Unfortunately, I doubt it that this makes much of a ripple. "OKCupid blocks firefox to send message to Mozilla" is short and easily tweetable. This follow up requires more explanation.
As far as PR nightmare backlashes go your example is a walk in the park. I thought it went without saying that the sound bite needed to be accurate but I guess not. The donation was made to a politician, not to an issue group. These two are not equivalent. The inaccuracy makes it very easy for OKC to dismiss your response and no semi-decent journalist is going to discuss your inaccurate claim. Your response also suffers from the fact that it does not name OKC or Yagan by name and you are relying on the individual having previous knowledge of the issue.
So you take the Scumbag Steve hat, and photoshop it on Sam Yagan's head, then place the text I mentioned. I invite you to look into image-based memes, as it seems you're confused on their execution.
sound bytes are almost intentionally inaccurate. if you could take such a complex issue and fit it into twenty words or less, you're probably losing a lot, or it wasn't a substantial issue.
As far as PR nightmare backlashes go, the Eich one is a walk in the park. An efficient corporate PR campaign would have taken Eich's initial response, and ran with it, having Eich personally donate money to LGBTQ campaigns that aren't related to Proposition 8. That would have crippled the backlash, because half the LBGTQ's would've pointed to the donation as a sign that Brendan-Now is different than Brendan-Then.
Sadly, they didn't respond fast enough, or effectively enough. How many other CEO's have been ousted because of their Gay Rights stances?
* knows about OKCupid because her son introduced her to a girl he met
on OKCupid.
* knows Firefox because it is "the thing she is supposed to click on
instead of the internet browser (sic) icon."
* reads news on websites. This story was all over: bloomberg, usa today,
nyt, huffpost, time, newsweek, csmonitor, fox news, etc
It's not as if he hasn't had 2 years to get ahead of this and express some kind of understanding of why it offended people. Instead, in his public comments since, he has focused on the fact that Mozilla's name was on the donation roll (an issue the first time around when people didn't understand what was going on, perhaps, but less so this time) and apparently that people in a conservative country think he's just fine and dandy.
There were definitely statements he could have made, personally, in the intervening time that would almost certainly have defused this quite a bit. He did interviews during those two years that focused on this issue several times. I doubt he even had to go so far as to completely recant on it, so much as just express some understanding of how his donation can be seen to have hurt real people, many of whom he now worked with and had to lead.
Well, good hope you like the outcome, because outcome will be radicalization of opinions.
After this whole fiasco, I'm actually questioning my whole thoughts on the matter. While I was pro-LGBT, I'd now definitely don't seem myself siding with this block of zealots.
I definitely understand being bullied your whole life, but then deciding that after going through all that the best way to win sympathy is to bully everyone else, that I cannot condone.
