Down the Toilet...

Not the best looking banner around, but expect to see this more often now....

"So what if one, two, or three companies are afraid of endorsing a REAL human, someone with flaws? Someone with opinions?There are so many companies out there... I'm ok. :) "
-- Xiaxue

Some of you may have noticed the hoo-hah over at Xiaxue's blog. It appears that several individuals have started a campaign to get companies to pull their endorsements, and to say Wendy isn't happy is an understatement. She's just lost Voxy, and is terribly upset about what she sees as a smear campaign against her by people with personal agendas.

"I don't blame Voxy, because as Turodrique told me, in this politically correct world, no company will ever want to be seen as being politically incorrect. (With the exception of Guess endorsing Paris Hilton perhaps; sex tapes and all) "

First of all, with regards to Paris Hilton, being the heiress of an hotelier empire (and a better looking one) has its perks. But I digress.... *grin*

Ok, for the benefit of all, I'll make this simple:

ADVERSTING = USING YOUR WEB SPACE TO REACH OUT TO TARGET AUDIENCE

ENDORSEMENT = USING YOUR PUBLIC IMAGE TO REACH OUT TO TARGET AUDIENCE

Companies want Wendy to endorse their products because of her blogging fame; she's their spokesperson, so to speak. They don't care much about what she writes but only about her image in public, and if that takes a battering, these companies will want out. It's that simple.

Wendy still doesn't believe that her being politically incorrect (not once, but a zillion times) has gotten her into a fix. She blames it on her critics for trying to bring her down out of malice and JEALOUSY.

"I blame, however, the malicious people who have been bombarding my companies for a personal grudge you might have against me.

There can be only two motives why people would write to my endorsers:

1) They sincerely care for the company.
2) They want to attack my income, and subsequently, me.

Anyone votes for option one? I doubt it. "


I'd prefer option 3: "They feel that I'm abusing my privilege as an agenda-setter and want to set things straight".

It's a worrying sign when the young are so preoccupied with self-worshipping on the net; it's even more troubling when they are rewarded for it. I can't speak for the others, but for me, I certainly think it's not right for companies--run by educated adults who should know better--to get these wayward individuals to be their spokesperson. I mean, endorsements work both ways in this case--by offering Wendy endorsements, these companies are effectively condoning her bad social behaviour, making her think what she's doing is fine.

I also feel that the general public has every right to criticse when someone in the public's eye has disgraced the company/organisation he or she represents. It was public opinion that led to Mrs. Goh stepping down as NKF patron, following her now-infamous "$600000 a year is peanuts" remark; why should Wendy think she's above public scrutiny when even someone like Mrs.Goh isn't?

Because she feels she's got more integrity than others?

"I will never compromise my editorial integrity for commercial deals.
I AM WHO I AM, SO TAKE ME AS I AM.
I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU DON'T, BECAUSE NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO READ ME. "

Then why harp on commercialising her blog? She'd be better off having a real job and blogging freely whenever she feels like it (that is, if she can refrain from blogging about her company as well....)

And while we're on "editorial integrity", thought I point out something Wendy wrote a while back--some incident involving her, a photo website, and the Today newspaper.

When Wendy was 19, she was supposedly approached by a businessman who wanted to feature her on his photo website. Wendy agreed to it after she was promised "photoshop rights" and $300. She was a poly intern with Today newspaper then, and so she approached her editor to do a story on websites like these:

"Because there are other websites also like his, and because these other websites were not trying to be less sleazy, I actually wanted to interview him and put him in a neutral light, whilst the other websites, of course, in the bad light they deserved to be put in."

Wendy insists that she was sincere about doing the story. But then, things began to fall apart. First, Wendy finds out that the guy was ripping her off and wanted out. The guy said he'd sue her, so she countered by threatening to write an unflattering article about his business--something which she regretted:

"THAT WAS SO FUCKING STUPID OF ME. Yes, I KNOW! Editorial integrity should never be compromised, and even if it is, you NEVER, as a reporter, SAY IT OUT LOUD. Ever."

Editorial integrity is something that should never be compromised--whether you say it out loud or otherwise. In any case, Wendy got an earful from the assistant-editor for dragging the paper into her personal mess, and the whole thing was eventually settled with an apology (which Wendy found humiliating). She still thinks she didn't do any wrong by playing hardball:

"I wasn't blackmailing him, I was just informing him about the FACTS that I was going to write on my article have changed. And certainly, threatening to contact my school, and also write to ST about this whole story, IS blackmail.)"

By one's mere association to a party that you're writing about, you can easily be accused of having "vested interest"; whether it's true or not is irrelevant.

If I'm an editor and a Democrat, and I write a stinging editorial blasting George Bush's policies, have I compromised my integrity? I may have put forth a most-convincing argument, but my political leanings immediate put me in an untenable position. Or let's say I'm a reporter and I heap praise on a particular company which I share an undisclosed relationship with--won't I get accused of editorial bias?

What the guy reportedly did was unscrupulous (you'd expect that from someone who runs a "sleazy website" for profit). Wendy might've been naïve then to think that she wasn't compromising her professional role as a journalist (even if she's an intern), but three years after that incident, she should at least be wiser for it.

