One Mistake: The Fall of Mediabridge
As for the claims that the company pays for favorable reviews, Mr. Smith states that Mediabridge has never directly or indirectly paid for a review at Amazon or anywhere else, and that the company does not offer customers free products in exchange for a review, favorable or otherwise.
This last statement, however, seemed to contradict a separate Amazon review for the router in question from a reviewer named Robert E. Croyle. In Mr. Croyle’s review, dated December 13, 2012, he claims that Mediabridge provided the router for free in exchange for a review, and quotes an email alleged to have been sent by Jarrod Coburn, a Mediabridge employee:
To start i received this router FREE from Mediabridge products and all i was asked was to test it and write a review on Amazon. Jarrod Coburn from the company who i believe is the main tech guy there sent me the following email:
Hello,
I am sending this email to a select few customers that had purchased our 150N router in the past. We now have a new 300N version of the router with some new features. I would like to have a sample sent to you free of charge. All I ask is that you post a review of your experience on Amazon. The review does not have to be extremely technical but the more information the better.
Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Croyle had purchased the company’s previous generation wireless router but was unsatisfied with its performance. When the new version of the Mediabridge router was introduced, the company did indeed send him a unit for free, to compensate for his poor experience the first time around, but Mr. Smith argues that such an action shouldn’t fall under the same umbrella as other “free product on condition of review” promotions.
From Mediabridge’s perspective, first, Mr. Croyle had already made a purchase with the company, and now the company was trying to repair its relationship with the customer, and second, while they asked for a review, Mr. Croyle’s receipt of the router wasn’t conditioned upon him writing one. Providing free products in exchange for a review is not a violation of Amazon’s policies, provided the reviewer explicitly states the existence of the arrangement in the review. There are no other examples that we could find of a reviewer claiming or implying that they received a free router from Mediabridge, although the content of the alleged email from Jarrod Coburn does leave some clouds of doubt over Mr. Smith’s assertions.
Sticks and Stones
A key element of defamation is harm. A defendant can say all manner of horrible and untrue things about a plaintiff, but the plaintiff can’t prevail unless it can also prove that those statements in some way harmed it.
Following TD’s post on reddit, the community’s response was swift and brutal. Mediabridge product listings on Amazon were quickly flooded with negative reviews, some humorous, some objectively vile, and all devastating to the ratings of the company’s products. In addition, the company’s Facebook and Twitter profiles (both since taken down) were littered with angry messages and complaints, and the company’s corporate email and telephone lines received a flurry of offensive comments that left some staffers in tears, Mr. Smith tells us.
This response certainly harmed Mediabridge’s reputation, but it all occurred after the fact and as an indirect result of TD’s original statements. Was there also measurable harm from the original review itself, before it all went viral? Mr. Smith claims that there was.
Continued on page 3
Ten Great iOS Apps for Toddlers
Read Next
16 thoughts on “One Mistake: The Fall of Mediabridge”
Followed all of this conversation back when it happened, but all I can say is that no matter if it was re-branded, modified, or original design, it has worked well for all these years.
Amazon has no legal responsibility for the veracity of its customer reviews as per section 203 of the communications decency act.
My gut tells me Mediabridge may have been a bit overzealous in dealing with “TD” but legally and ethically correct in their position. From TekRevue’s article I don’t think “TD” had proper evidence to support his allegations.
I am quite satisfied with the quality and price of the Mediabridge product I received and will continue to do business with them until I am convinced otherwise. Let the lemmings race to the sea. I will sit in the shade and watch while my subwoofer thumps away.
There are tons of 3rd party sellers on Amazon. Let Mediabridge create its own 3rd party seller and move on. This story is getting old. Though it is a warning to any seller on Amazon that Amazon values its customers and if a review violates policy, simply seek Amazon’s help to remove the review.
The real take away from this situation should be that Mediabridge responded with a hugely disproportionate legal threat with what seem like utterly unconscionable demands under threat of imminent legal action. That is what generated the back lash. Not that media bridge thought TD was wrong. Not that Mediabridge challenged the validity of TD’s claims. It was the Goliath on steroids legal demand letter that outraged people, causing them to take up figurative arms against the aggressor. Had Mediabridge merely responded, as they have done to many reviews in the comments section, with the real reasons why they have so many positive reviews and with the real facts of how the Mediabridge routers are electrically identical to Tenda routers, but modified with improvements to the firmware and memory then they would have looked good. Instead, they went for a thuggish, censorious legal smackdown.
Media bridge defended its actions in a way that appears to me to be deliberately misleading based on their narrow slicing of terms. They touted that they never sued TD – true, but that is almost a distinction without a difference given that their demand letter wrote of “coming litigation,” which could only be avoided by the utter capitulation by TD to Media bridge by agreeing deleting his review, and to never buy or comment about any Mediabridge product, ever. Secondly, Mediabridge made much of claiming that TD’s accusation that the Mediabridge product was identical to the Tenda was false. Yet Mediabridge admits that the routers are identical electrically. So, while they may be different in firmware and memory, acting outraged over the claim that the routers were identical was, IMO, deliberately misleading given that, AFIK, they didn’t bother to mention that the routers were, in fact, electrically identical in their threat letter, or in their denials to the media, only later admitting it when faced with proof in the form of FCC letters, while still maintaining that the word “identical” was defamatory.
