Perhaps you've seen this story:
"An insurance company settled a lawsuit with a Los Angeles man by dropping off buckets full of thousands of quarters, nickels, dimes and pennies"
Aside from the fact that the firm is misidentified as an insurance company, the story is at least credible on its face.
But we know from years of experience that the Mainstream Media has a very poor track record when it comes to getting insurance-related stories correct. So we reached out to Adriana's for comment:
■ via email, which has gone unanswered
■ via phone (neither of the numbers on her website are correct)
■ and via "chat"
That last was pretty interesting: I visited the agency's site and got a pop-up "chat" box. I jumped at the opportunity, and was soon texting with CSR3. I introduced myself and explained that I was looking for their side of the story.
This was what I got:
"We do apologize about what is being reported in the media. At this time, I cannot comment on this matter but I can assure you the company will release an official statement soon. Adriana’s Insurance has been in business well over 20 years, and we value your opinion, we regret to see this being transmitted in the way it is by the media."
And then he/she "hung up" (exited the chat).
This is stupid. A story like this gets "legs" very quickly (especially when the victim is the quintessential Grandpa). And perhaps a major reason that it's "being transmitted in the way it is by the media" is because the agency is making no effort to get out in front of it; indeed, they're turning away opportunities to do so, further damaging their brand.
In this age of alt- and social-media, you really can't do that and expect to do well.
'Tis a shame.
"An insurance company settled a lawsuit with a Los Angeles man by dropping off buckets full of thousands of quarters, nickels, dimes and pennies"
Aside from the fact that the firm is misidentified as an insurance company, the story is at least credible on its face.
But we know from years of experience that the Mainstream Media has a very poor track record when it comes to getting insurance-related stories correct. So we reached out to Adriana's for comment:
■ via email, which has gone unanswered
■ via phone (neither of the numbers on her website are correct)
■ and via "chat"
That last was pretty interesting: I visited the agency's site and got a pop-up "chat" box. I jumped at the opportunity, and was soon texting with CSR3. I introduced myself and explained that I was looking for their side of the story.
This was what I got:
"We do apologize about what is being reported in the media. At this time, I cannot comment on this matter but I can assure you the company will release an official statement soon. Adriana’s Insurance has been in business well over 20 years, and we value your opinion, we regret to see this being transmitted in the way it is by the media."
And then he/she "hung up" (exited the chat).
This is stupid. A story like this gets "legs" very quickly (especially when the victim is the quintessential Grandpa). And perhaps a major reason that it's "being transmitted in the way it is by the media" is because the agency is making no effort to get out in front of it; indeed, they're turning away opportunities to do so, further damaging their brand.
In this age of alt- and social-media, you really can't do that and expect to do well.
'Tis a shame.
Posts
