worth of unreported damage in the walls and floors of her California home.
"We offered to settle for $7,500 so we could avoid litigation. They chose not to take that offer," she said.
After Virga created a Web site critical of Terminix, the company sued her twice, once for libel. Carla won. And once for trademark infringement for using the name Terminix.
Ralph Nader to the rescue
The advocacy group Public Citizen, led by consumer activist Ralph Nader, helped defend Virga against the trademark suit.
"If Ralph Nader's group had not come forward to help me out, along with volunteer law firms, I would have lost by default," Virga said.
Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy called the case a "relatively easy" one.
"If (Terminix) had criticism they didn't like, the response should be to speak to it, to rebut it, and not to prevent people from speaking their piece and getting their communications known to the general public," he said.
Levy said that the company's strong-arm tactics against his client backfired.
"Terminix had a bug about her, you might say. Terminix tried to suppress her before but the more it fought against her, the more interest she took in Terminix and the more she put up about Terminix, and the more other people communicated to her about Terminix."
Terminix's parent company dropped its trademark suit against Virga on March 8.
"Terminix believes in free speech, and we strongly support the ability of anyone to communicate their views on the Internet. This was simply a trademark issue," a company spokesman told CNN.
Suck.com founder: protest vital
But what of many other companies that find themselves the targets of disparaging Web sites? Is it unfair that any angry customer who knows how to build a Web page can become a round-the-clock critic, visible worldwide?
Joey Anuff, the co-founder of Suck.com, doesn't think so. "Any company, be it AOL or Microsoft or eBay, that looks at a (protest) site and judges it to be unfair is missing the point," he said.
Anuff's popular Web site focuses on what he calls "sophisticated whining and crybaby journalism," which he calls essential to democracy.
"Our founding fathers were dissatisfied consumers, and there is a great deal of legitimacy to the idea of complaining about things you are dissatisfied with," he said.
Victorious, but financially ruined
As for Virga, she won the Web site war. But her legal fees from the nine-year-long litigation drove her husband and her into bankruptcy.
"It ruined our credit, but other people are losing their homes, their health and we are fortunate that all that happened to us is that we were financially ruined," she said.
|
Interview with Joey Anuff, co-founder of suck.com:
|
Q. What do people see in your site, suck.com?
A. I think people gravitate toward suck maybe as a reaction toward all of the boosterism that people are always expected to get behind. With respect to the Internet, I think the Internet has so long been seen as a place for fan sites and a playground of fan pages, and places where you will celebrate an artist or a company and have no idea why.
We kind of came at it from the attitude that most people out there, whether they classify themselves as citizens or consumers, are going to find at least one time today where they're going to be angry enough at a product
or a politician or a spokesperson that they're going to want to smash someone or something with a brickbat, and we wanted to sort of capture that demographic.
Q. What do you think of the people putting up other 'suck' sites, such as AOLsucks.com, or homedepotsucks.com? Are they playing fair?
A. Our founding fathers were dissatisfied consumers, and there is a great deal of legitimacy to the idea of complaining about things that you are dissatisfied with ... and taking a stand when you feel like things, or people have let you down.
I think that any company -- be it AOL, or Microsoft, or eBay -- that look at a 'sucks' site and judges we it to be unfair is probably missing the point. I mean, every single corporation out their spends a whole lot of time and money conducting focus groups, and panels, to gauge consumer response to what they are doing. And thing that they need to understand, is that every focus group or panel that is not riddled with profanity and slander and threats of physical violence is probably not an honest one.
Amidst all the invective and vitriol that they are going to find on an AOLsucks or GeorgeWBushsucks.com, they are probably going to find a grain of solid criticism that they might be able to actually it to react to, and improve themselves.
Suck was created because we thought that people out there were not necessarily happier or unhappier with the products and ideas that they were assembling their lives with. We wanted to create a venue where people could say anything. Whether it was really over-the-top criticism, or whether it was really unexpected praise. Commentary on these icons and products and people that was surprising, honest, legitimate, sometimes profane, and entertaining.
Q. Do you think people should be able to offer up harsh (and profane) criticism on the Net and maintain their anonymity?
A. I am a big advocate for anonymous publishing, so if you can find a venue out there, whatever it is, any way that you can sort of a lob a grenade into the discourse associated with a product and do so without surrendering your identity always kind of adds to the entertainment value I think. And it encourages honesty.
People are so conditioned to think about these things and speak about them in some fair way, in a balanced way, because we all live under the shadow of media and journalism and we sort of think that we should be held to those professed standards -- which aren't even always held to -- people think you always have to balance out a negative opinion with a positive opinion or that you should always sort of qualify what you're saying: but at those times when people feel anonymous, they are encouraged to say things that are actually more true but less political.
I think all of these "sucks.com" sites that are flourishing right now, maybe they owe a debt of gratitude to us at Suck.com for starting out five years ago. Because we were really pioneers in that sense of whiny entitlement that they are taking advantage of today, and the kind of crybaby journalism that we really excel at is something that I think we have offered up to the world, and given to them as a gift.
|
|
RELATED STORIES:
Avery Dennison loses suit over trademark domains August 26, 1999
Net patents stir debate August 24, 1999
Senate committee targets 'cybersquatters' by approving new bill August 2, 1999
Opinion: The Internet's identity crisis January 18, 1999
RELATED SITES:
Public Citizen
Terminix Consumer Alert
Terminix
Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
|