newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail

I had been very interested in hearing the company’s side of this, but this rebuttal listed in the comment above at is really disappointing (http://reputationdoctor.com/2011/05/jersey-couture-stars-and-diane-and-co-dress-store-owners-defend-their-reputation-with-truth-vs-lies/). One – Diane & Co. initially claimed that this mother tried to get a refund “a whole week” before the accident. Now, the above facts say it was just “one day” before. Which fact is true? Two – Facts #2 & #3 are essentially the same thing. Maybe this should be retitled three important facts? Three – These “facts” are unfortunately mostly ad hominem. If you remove all of the assertions about the character flaws of the mother, there would not be much copy left. When one has to tear down another in order to stand, it implies that one’s own position lacks integrity. Four – This sounds like a bitter divorce situation, which is tragic for the child. Yet, why should we put stock into the husband’s assessment? Just because he sides with Diane & Co.? He could have as much of a vendetta against the mother as he says she has against him. His assessment of the mother’s motivation is not a “fact”. Engaging in professional mud-slinging is not going to counter any damage done to this business, even if such was undue. We each stand or fall based on our own actions. I find this attempt at restoration much more damaging than the initial actions of which they are accused. There are benefits to taking the high road, even in “PR”. I would NEVER frequent a business which approved that type of response to "doctor their reputation", even if the mother was as crazy as a jaybird. This business is hurting itself more than the girl (or her mother) ever can by their own catty responses.