Ron Lindeboom
2
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Mark Suszko] “…they forgot who actually owned the footage. He owns it, and it has value. The only real issue from a legal standpoint is how much he can get for it and from whom.”
This is an assumption that may or may not hold up in court. There are many precedents and legal barbs on which Mr. Flagler’s claims could be impaled.
Me, I think it is far from assured that he owns this footage.
I will guarantee that the Wal-Mart lawyers will be sifting through every document, contract and anything else that is related to this — documents that none of us are now privy to.
There are also many things that can be argued in the name of “trade custom and tradition” when videotaping corporate board meetings. There are also arguments and implied covenants, etc., that I believe will find a court likely unwilling to castrate a major corporation’s right to expected privacy of its board meetings, etc.
I don’t believe for a minute that this is a clear case of ownership by the one holding the camera. But the courts will decide that and when there are armies of lawyers involved, it be be a while before it all becomes crystal clear.
Best regards,
Ron Lindeboom
-
You can’t be more than about 18. Early twenties at the oldest. Right?
I say this because only a kid would think that this guy has any power whatsoever in this situation. What he really has is a guarantee of being buried under tons of legal depositions and machinations which he will have to respond to and answer one by one. It will take no effort at all to bury both him and any lawyer who takes this case on behalf of Flagler.
The case can be made as to the fact that in 30 years, Flagler never violated the trust of the client’s right to ownership of their own recordings. In many courts of law, there is both “Color of Law” and “Implied Contracts” that can and do both influence law and determine legal outcomes. I wouldn’t want to be holding the tiger by the tail that he has just unleashed.
There is also an argument that could easily be made for proving trade custom in this case. Then there are other tacts that could be used with the courts to tie this guy up in chains and handcuffs and keep him so busy that his eyes will damned near burst under the pressure and onslaught of it all. And justifiably so. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving soul in my opinion.
I am willing to state unequivocally that the one thing this guy may have thought he’d get out of it was retirement but that what he’s actually going to get out of it is absolute and total ruination on many levels. This guy will find out this this is no cakewalk on Easy Street and that this road to retirement is fraught with one landmine after another. I will be surprised as hell if he “keeps either of his feet” in it all.
Lastly, he won’t be invited to join the host team of this forum — and I know that will break his heart — but perhaps you can open a site and build a forum wherein both you and he can offer advice to the unsuspecting and unwary.
Ron Lindeboom
-
[Jim Hyde] “I really don’t think he cares about his credibility at this point and nor should he.”
Nor should he???
Wow. I am speechless at these words — almost. ;o)
In the end, all you are is your word and your reputation. It will follow or precede you everywhere and what you make of yourself, or don’t, is based on that. It is called “character” and is far more valuable a commodity in business than your talent. I have seen plenty of talented losers who can’t scratch two nickels/schillings together because their words and trustworthiness are valueless.
Talent alone won’t make you a success in business.
Ron Lindeboom
-
I have always argued against personal and direct attacks here at the COW. That’s the rule. But, as in life, there is another rule that says that for every general rule there is a great and glaring exception to that rule. Shift happens.
When I see someone blatantly state that betraying a trust is a good thing to do, I will always challenge that as I think it is a ridiculous posture to take. It will always destroy your credibility in the end and when you do it publicly to a company the size and power of Wal-Mart — and then encourage others to do it — you are giving our industry the kind of black-eye that will have far reaching repercussions.
Me, I think that is not only bad advice but idiotic advice and I don’t mind saying so.
If you disagree, please don’t ever see me about work of any kind.
Ron Lindeboom
-
[Mark Suszko] “Without putting word’s in Ron’s mouth, I would say his opinion seems to be that trust is the most important issue, that we are like a priest or doctor in that we never leak client’s dirty laundry anywhere. I think I generally agree with that, except in cases where a crime is committed and you have some duty to society to be a whistle-blower. If you get the reputation for leaking, as a gossip or a rat, however, it is pretty certain most clients that know of it won’t trust you to keep their secrets either. So as a long-term business decision it looks like a bad move to do what Flagler did.”
Being a participant in the crime for 30 years makes you more a co-conspirator than a saintly whistle-blower, does it not, Mark?
These guys aren’t doing it for the ethics. That is clearly not the issue.
To me, one of the best businesspeople that I know is Steve Crimmel who has worked with Supertramp, The Doors, Quincy Jones, Frank Sinatra, Lionel Richie, Neil Diamond, Kenny Loggins and many, many others.
While engineering sessions for these people, he has seen and witnessed many things that would drop your jaw. Did he ever tell me any of them? No. The only reason I know anything about anything is that I know his wife who was also there. She told me because we’ve known each other many years and she knows that I have also produced sessions for many artists. When I mentioned a word of any of this to Steve, he got right on the phone and asked his wife to drop the stories and never tell anyone. Good advice and a prudent request in my opinion. Out of respect for Steve, I have let the stories die with me.
