is Stephanie stupid?

[Racing Guy]

I was reading an article and I saw that she tweeted this...

Why would you openly admit that your company does charity just for the free promotion? How dumb could she possibly be? Now if this was a fake tweet I apologize.

[PorkChop]

I saw this on reddit, yeah. It was a legit tweet, I'm not sure if it's been taken down since though. It's pretty stupid to write that, especially when considering everything they've done with Connor Michalek lately.

[Viazon]

On a related note, I read this on reddit today. It was a blog posted by Justin Roberts.

https://medium.com/@JustinRoberts/believe-half-of-what-you-see-and-portions-of-what-you-hear-296f34743af4

Long but interesting stuff.

[Westcoastvibes]

On a related note, I read this on reddit today. It was a blog posted by Justin Roberts.

https://medium.com/@JustinRoberts/believe-half-of-what-you-see-and-portions-of-what-you-hear-296f34743af4

Long but interesting stuff.

I loved this article. Very showing of how a company turns any situation into $$$

[Everlong]

On a related note, I read this on reddit today. It was a blog posted by Justin Roberts.

https://medium.com/@JustinRoberts/believe-half-of-what-you-see-and-portions-of-what-you-hear-296f34743af4

Long but interesting stuff.

Just saw that earlier. Fascinating article.

[The Legend]

It is important to note that Steph was quoting someone else saying this, not actually saying this herself.

[Daz]

Yes, she is stupid for posting that on twitter, especially given the timing. The sad fact is she isn't wrong though. Pretty much every major company that does anything charitable embodies that mindset. And honestly, who cares? The charity work gets done either way. Sure, it'd be nice to think that people are good and philanthropic by nature but generally, we're not. And even when we do things that are charitable or help someone out, we're doing it to make ourselves feel like better people, so out motives aren't exactly "pure" ... there's an inherit selfishness to it. WWE, as a major global company, did a nice thing, and helped put themselves in a positive spotlight in the process. I don't see anything wrong with that. We have Red Nose Day and Children in Need in the UK, and we put on those specials and celebrities do their bit ... is this any different really? Pulling back the curtain and straight up telling people that's what you're doing is obviously a mistake though.

The whole Justin Roberts thing is sad. But even through the article, there's a vibe to it that reads like "I deserve the credit" and he does, because without him, an 8 year old doesn't get to meet some of his heroes, and likely doesn't get some of the happiest days of his short life. But drawing attention to this shit and posting that piece, is no different in my mind, to Stephanie posting that tweet, WWE playing that video and drawing attention to their charity work, or twisting the Warrior speech to give the induction to the kid. At the end of the day, an eight year old got to enjoy the last year/months/days he was alive and a father and his family got to honour his son in a way I doubt he ever imagined. When you look at it in that perspective, everything else isn't fucking important.

[Hanley!]

It is important to note that Steph was quoting someone else saying this, not actually saying this herself.

No, it's really not. If I was to quote someone on Twitter, I'd quote someone like Terry Pratchett and not (to use the most absurd example) someone like Adolf Hitler. She's not quoting a random guy for no reason. Obviously it's because she believes in what he's saying.

It's a really stupid thing for her to post right after Wrestlemania though. It shows a tremendous lack of tact. Now I imagine we all thought that Connor being inducted to the Hall of Fame was largely a PR stunt. But because it's nice to think of how the company brought some joy to the kid towards the end of his life, we would all prefer to not be cynical and just enjoy the induction for what it was. Even if they had ulterior motives, they obviously helped Connor a lot. Now they're helping other sick kids through Connor's Cure. They get positive press and the fans get a touching story. That kind of scenario is good for everyone.

That's still really my opinion on the whole thing, though Stephanie making a post like that helps to shatter the illusion a bit, which is a shame. If they actually admit the whole thing was a PR stunt then it makes them look like scumbags. Stephanie and Triple H seemed to actually have connected with the kid, and you could believe they were genuinely upset by his story, given they have kids of their own. But it's hard not to second guess a lot of that when she makes a stupid tweet like that.

I have to say though, Justin Roberts sounds like a class act based on that blog. I know it's all from his perspective so it might not be trustworthy, but it seems like most of what he's saying must be true. Especially given the potential negative backlash if he were to lie about stuff like that. But pulling a kid from the crowd to help make his day is a really nice thing to do, and it's nice that he went out of his way to build a friendship with Connor. I'm glad that Connor's Dad mentioned Roberts at the Hall of Fame, and that he wasn't left out of things entirely.

