HP Deletes Negative Corporate Blogger Comments

Thomas Hawk writes "HP has recently been making the rounds promoting their new company blogging efforts. Nora Denzel, HP's senior vice president and general manager of HP's Adaptive Enterprise and Software Global Business Unit has started a podcast and a number of new bloggers including David Gee, the head of worldwide marketing for HP's management software business, have also started company blogs. So imagine my surprise when I tried to legitimately leave a comment critical of HP at David Gee's HP blog and had my comment quickly erased and my HP passport (required to leave comments) revoked. Is it one-sided blogging to only let people say positive things about your company on your blog?" Update: 05/07 04:24 GMT by Z : Indeed, "Update: It would appear that David Gee has changed his mind and has reinstated my comment along with a comment from him saying he would pass the feedback along. A good first step. I've asked for an explanation as to why it was removed and hopefully will hear back soon."

Comments

Re:It's their web server

[springbox]

It's also deciving to people who think they can speak their mind to the writers. I doubt they have a clause in their terms of use that includes "your comments can't damage our corporate image."

Re:Is it?

[goneutt]

Back when I worked for Bell Atalantic DSL Support a customer, disatisfied with his DSL service, created an Anti Bell atlantic DSL website, after which time a flag was put in his file to not speak with him.

Yer free to speak, and the truth shall make yee fret.

HP is trying to have it both ways.

[hirschma]

It would be one thing if HP called the site a Postive Comments Only Blog, or something like that. But they call it a blog, a term that means one thing - a site for public news and discourse. Then they try to make it something else that suits their PR.

Either have a blog, or don't. That's their right, as it is their servers. But if you ask for feedback from the community, and you give the appearance of being impartial - deal with the consquences.

jh

This is hardly new..

[the_rajah]

Back in 1999 I had problems with the Rockwell modem in a new HP Pavilion desktop that I bought. The modem would dial and connect but could not maintain even a 28.8 connection on the admittedly noisy POTS line that I have in this older neighborhood. Every other computer in the house, including a Toshiba PII laptop had no trouble connecting and staying connected for hours. I went to the HP discussion forums for my model and posted questions. I called tech support and got a the news that it was a fine modem and that it was my phone line in spite of telling them that all other modems worked fine. I saw a post from someone else that had the same problem...and the next day it was gone. I posted my comments outlining the situation above and my message disappeared by the next day.

I wrote to the CEO, whoever that was before Carly, and pointed out the situation and mentioned that I run a discussion forum site of my own that gets around 75,000 visits a month and that my next step was to post a serious discussion about the modem and how I was treated on the HP forum. I mailed from Illinois on a Thursday. On Tuesday I got a call from a staffer at the CEOs office telling me that if I'd go buy whatever kind of modem I wanted and fax them the receipt, they cut a check for that amount and mail it the same day. I went and bought a US Robotics USB modem, the latest greatest, for some $239.00. I faxed the receipt, didn't even open the plastic wrap on the modem and returned it. By this time I'd already bought a Zoom external for $99 anyway. I got the check in 3 days and have lived happily ever after.

Re:This is hardly new..

[Dogtanian]

I'd like to point out that, while your exploitation of the situation was probably justified in that HP were only willing to help out under the threat of bad publicity, if they'd done the same thing in the first place, it would have placed it under a quite different light.

I've heard more than once people on /. comment that you should go to shop 'X', try out a product, then go to shop Y who sell it cheaper. Now, if X is a known overpriced box-shifter, fair enough. But as a general rule, this is ethically really lousy, and promotes the 'bad' retail practices that ./ers claim to hate. Frankly, it's "chicken and egg"; people bitch about bad retail practices, but if they encourage them, it's debatable who's to blame.

Of couse, /. is made up of individuals with differing views, but I'd be willing to be that those exploiting retailer X would be quite happy to complain about "bad service" chain stores.

This reminds me that I *personally* don't compliment/publicise retailers enough when they provide good service... :-(