Talk of integrity? As an agenda-setter and owner of a blog read by many young people out there, she needs to show "moral integrity" by not encouraging wayward behaviour. As a blogger supposedly making a living out of her blog, she needs to show "journalistic and editorial integrity" by not dragging her personal vendettas into the public's eye. As a spokesperson for the brands she endorses, she needs to show "professional integrity" by being mindful of the things she says so as not to harm their image.

Saying things like "So what if one, two, or three companies are afraid of endorsing a REAL human, someone with flaws? Someone with opinions? There are so many companies out there... I'm ok. :)" is terribly childish.

Wendy should just stop using "editorial integrity" to defend herself because she's shown very little of it until now.

"Whilst I might have stood up and proclaimed that I think there is nothing wrong with using a handicapped toilet when there is no handicapped person around (and I still stand on that opinion; more about it later), keep in mind:

I am also an ambassador for non-smoking in Singapore.
I love Singapore, and I am strongly against drugs.
I have influenced innumerous teens/females to learn to stand up for themselves.
I have inspired many to start blogging and opening themselves to the world bravely.

Many tell me thank you, daily, for being the voice they never had...

AND ETC. "

It doesn't matter if she's an ambassador for the non-smoking campaign in Singapore or she's against drugs. Most people are against these things anyway. It matters little if she's taught teens/females to stand up for themselves--the media has been championing their cause for a long time. It's pointless to say she have inspired others to blog when besides "vanity" blogs (and blogs like this one which exists due of a lack of free speech on her end) I can't really see how she has contributed to the net community in general.

And as for being the "voice they never had", I'm sure she has enough critics out there to qualify her as the "voice they never wanted" too. Would be interesting to know how many of her devoted fans are responsible adults rather than youngsters who deserve a better role model to guide and inspire them.

"And who is to gauge where morality lies? Despite all the good I do or represent, is one opinion I have, enough to say I am a bad influence, overall? "

Let me give you a scenario, a fictional example--IF you receive this letter:

"Dear Wendy, My daughter is an invalid. She is 21, like you, and she has been reading your blog since 2 years ago. However, recently, she has begun to slip into depression. She begin to cry every night, and when I ask her why, she says it is because the very blogger whom she looks up to has written something nasty about invalids like herself.

Reading your blog has depressed her, because while you say you're critical of only two individuals, my daughter still can't help but feel hurt too because she can relate to their plight...."

How would Wendy respond to this? Not another teary podcast, I hope.

I can give you countless other examples too: how about an angry parent whose little girl has just been suspended by her school for taking Wendy's advice--that is, to write nasty things about her teachers and principal on the net? She followed Wendy's instructions--setting up an anonymous blog and then act innocent when her teachers confront her. Problem is, she didn't realise that her friends weren't good at keeping secrets....

So, how is Wendy going to respond to that? Act as though nothing happened? Insist she's done no wrong and that it was the girl's fault for having friends with loose lips?

We're all familiar with the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back". Wendy's problem with others (and vice versa) didn't start with "Toiletgate"--it started long ago, with her controversial entries, her condescending attitude towards people, and of course, her over-the-top ego trips.

"Teens who are free to read my blog possibly also can surf porn - why not go campaign against those websites? Surely beastiality is a worse influence than Xiaxue?!] "

Because porn doesn't have a face; Wendy does. Why do you think organisations have famous faces campaigning against all sorts of social ills like poverty, anti-racisim etc. Wendy, as an ambassador herself, should know how important it is to uphold her public image. The fact that she doesn't is an insult to the people who picked her.

"I come from a single-parent family, and money is something not easy to come by for us. My mom works very hard, and my brother is only 12. He doesn't have his own room, and I want to move to a bigger house so that he can get himself a room of his own.

I am not asking for sympathy, shove it up your smelly ass if you have any - I don't need it. I am just wondering how come people can derive happiness from others' misery. How much lower can the human race go, I sometimes wonder.

Thinking, perhaps, that you have taught me a moral lesson? "Be more careful with your words next time Xiaxue"?
FUCK YOU. "

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but given her financial situation, I do wonder how she can consider "blogging" as her first job when people out there are hunting high and low for security and a stable income.

Sheer entrepreneurship, naivety, or just plain laziness? Only she knows.

"Will making me not have food to eat make you any happier?"

Well, Wendy can always eat brioche if she can't afford bread.... No, just kidding. *grin*

Someone who can afford a life of clubbing and shopping shouldn't be worrying about something as trivial as this, no? My advice to Wendy? Get a real job, and oh, try not to get too infamous--wouldn't want to scare off your future employers, would you? =)

So what can Wendy do about endorsements going down the toilet? This is clearly a no-win situation for her. If she sticks to her guns, she's likely to lose future endorsements; if she changes, her "brat" appeal will go and she'll lose her audience. It's that "brat image" she builds around herself that sells her (and sadly, her blog's only selling point). But that's a double-edge sword to companies that have to worry about their public image as well. Should be interesting to see how this develops.

Wendy asked her readers to remember her name, 'cos she thinks she'll be a case study in the future. Never mind the future, she's fast becoming a case study now, but for all the wrong reasons.


Nb: Wendy wrote later: "Voxy wants to clarify that our endorsement (as is Kimage) was for 3 months and not a year... "

Oh well, they had the option of extending it if they wanted to, I sure. =)