[The Legend]

It is important to note that Steph was quoting someone else saying this, not actually saying this herself.

No, it's really not. If I was to quote someone on Twitter, I'd quote someone like Terry Pratchett and not (to use the most absurd example) someone like Adolf Hitler. She's not quoting a random guy for no reason. Obviously it's because she believes in what he's saying.

Actually, I think she was quoting it because the guy was a keynote speaker and that was the main point of his conversation at whatever conference she was at based on the picture that went with the post.

[The Legend]

Also, I don't really get Justin Roberts' point out of all of that. He seems outraged about something, but in the end says he's glad and feels Connor deserved the recognition. It seemed a bit of a going nowhere post.

[PorkChop]

It is important to note that Steph was quoting someone else saying this, not actually saying this herself.

No, it's really not. If I was to quote someone on Twitter, I'd quote someone like Terry Pratchett and not (to use the most absurd example) someone like Adolf Hitler. She's not quoting a random guy for no reason. Obviously it's because she believes in what he's saying.

Actually, I think she was quoting it because the guy was a keynote speaker and that was the main point of his conversation at whatever conference she was at based on the picture that went with the post.

...but why would you quote a speaker unless you agreed with them?

If I was at a conference and one of the speakers stood up and started cracking racist jokes, I'm not going to quote one on my Twitter page and hashtag my company's name next to it.

It seems you're playing devil's advocate here for no apparent reason. What Stephanie did was really, really silly.

[The Legend]

It is important to note that Steph was quoting someone else saying this, not actually saying this herself.

No, it's really not. If I was to quote someone on Twitter, I'd quote someone like Terry Pratchett and not (to use the most absurd example) someone like Adolf Hitler. She's not quoting a random guy for no reason. Obviously it's because she believes in what he's saying.

Actually, I think she was quoting it because the guy was a keynote speaker and that was the main point of his conversation at whatever conference she was at based on the picture that went with the post.

...but why would you quote a speaker unless you agreed with them?

If I was at a conference and one of the speakers stood up and started cracking racist jokes, I'm not going to quote one on my Twitter page and hashtag my company's name next to it.

It seems you're playing devil's advocate here for no apparent reason. What Stephanie did was really, really silly.

Well, OK, let's start with what the guy said is absolutely true. The PR from good will gestures is 100 times more powerful than advertising dollars. That's just honest truth and the reality of the world we live in. So yeah, quoting somebody that makes sense isn't totally unreasonable.

[PorkChop]

It is important to note that Steph was quoting someone else saying this, not actually saying this herself.

No, it's really not. If I was to quote someone on Twitter, I'd quote someone like Terry Pratchett and not (to use the most absurd example) someone like Adolf Hitler. She's not quoting a random guy for no reason. Obviously it's because she believes in what he's saying.

Actually, I think she was quoting it because the guy was a keynote speaker and that was the main point of his conversation at whatever conference she was at based on the picture that went with the post.

...but why would you quote a speaker unless you agreed with them?

If I was at a conference and one of the speakers stood up and started cracking racist jokes, I'm not going to quote one on my Twitter page and hashtag my company's name next to it.

It seems you're playing devil's advocate here for no apparent reason. What Stephanie did was really, really silly.

Well, OK, let's start with what the guy said is absolutely true. The PR from good will gestures is 100 times more powerful than advertising dollars. That's just honest truth and the reality of the world we live in. So yeah, quoting somebody that makes sense isn't totally unreasonable.

It is when you're in Stephanie McMahon's shoes. She's just suggested to a ton of followers that they used the terminal illness of a child to give themselves good PR.

That's a pretty scumbag thing to admit. It was a stupid idea to write that on Twitter - I don't understand why you can't see this.

[The Legend]

^^^ I must have missed the part where she connected it to Connor Michalek. I'm pretty sure that's what others did.

[Hanley!]

^^ Are you on the payroll or something?

Of course other people are going to put that together. It's right after the Hall of Fame ceremony. They just started a charity named after Connor. It's THE big example of philanthropy in the company right now. Are you really putting the blame on the public for making the most rational connection? The blame lies on Stephanie for saying something extraordinarily untactful. Bad PR isn't the fault of the public.

