[whitlock]

Patrick,

I heard Pete's story on NPR a while back and how it helped your company grow. It stuck out since when the reporter tried to verify the story they found no results. The reporter comes short of accusing you or your co-founder of telling a fake story to sell a product. I'd like to hear you or Pete's take on this story (URL below).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/05/29/187080...

[patrickambron]

Thanks man. I remember that interview (it was a headache). The interviewer seemed to have an agenda going in. Before the interview he kept saying he thought it was "foolish that people would use Google to research people in the first place" and that "nobody should believe Google results anyways".

When Pete was in college there were several criminals who all shared his name and his results were a mess. One of them included a story about someone suspected of dealing drugs. At the time we never thought to save or bookmark those results because we had no idea we'd be starting a company and being interviewed by NPR years later.

We couldn't find an exact article about a drug dealer (perhaps it actually was taken down). We WERE able to show him several other results with about criminals with his name. We linked him to them. When he asked us about it, we told him we couldn't find it, but we offered to redo the interview and be less specific "Pete was being mistaken for criminals with the same name" since we could show results for that.

In his article he claims we simply did not respond to these requests. When I asked him about it afterwards he apologized and said "he must have missed that email". He didn't update the story though. It seems like he wanted to tell a story about how online reputation management helps people permeate lies and that's why you shouldn't trust Google.

All that said, we learned a valuable lesson. We no longer use the term "drug dealer" we use "criminals" and we link to specific articles we're still able to find so people can't question the validity

[benjamincburns]

If you were having trouble finding articles, what's with the Google screen grab on slide 6? Was this something you created specifically for the slides? If that is the case, showing a fabricated screen grab without noting it as such seems a bit disingenuous. It's a bit like selling a diet with a doctored "before" picture.

[patrickambron]

I agree, it is disingenuous, especially in this context. That slide was specifically made for an in-person presentation that was later posted online (it was posted by somebody else about a year ago). For the sake of a presentation, we thought that image got the point across much better than putting two hyperlinks on the screen. It was basically a design decision. In retrospect we should have put a disclaimer on the image since it looks so realistic, but we honestly had no idea the presentation would live beyond the room I spoke to. That was a mistake

We used to use a similar type image on our about page, but for the same purpose now only link to exact articles or results we can still find. https://brandyourself.com/info/about.

[whitlock]

Thank you for answering my question. I was afraid you'd skip it if there was truth in what NPR had presented.

I'm probably not the only person who felt that you and Pete are misleading people with the story of Pete's online profile after that interview. In some ways it may have done more harm than good overall.

Have you done anything since then to try and get NPR to correct or update the article?

[patrickambron]

Well it was interesting. He asked us if we had a link to the drug dealer article. We looked and couldn't find one. I was in contact with him the whole time, sent him links to other criminal results and even offered to do the interview over and be less specific and say "criminal" instead of "drug dealer". I told him the merits of the story were still true, we could still show that Pete shared google results with a criminal, and we even put him in touch with the person who worked at the company who found the results. Instead he posted the article implying it might not be true, and said when he asked us about it "we went silent". I followed up with him after and he said that he didn't seem my emails (even though he answered some of them)...

We were worried that people would feel the same way, but in general we only got good responses from the interview. We signed a lot of people up, too.

That said we've been careful to be much more specific in the future. We don't want to mislead people especially since it could hurt our brand. The truth is, Pete's results were a mess and it was hurting him. He shared a name with several criminals. There really was a drug-related article about a Pete Kistler but we can't find it (we never thought to keep it)--so now we only say "criminals" and link to the articles we HAVE found