I know many stories of many people in this industry that would drop your jaw. I don’t relay them.
Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” springs to mind.
Now where’s iTunes??? Ah, there it is…
Kick ’em when they’re up, kick ’em when they’re down…”
Ron Lindeboom
-
[Mark Suszko] “Most people will get caught up in the “walmartness” of it and not make the broader connections you did, IMO.”
Most people aren’t running companies. It is the ones that do that I fear will have the longest memories and will make the broader associations in this case.
But yes, life will go on; even if people’s eroding sense of ethics causes yet another layer of contractual obligation to be spelled out because many seem to no longer have any real inner-compass — and live lives where their word is meaningless and without any moral backbone.
Not justifying Wal-Mart by any stretch, just saying that I have little doubt that Flagler knew full well that these tapes were not being paid for so that they could put them up for sale.
Best,
Ron Lindeboom
-
Please use the Demo Reels forum for that purpose. This forum is not intended for this kind of discussion.
Thank you.
Also, we do not yet have the ability to allow users to upload files to our servers. We are looking into it but for now, we do not. The easiest way to do this would be to upload your file to YouTube or the like and then use their embed tag to embed the clip into our Demo Reels forum.
Ron Lindeboom
-
Thank you for seeing the bigger issue here, Don.
Ron “Who doesn’t like Wal-Mart either” Lindeboom
-
People can argue Wal-Mart’s ethics are in the toilet. Me, I don’t like the company one bit — BUT there is a far bigger issue at play here and it is an issue that is best illustrated using Flagler themself.
In the MSNBC.com feature on the issue, it is said…
Flagler says Wal-Mart has no legal power over the videos because the two sides did not sign a contract when founder Mike Flagler was hired in the 1970s to produce Wal-Mart meetings and management conferences.
Co-owner Mary Lyn Villaneuva said the business continued producing and filming such events as shareholder meetings and an annual store manager conference until it was suddenly dropped by Wal-Mart in 2006.
Wal-Mart was about 95 percent of Flagler’s business, Villaneuva said. The loss meant the company nearly collapsed. So it looked to its assets and realized that it could charge for access to its video library.
“We would like to go back to being a production company, but right now we’re getting by as an archive,” Villaneuva said.
Flagler charges $250 an hour for video research and additional fees for a DVD copy of film clips.
So, they actually WANT and THINK that people should and could take them serious after this? Wow, that’s a stretch!
I wouldn’t trust them and would question their business sense pure and simple. As to integrity? I think they have none. Your opinion may differ.
To me, this is not an issue of a company having high moral standards and releasing the tapes on ethical grounds — that, I could at least understand.
Instead…
They are releasing them (by their own admission) purely for monetary gain. And I, for one, believe that it was clearly known and understood by both parties that these tapes were not being recorded for general issue or distribution. If Flagler had ever failed to understand that point and had brought it up to Wal-Mart management once in the three decades they had the account, they’d have lost the job on the spot!
As a businessperson myself, I HIGHLY doubt that they would have had the job handed to them if the understanding were not there that these were private recordings. But that is going to be decided in the courts, I have little doubt.
And while I do not like Wal-Mart and have only to look at the adverse affect that they have had here on our own Paso Robles, California economy and downtown, I realize that even companies have to have rights. (Even if some people do not believe that they deserve them.)
By doing as they have done, Flagler has largely destroyed their chance of building a business. They were the ones who built a business with only one client. Sheesh. That is Business 101, boys and girls. Lose your one client and you are out of business.
Backstab that one client publicly — especially when that client happens to be one of the richest companies in the world — and your chances of getting clients to trust that you won’t do it to them, are zip, nil, nada, nine, nope and none.
BUT THE BIGGEST BACKLASH here is going to be seen in the days ahead as companies who have used production companies quit using them out of fear of this kind of thing happening to them.
Cheer for your own business’s demise, boys and girls, but I won’t be rallying behind Flagler or their, in my opinion, continuation of their lack of ethics.
They put themselves into this position for three decades. They were willing participants in any moral breach and excesses that some of you might argue as being Wal-Mart practices and deficiencies.
These are no saints and they are not heroes. They are the people, in my opinion, who with this one move have done more to add to the demise of an already rough and ailing corporate video marketplace.
Watch the greeting you get the next time you have to do a corporate cold call.
Then send Flagler a thank you note.
Ron Lindeboom
-
In my opinion, you are by your own admission what I consider to be every bit the contemptible opportunist that Flagler is.
If you can’t see how this is going to backfire on the already ailing corporate video profession, then I also believe that you are a blind self-centered opportunist, and someone that I hope finds no place in corporate video.
Remind me to never listen to anything you have to say.
Ron Lindeboom