Ironically she said this very dumb thing that would obviously generate bad PR in a post about PR. I mean, that's just funny.

[PorkChop]

^^^ I must have missed the part where she connected it to Connor Michalek. I'm pretty sure that's what others did.

Come on, man.

[The Legend]

I guess ultimately I just don't understand the big scandal, I don't understand why people are angry over this and I don't understand why people are picking on Stephanie, other than certain people love to pick on her and WWE at every chance they get.

The WWE set up a charity in Coonor's name to do good work. They probably knew at the time it would generate good PR and good feelings about their company. They probably did it in large part because of the good mojo it would create for their company. Who cares? The bottom line remains that good was done.

Every company that does these charitable efforts in the history of the world has gotten good PR buzz for their efforts. Does that mean they should stop doing good acts, just so they don't appear to be getting good PR off of the act in the first place? That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. People seem to think there's companies out there that do things without their best interest at heart, they think some companies would do things that hurt their bottom line both in the short and long term just because it's a good thing to do.

That's an awfully naieve and stupid way to look at the world because it's just not true. Again the bottom line is that good was done. That's it. That's what matters.

For WWE self-promotion is even more important, because without their self-promotion no one would promote them. The masses view WWE as a dirty company that kills wrestlers early in life and forces steroids on their workers and uses blood and gore and sex to corrupt young minds and poison society. So yeah, if they generate a little good PR to balance out the way most people view their company I say good for them.

[Locke]

The whole Justin Roberts thing is sad. But even through the article, there's a vibe to it that reads like "I deserve the credit"

I couldn't agree more. The whole article had this vibe to it that made me cringe. I mean, I can't completely disagree with him but at the same time him demanding his credit just makes him look even worse. If it was wanting credit for a job well done, well that's one thing, but we're talking about a kid who has now died.

Who knows, though, from the sounds of it they were super close, closer than any of us got to see on TV, so I'm sure he's pretty upset. Maybe he just isn't the best wordsmith.

[Hanley!]

I guess ultimately I just don't understand the big scandal, I don't understand why people are angry over this and I don't understand why people are picking on Stephanie, other than certain people love to pick on her and WWE at every chance they get.

The WWE set up a charity in Connor's name to do good work. They probably knew at the time it would generate good PR and good feelings about their company. They probably did it in large part because of the good mojo it would create for their company. Who cares? The bottom line remains that good was done.

Every company that does these charitable efforts in the history of the world has gotten good PR buzz for their efforts. Does that mean they should stop doing good acts, just so they don't appear to be getting good PR off of the act in the first place? That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. People seem to think there's companies out there that do things without their best interest at heart, they think some companies would do things that hurt their bottom line both in the short and long term just because it's a good thing to do.

That's an awfully naieve and stupid way to look at the world because it's just not true. Again the bottom line is that good was done. That's it. That's what matters.

For WWE self-promotion is even more important, because without their self-promotion no one would promote them. The masses view WWE as a dirty company that kills wrestlers early in life and forces steroids on their workers and uses blood and gore and sex to corrupt young minds and poison society. So yeah, if they generate a little good PR to balance out the way most people view their company I say good for them.

I think you're missing the point though.

I agree that good was done. I agree that it's absolutely fine for WWE to get positive publicity out of doing something nice. And if that's the only reason they did the nice thing in the first place, that's sadly understandable too. This is how public businesses work. It makes sense. And given everybody wins in this scenario, it's not like there's anything terrible going on here.

Nobody is calling Stephanie evil here. They're just saying she's an idiot. Or at least she made an idiotic move. As I said before, watching the Hall of Fame it was easy to guess that they were only inducting Connor for positive press. But it's easy to ignore that and just enjoy the moment.

But this tweet has damaged the positive PR that they earned at the Hall of Fame. People are talking about it, negatively, which means that she's screwed up. That's the definition of bad PR. She made a stupid tweet. That's all. She practically admitted that they had only inducted Connor into the Hall of Fame for selfish reasons. Doing this is understandable. Admitting it is idiotic. If they only did it for their own ends, then it's not as worthy of public praise. Tweeting things like this shatters the illusion.

[The Legend]

So what we are really crucifying her for in this instance is being more honest than most people would be? It's an awfully round and soft point if it is a point that I'm missing. I wouldn't call someone being honest being stupid. I admire her forthright approach to this if anything else.