Interesting, David, a very interesting view. I googled your David & Goliath 
tale, but to no avail. Search led me to 
your blog, and although I didn't find the Sotheby story, I liked what I 
read enough to plan on going back to read your blog more thoroughly. 

So thank you for taking the time to write an account of these events. I tend to 
be a lurker -- mainly because I have so little time to construct email 
responses -- so this makes me fully appreciate the time it takes to write a 
detailed account, as you did. Again, thank you.




________________________________
 From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 

 
Geraldine - 

* My fight against FedEx and Sotheby's did not result in published news stories 
and is not searchable on the Internet.  I used very detailed, semi-proprietary 
lists of contacts I have with national and international editors, with their 
phone numbers and e-mails whited out - to demonstrate my knowledge of media 
relations and how I would go about positioning my cases as semi-"class action" 
grievances - to make them relevant to consumers.  This method prevented my 
complaints from being positioned by FedEx and Sotheby's as an "isolated case 
involving a disgruntled customer" - thus making them more newsworthy to greedy 
editors.  My controlled and measured responses resulted in their finally being 
shot up to the executive ladder where settlements were reached.  In the case of 
FedEx, it refused to pay a claim for "hidden damage" of a water color painting 
I bought when I
 was in Brugge, Belgium - that I had shipped to the U.S.  In the case of 
Sotheby's, I would not accept a "refund" as its proposed "remedy" for my 
purchase of a "Hard Day's Night" BQ poster I bought in L.A. that I later 
discovered was a repro.  I have no second thoughts about my actions in those 
cases because I was incensed by the involvement of lawyers - because I have 
routinely tangled with a corporation's hardball threats through lawyers when I 
was a writer/reporter/consumer activist in the news biz.  (I've never had a 
case against me brought to court, ever - despite countless threats over 30 
years, because I know the differences between libel/defamation/slander laws in 
the U.S. vs. in other countries.)  

* However, there have been other instances where my actions resulted in 
published stories, the most notable being my complaints against Christie's 
London in December 2003 and the "claimed" destruction - by a consignor - of a 
rare six-sheet from "The Outlaw" - an action designed to preserve Christie's 
marketing claim of auctioning the only copy of this title in this format in the 
world.  



* My angle was to assail the purposeful destruction of art (as noted in a 
statement issued by Christie's) - to boost perceived rarity - while expressing 
scepticism of the claim that the consignor's "extra copy" was destroyed.  My 
actions resulted in stories published in many publications, including the 
London Evening Standard, the London Daily Telegraph, the Antiques Trade Gazette 
and the San Francisco Chronicle, the latter being the news organization closest 
to the consignor's residence.  In subsequent years, the hobby learned the 
claimed "destruction" of extra copies of "The Outlaw" six-sheets was an 
outright lie - as the same consignor - through intermediaries - brought more 
copies he had in storage to the auction block.  All of this happened during my 
years as a writer and consumer activist specific to the poster hobby and the 
practices of auction houses worldwide.  I ended such campaigns when I decided 
to get out of the hobby and re-think my
 priorities after the wildfires swept through our area in 2003 and 2007.

* In relation to your complaints, in my view, the media would NOT be interested 
in your tale unless you were able to prove a large loss and/or a pattern of 
errors from Heritage similar to yours.  If I were in your shoes, I would take 
another stab at trying to work things out with Heritage's customer relations 
and P.R. departments - so you can put this incident behind you in a less 
combative way, regardless of your consignment intentions in the future.  In my 
experience, dealing direct with P.R. and customer relations personnel is almost 
always more effective than dealing with lawyers.  Within corporations, there is 
constant friction between legal and P.R. departments - and I strongly feel 
consumers can get more things done when dealing with such people because they 
are paid to be responsive to complaints to protect a company's image.  Dealing 
with in-house lawyers who love to battle consumers with threats of court action 
get you nowhere and only
 makes consumers angrier.  Again, bad P.R. is generally way more damaging to a 
company than a lawsuit - unless that lawsuit is brought by a consumer as a 
class-action complaint.

David



________________________________
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 07:29:40 -0700
From: gkud...@rocketmail.com
Subject: Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com>
To: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 

Very interesting. I'll have to google your name to see what this David vs. 
Goliath case against Sotheby's was.


I had intended to post to the whole group initially and did not realize I had 
merely replied to Bruce. But the time gap was accidentally fortuitous. 


Between my initial response to Bruce privately and my group posting, I retained 
legal counsel. 

