Email Response To SF Appeal From Inspired City

Hi, Alex!

Eve Batey with the SF Appeal, here. I have some quick questions regarding the contributor list you've been circulating for Inspired City -- apparently, a number of the folks on the "contributor list" you've sent writers you're trying to attract had no idea their names were being used to attract said writers. I'd love to get your take on this, if you have a moment?

Best,

--Eve

Hey Eve,
My apologies for the mix-up. In the emails I mentioned that we were rounding up 40-50 different contributors that we best felt represented our site. And on the document, the list of people are both writers who confirmed or we've been in touch with. I re-checked the list I sent out and I didn't see any mentioning that all the people that were listed confirmed, but I apologize if that was poorly communicated otherwise. Since this morning we made a revised list to send that have just the people confirmed. Our internal list has both confirmed and pending requests.
Thanks,
Alex

Hi, Alex-

Thanks so much for your response!

May I ask, what motivated you to originally send out a list you described in one email as "our list of contributors" and headed "Contributor list" without specifying that these people were not, in fact, contributors to your site? To the outsider, this seems quite misleading! Any explanation or perspective you can offer would be great, a lot of folks seem to be scratching their heads over this!

As a followup: In your email to Laura Beck, from 1:25 PM today, you say "I attached a working list of contributors to this email. These are the people so far that have said "yes,""

Is that the "revised list to send that have just the people confirmed"? Or has another list been written since 1:25 today? I ask because that list still seems to contain people who, in fact, have not said "yes."

Thanks again,

--Eve

Hi Eve,

To answer your questions...

Several people have asked us to give them further details about Inspired City, specifically who we had in mind to help us. This was the intent on forwarding this list. Our list has been a collective list that several of us have been putting together as we contact people and move forward--all of these people have been contacted.

Like I said earlier, I could have clarified more specifically and re-worded certain things, but I can't really make changes that have already been made. Right now I can offer you my apologies and correct any unclear messaging on the revised list. Again, I apologize for any confusion, and to be clear my intention was not to mislead anyone. We are not assuming contacts are committed until they explicitly say so. And as far as syndicating content (reposting other people's work), we would never publish anything unless we had talked to someone first (obviously we don't want to run into any copywright issues).

As for the new list, I have not sent out anything today regarding Inspired City contacts to any new or preexisting contacts.

I am a big fan of SFAppeal, which is why I thought of your publication as a potential contributor. I never meant to upset anyone.

Alex

Thanks for your kind words, Alex!

> Several people have asked us to give them further details about Inspired
> City, specifically who we had in mind to help us. This was the intent on
> forwarding this list.

Alex, I have been forwarded several emails from you where you say nothing about it being a wish list, but present the list of people as "contributors."

> Our list has been a collective list that several of us
> have been putting together as we contact people and move forward--all of
> these people have been contacted.

Several of the folks on the list dispute this, including Phil Bronstein and John Wiseman. In Phil's case, he says he got a DM he never responded to, and John says he got a Linked In invitation, but that's it.

> As for the new list, I have not sent out anything today regarding Inspired
> City contacts to any new or preexisting contacts.

So, to be clear, you did not send revised lists to Katie Baker (Hearst) or Laura Beck?

I'm sorry to appear so challenging! But what you are telling me is so at odds with the communication I've seen and heard about from others, I'm just trying to get to the truth, as slippery as it can be.

Eve,

I just received a link to the article that you posted about us on your site--and I have to say this is incredibly disappointing.

First of all, Inspired City is a creative project that a few friends and I have been working on for fun--because we are passionate about the people and places in our city. The intention was to bring everyone in the community together to inspire each other and other artists. So I'm not entirely sure why you've made us come off like this evil corporate conglomerate out to get/humiliate everyone.

Secondly, a lot of your comments are completely out of context. I never said that the list was final or confirmed--as I said in the last email. I did speak with Katie and explained to her the miscommunication, as well as Laura, both whom were understanding. That list was something INTERNAL that was between people who expressed interest in our site. There is no reason for you to post people's names, backgrounds, and personal information on your site--it's incredibly damaging to people--esp since we NEVER posted anything publicly in the first place.

Lastly, if you had any problems with something that I had miscommunicated, you should have talked to me first--whether that be on the phone or through email. This is something that could have been easily discussed privately.

If we are going to talk about professionalism, I'd think again before posting that article.

Alex

Thanks, Alex-

> First of all, Inspired City is a creative project that a few friends and I
> have been working on for fun--because we are passionate about the people and
> places in our city.

So, to confirm, and following up on Keane's comment on the Appeal, is Inspired City intended to be a nonprofit? To that point, there will not be a business model, nor revenue stream, nor advertising?

> Secondly, a lot of your comments are completely out of context. I never said
> that the list was final or confirmed--as I said in the last email.

-- At 1:22 PM, today, you received an email from Laura beck asking "Who are the writers who have said yes?"

-- At 1:25, you respond with an email where you say "I attached a working list of contributors to this email. These are the people so far that have said "yes,""

-- According to several of the people to whom I have spoken, several names on the list are *not* people who have said "yes."

-- And then at 4:36, you tell me "I have not sent out anything today regarding Inspired City contacts to any new or preexisting contacts."

You can see why I am very confused by this, because your statements seem to be quite conflicting! Can you please help me sort this out?

> I did
> speak with Katie and explained to her the miscommunication, as well as
> Laura, both whom were understanding. That list was something INTERNAL that
> was between people who expressed interest in our site.

I understand that -- but, Alex, you had ample opportunities to clarify with the people to whom you sent the list that this was a wish list or contributors. Surely you can see how it seems quite misleading that even after at least two people told you they were not participants, you still sent (In Baker's case, without even being asked) a list of
people you head as "contributors" without noting that they were, in fact, not? I am trying to understand the thinking behind sending, to people whom you do not know, a list of names entitled "contributors," without making that distinction. Again, can you please help me understand?

> There is no reason
> for you to post people's names, backgrounds, and personal information on
> your site--it's incredibly damaging to people--esp since we NEVER posted
> anything publicly in the first place.

I'm happy to explain my reasoning: if someone were sending a list with my name on it as a "contributor," without my agreeing to be that, I would want to know. Multiple people who you included on the list you sent as "people so far that have said "yes,"" have written to thank us for making them aware that their names have been used that way.

I'm not clear on how this list of names is "incredibly damaging to people" can you please explain?

> Lastly, if you had any problems with something that I had miscommunicated,
> you should have talked to me first--whether that be on the phone or through
> email. This is something that could have been easily discussed privately.

I sent an email to you in advance of publication of the piece, and did not get a response. If writers didn't publish, even when they didn't get a response, we wouldn't have a lot of reporting out there. In the spirit of online media, however, I am planning on updating with your responses!

The thing that I am struggling with is that right now, it seems like you are not being entirely truthful with me. And, hey, that's your prerogative -- it's none of my business, how you want to run yours.

However, I really, really want to present whatever explanation you have, and I want to tell the story truthfully. So I appreciate any response you'd like to provide.

Best,

--Eve