TD may have been wrong in his conclusion about reviews being fake or he may be right. I don’t know. However many media outlets and commentators have been too quick to claim TD is wrong. He well may be, but to actually be sure he’s wrong is a different matter entirely. I’m pretty sure there is no public proof that all the 5 star reviews were legit, and here is why: We certainly know a lot of the subsequent 1 star reviews are “fake”, so we know that fake reviews are a real thing, and easy for anyone to post. Proving that not a single one the 5 star reviews are fake would require investigating each and every one of the 5 star reviews, interviewing the reviewer’s, perhaps even depositions of all 1500 of them, and perhaps even subpenaing Mediabridge’s computers and emails. I don’t claim any of the reviews were fake, but I can say that proving a negative is very hard, so media outlets can only legitimately say that TD’s allegations are unproven, they cannot know they are actually false since that would require proving a negative for all of the individual 5 star reviews..
In the end I’d say one side was clearly in the wrong, and, IMO, attempting to be misleading its responses about whether they filed suit or just promised to do so, and whether the the routers were electrically identical or completely identical.
The above post is my strictly opinion based on the published accounts I’ve read on the internet.
If Mediabridge has this attitude with their Amazon contract, what chance does the customer have?
They can whine and make excuses all day long but they violated their Amazon contact.
2) MediaBridge could have addressed concerns on their Amazon page, not resorting to threatening letter from lawyer. I’ve seen many other companies respond to unsatisfactory reviews on Amazon through the reply function. It works. They could even detail their so-called “improvement”s in a FAQ in the description section. They went nuclear and they are suffering radiation poisoning from the fallout and it is their own fault.
3) From the tone of YOUR article you are also very scared of their lawyers. ;) I wouldn’t have been as kind. But thank you for the thorough investigation.
Although the conclusion of our article was that they were ultimately responsible for their own actions and consequences, I do find it interesting that many are upset that we haven’t vilified the entire company completely. It’s to the point where *we* have started receiving hate emails, with one particularly clever fellow suggesting that this entire site was set up by “Mr. Smith” as part of a campaign to clear his name, and others demanding to know how much we were paid to promote the company. That check must have been lost in the mail…
Full disclosure: I’ve bought this router and cables from Mediabridge, and I’ve been happy with the purchases.
That said:
1) Buyer outright posted a bogus review with nothing to back it up (even if the router is the same as Tenda, the fact of the matter is he claimed the reviews were bought.) He didn’t actually even review the router itself.
2) Reddit, home of “People who lie on Restaurant Reviews” and “People who Figured Out Who the Marathon Bomber is” started posting bad reviews… on the TENDA Router! 52 1-star reviews were left on the Tenda Router because of the reddit mob mentality.
3) Seller overreacted. You have the #3 selling router on Amazon and this guy’s review has been up since September.
I’m sad to see this happen to a local company but there had to be a better way. Doesn’t Amazon offer ANY mediation for this in cases of outright libel?
The fact of the matter is this, thinking from a logistical standpoint: Mediabridge had one of the top-selling routers on Amazon. If Mediabridge threatened so many other people who gave 1-star reviews or bullied them, they would be crawling out of the woodwork to get a taste of the action. They’re not. This feels like an isolated incident specifically because there were libelous statements that the company was trying to defend itself from, especially since the review was listed as “Most Helpful”.
Put it to you this way: Let’s say someone posted a a review that a toaster could give you the flu. A preposterous statement, I know, but stay with me.
So this preposterous statement with no evidence to back it up is listed as the most helpful review on Amazon and it hurts their toaster business.
Is there recourse with Amazon? If not, what can you do? It’s not someone is WRONG on the internet, someone is flat out LYING on the internet and hurting your livelihood.
And if the routers were crappy, there would have been a lot more legitimate 1-star reviews. There aren’t. Even the Tenda product that this was being compared to had about 3.5 stars on Amazon with a majority of the complaints being bad customer service. Then Reddit came in and mistakenly trashed their product with bogus reviews (see 52 bad reviews all dated 5/6/14) so if I was Tenda, I would be pretty pissed off right now.
I think Mediabridge reacted badly but I wanted to see what kind of mediation Amazon offers to reviews like this. If there’s no recourse, I would have gotten a better lawyer and planned this out very carefully. I would have even had the lawyer discuss with Amazon first about the review. If Mediabridge had nothing to hide regarding their reviews they could have negotiated with Amazon first.
Long story short: There are no winners here. The redditor and his initial review were in the wrong. Period. He posted potentially libelous statements with nothing to back it up and it harmed Mediabridge’s business. Mediabridge went about this the wrong way, but they are a small business up against an jerk on the internet and Jeff freaking Bezos.