The cost of consigning my posters with Heritage has gone up.

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com>
To: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 

Thank you David. I had not intended this issue to become a newsworthy story 
on par with the tylenol poisonings or The Komen/Planned Parenthood 
issue. I would find it amusing if it did... it would indicate not much 
is going on in the world... really, little conflicts within niche groups do not 
make it to to the big screen. 


Rather than an attack on Heritage, my intention is to warn newbie sellers not 
to be tempted by the big $$$ signs some auction houses offer. If the 
cost to collect your money ends up being a lot of hassle, or having to 
prove you did send in X,Y & Z, is it really worth it? 


If you sell, as the sellers at the West Berkshire auction did, can you collect 
your money?  



________________________________
 Fom: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 

 
* That's true.  If Geraldine posts again, we'll know more.  But even if we 
presume her e-mail program has a predictive text function - there's a big jump 
between the "B" in Bruce and the "M" in MoPo List.  Her note to the group seems 
- on the surface at least - intentional to me.  One other thing I forgot to 
mention.  Having once worked at a Fortune 500 company, I know the following as 
FACTS.  Big corporations are rarely fearful of litigation.  That's what their 
lawyers are for.  One strategy is to drain a plaintiff's or a defendant's pool 
of funds covering legal fees.  And once the lawyers are involved, they almost 
ALWAYS counsel NO response to further public attacks, e.g., putting up a stone 
wall of silence to preserve their positions in potential litigation.  

* However, these same corporations are almost ALWAYS WAY MORE FEARFUL of bad 
press.  They can't control the press - and the bad stories ultimately reaches 
stakeholders/customers whose reactions - can have an adverse effect on a 
corporation's revenues and industry reputation.  Public opinion, not fear of 
lawsuits, are responsible for the "180s" we see in the most prominent case 
histories, e.g., Bank of America and the Komen Foundation.  BTW, this is the 
way environmental groups, for example, operate.  Lacking budgetary resources to 
fight lawsuits, they are very creative in their efforts to garner media 
attention, feeding into the conflict-driven agendas of newsrooms.  When I was a 
reporter, I was always told to "test the demonstrators" by seeing if they 
marched and shouted ONLY when the media was present.  If they stopped when the 
cameras left, it was a stunt.  I was told to report the "demonstration" - but 
to report it accurately as being staged
 for media consumption.  PETA operates on a similar principle, but its 
over-the-top actions, while GUARANTEEING coverage, results in an extremely 
divided view of that group's reputation.  Heritage is a large company that has 
been down the road of adverse (and positive) press before.  The risk is losing 
control of a dispute whereby third parties (the media) - can sway public 
opinion in an adverse way that disrupts operations.  

* When I took on FedEx and Sotheby's during the 1990s, it was the controlled, 
managed use of potentially adverse press relations that resulted in resolving 
my disputes with them.  The lawyers came out with their knives intending to 
bleed my bank accounts dry.  But knowing how to spin "David vs. Goliath" 
stories in a way that reflects a trend of errors affecting others like me - 
"spreads the number of potential victims" out so that my woes served as a 
"poster child" or a "proxy" - or a "tip of the iceberg illustration" - of 
greater problems impacting consumers.  This forces the responsibility out of 
the hands of lawyers and goes all the way up the executive ladder.  For most 
big companies facing potentially bad press, it isn't worth battling in public 
if small change is involved.  If they're smart, they settle quietly and the 
problem goes away quickly.  But once it hits the press, it's impossible to reel 
everything back in and it becomes a
 nightmare.  I've made my living working both sides of the fence and it's an 
ugly business.  I am so glad that my experience in the news media has equipped 
me well enough to battle - or to "re-direct" reporters when my clients are 
attacked, whether they are corporations or a little guy trying to influence 
public opinion.  In sum, I'm not Heritage, but if I was handling its P.R., I 
would do everything in my power to make this problem go away - or to keep it 
confined within the borders of a small group.  It's not worth fighting a 
volatile situation that can be solved - that risks turning into an issue that 
becomes "everybody's problem," including present and prospective consumers who 
would not otherwise care absent third party involvement.  -d.



________________________________
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:25:18 -0500
From: brucehershen...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU

David is certainly correct, but there is still the possibility that she did not 
mean to post it to the list. Perhaps she thought of something she had forgotten 
two
 days earlier and planned to send me
 that info, but instead accidentally forwarded it to the list.

We will only know if and when she chooses to post again.

As for getting a response, I suspect this is what we will find:

Bruce


On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:19 PM, David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:


>
My goodness, of course it was meant for the entire list.  Just look at the time 
stamps.  There's a two-day spread between the original note "Geraldine Kudaka" 
sent to Bruce - and when the note was FORWARDED to the entire MoPo group from 
Geraldine herself.  She is obviously a MoPo member.  There is no other way an 
e-mail like that could be posted to the group without first enrolling as a 
member.  Unfairly or not, I interpreted the note as an attack on Heritage, an 
attempt to force a public or private response from group members - or from Grey 
himself.  In PR and news, there's a rule we follow:  In the business world, 
there is no such thing as a true "surprise."  Most disputes broil beneath the 
surface for weeks or months - before they finally explode into the public eye.  
They are usually the penultimate step before the "course of last resort," e.g., 
taking grievances to the media for widespread dissemination to audiences 
outside the core group
 most interested in the outcome.  It is at that point that a client is at risk 
losing control of a story and is forever put on defense until a counterattack 
or well-understood response is mapped out and executed.  Successful response 
case histories:  Tylenol poisonings, beef percentages questioned in Taco Bell 
products, antenna issues with the iPhone.  Unsuccessful or "too late" response 
case histories:  Pink slime, Bank of America's $5 debit fee proposal, and the 
Komen Foundation's "180" with Planned Parenthood. -d.



________________________________
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:44:25 -0400
From: pcontar...@triad.rr.com
Subject: Re: Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 

 
Was wondering that myself.
 
Peter 
 

From:MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of lovenoir2
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:00 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 

An interesting read. 

Was this meant to go to the entire MOPO list?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com>
To: Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 
Your favorite auction house, Bruce -- Heritage. 
 
My husband, Charley, was a Hollywood executive. When we first did a Heritage 
consignment through Rudy Franchi, everything went fine. So fine, we sent a 2nd 
batch using my UPS account & return label which had my name on it. I use my 
maiden name, so I guess Heritage thought it was a cold submission from nobody. 
 
Thought we'd hear from them -- nada. We are pretty busy here and knew from our 
first consignment that Heritage plans their auction schedule months in advance. 
When I finally called Heritage to see when the posters were going to be 
auctioned. Carter told they had received the posters, and wanted to know if we 
wanted to put them in the weekly auction as there was nothing of value in the 
lot. I said, "What? What about the Get Carter and Lennon posters? Or the 
Fillmore posters?" Heritage claimed they had not received these posters in the 
lot we sent. 
 
I had mentioned this event on this newsgroup before. You responded with a 
derogatory comment about Rudy,  then Grey threatened us with lawyers and I 
posted a comment here batting for Rudy.  
 
At that time this was going on, I did not want to deal with Heritage because we 
were building a house and had a high weekly payroll to meet. The headache of 
dealing with this Heritage problem was small potatoes compared to being the 
General Contractor on a house. 
 
After Grey threatened me with lawyers and I batted for Rudy,  Rudy contacted 
me. He had spoken with Grey and the upshot was we were offered a deal for 
future submissions..
 
That was months ago. 
 
I've come to the conclusion I don't want to do future business with Heritage. 
It's one thing to have a consignment set up by Rudy for my husband, Charley 
Lippincott, who had hired John Van Hammersveld to do the Get Carter poster and 
has the largest, most complete collection of John's work -- even more than John 
--  and another thing when little wifey using her UPS business account sends 
the 2nd consignment batch. As nobody me, if posters disappeared from my lot, 
who is to say that this doesn't happen to other people? On principle, I don't 
want to do business with Heritage.
 
Life is too short, Charley's collection too huge, and it's just not worth my 
time.    
 
If Grey wants to have his lawyers come after me, fine.   
 

________________________________

From:Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com>
To: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 
Which auction was it?
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> 
wrote:
I sent things to a US auction house who, 6 months later, claimed they never got 
the high value posters.... and threatened me with a lawyer.
 

________________________________

From:Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:45 PM
Subject: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
 
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/west-berkshire-auction-house-cameo-refutes-customers-payment-claims
Customers claim West Berkshire auction house owes them cash 

Bruce Hershenson and the other 24 members of the eMoviePoster.com team
P.O. Box 874
West Plains, MO 65775
Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when we take 
lunch)
our site
our auctions


Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

         Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
   ___________________________________________________________________
              How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
                                    
       Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
            In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
                                    
    The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

Reply via email to