As for the 2009 “warning”, it was not a warning, it was an accusation. Someone claimed he submitted documentation to Amazon and then posted about it. You can find the initial thread if you google mediabridge HDMI reviews fake.
Now Mediabridge went about this the wrong way they sent a threatening letter to the buyer using using information from the sale to threaten him into removing the comment, now this was a big no no and I think a lot of people attacked Mediabridge because of this and not so much because of the comments written. Nobody likes to see another person get bullied by a corporation and the reddit users took it a bit too far. Amazon on the other hand had every right to ban Mediabridge since in it’s terms of service they specifically state that a seller cannot ask a buyer to remove negative feedback, had they contacted Amazon and let them know the situation and then reached out to the buyer through Amazon there may have been a better solution to this but they took it to all out war and the buyer responded and an army attacked Mediabridge. I really don’t think Amazon took it that lightly removing them as a seller since if the router was that popular then Amazon would lose sales in the process as well so they must have had a good reason for this.
As much I would like to sit here and say the buyer is a bad guy for what he did essentially speaking he stated his opinion the seller threatened him and got what they deserved, did they both commit a wrong in this? Yes, but the seller ultimately should have dealt with this in a better manner than sending a cease and desist letter. Amazon acted in the best manner for them since they don’t want people to feel like they can’t post honest reviews on their site ultimately they still want to protect their reputation as well. Now, I saw the comments Mediabridge made on Facebook and I have to say that I was less than pleased with how they worded that message, they seem to take this at a wrong turn no matter what they do and ultimately the backlash is more from their actions than the actual review written.
However: the 2009 thing was not a review on a product page, it was one person who was raising a fuss in Amazon’s forums and claimed he sent proof to Amazon. Nothing came of it that we know of. You couldn’t find this thread unless you knew how to look for it. The person who got the letter had the Most Helpful review on one of their best selling products with a high profit margin. There’s the difference.
someone is WRONG on the internet, someone is flat out LYING on the
internet and hurting your livelihood.”
I think it is worth addressing this – the original reviewer was making unsubstantiated claims. This does not necessarily mean he was lying. He stated that it was a re-branded Tenda router. This seems true to me based on the FCC id of the MWN-WAPR300N. Mediabridge can add their own control panel and increase the memory/storage space on the router all they want, it is still the same wireless hardware, most likely running on the same operating system with the same drivers. He stated, probably in stronger language than he should have, that Mediabridge was buying Amazon reviews. I don’t claim to know what is going on there, but it is difficult for me to believe that a seller of arguably mediocre routers has the highest electronics seller rating on Amazon without some kind of extenuating circumstances.
I know from firsthand experience, the Mediabridge routers are essentially non-functional. Like many others, I had the unfortunate pleasure of discovering this fifty bucks later. Unless you purchased your router a few days ago and it’s still alive (I’d give it a week or two TOPS), I’m SHOCKED that you are happy with your purchases, Matt F. Unless you’re an employee. Nice job trying to discredit Reddit (you are FULL of logical fallacies). Regardless, that’s not going to back up your argument (believing so would be another logical fallacy).
Also your third point is a lame attempt to distract the audience. You don’t sound any less biased.
You were saying something about a logical fallacy?
As an aside, I believe if we are going to treat Internet communications fairly, they must be held to same level of high standards that printed communications are. If you are going to slander someone in today’s world, it is just as harmful in digital form as it is on paper.
Being a lemming is NEVER “righteous”, it’s acting without thinking, by definition.
But I have never seen any situation improved by a “sue/shoot first” approach, whether is one of the mafiAA’s (RIAA, MPAA) or some small mail-order house that no one had ever heard of… until, that is, they make a similar bone-headed move of going from 1 to 11 in a blink, and soon learn what the term “Streisand Effect” means. It was an honest mistake in the 90’s, a slightly silly one in the First Decade, but now that the Web is of drinking age it’s simply inexcusable. Whatever a law suit costs, how much could they have saved in aggravation (not to mention real world MONEY) by reaching out to the customer and finding a way to make good? Even if the end result was the same, the company could have saved face by showing the reviewer was a troll that could never have been satisfied with any offer to make good on whatever shortcomings, real or perceived, that the reviewer had of their product.
In other words, don’t shoot unless they have a real gun pointed at you… not a bag of Skittles™.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32272-medialink-mwn-wapr300n-wireless-n-broadband-router-300-mbps-reviewed
I wish I could have coaxed more out of the Mediabridge spokesperson on this. Without putting words in his mouth, I would imagine that if the SmallNetBuilder report is accurate, that the company’s position is that their unique software/setup/utilities makes the Medialink router a “separate product,” whereas many consumers might think of “rebrand” as just a different exterior label.
It’s a shame because this was truly an insignificant point in all of this, but the denial on this point, especially without further explanation, casts shadows of doubt over the whole situation.
Thanks for noticing that omission, Jason!