#dan-amrich

"Did we change our story to clarify it was Amrich?"

Three days ago, I got an IM out of nowhere (as IMs tend to be) from a coworker at Joystiq asking me the question above. The query was in reference to a piece that I had written in the latter half of April, a piece which heavily quoted the newly hired Activision community spokesperson Dan Amrich as saying a handful of interesting things about the current situation at Modern Warfare-developer Infinity Ward. In so many words, an editor was quickly making sure that the piece we had originally published hadn't changed in any way since then* (yes, there's a way to check on the backend, but IMing someone goes a lot faster mid-conversation). For the record, I hadn't and nor had anyone else -- the piece made clear from the get-go that the statements were made by Mr. Amrich. It also made clear where he worked.

But he was asking because he had just finished reading a piece written for GamePro by freelance journalist news editor AJ Glasser, a piece titled "Analysis: Communication, confusion, and community managers", that used my aforementioned Infinity Ward/Dan Amrich post as a jumpoff point. In her piece, she alleged, "He [Dan Amrich] waded into a Facebook group to engage some gamers angry with Activision in a discussion. What happened next was a misunderstanding." In writing a piece about the changing role of community management, she had used my piece (and a piece on Develop) as prime, recent examples of when a community manager's words were unfairly taken as representative of their employer. But first!

My history with the story, the piece I wrote, and Amrich's comments

I've been personally writing up a lot of the Infinity Ward mess since it first happened, from the many recent employee vacancies (some jumping on board ex-IW founders Vince Zampella and Jason West's new digs at Respawn Entertainment) to the acquisition and dissection of various legal documents that have surfaced (and there have been many, I assure you).

So when Develop ran a piece with Amrich going into detail on Activision's countersuit, I jumped on it because I had been following the story. Further, Amrich's words went into more granular detail on a handful of statements that Activision had already made in its countersuit documents. I began combing through the thread on Facebook that Amrich had become involved in, looking to put some context to the quotes.

The forum thread was embedded in a group named "Gamers against Bobby Kotick & Activision," appropriately enough, and had been started by Amrich himself under the name "Disccusion about Activision." He kicked off the conversation with noted hesitation, printed here in full:

I have been unsure as to whether I should join this group or not, but after giving it a few weeks of thought, I think there's no more important group for me to join. I'm Dan. I used to be in the games media. I now blog for Activision. I work inside the building. I don't agree with everything the company does, yet I don't agree with a lot of the insults and criticisms the company gets either. So the only way around that is to have a discussion. So. Many of the wall posts show serious anger. I'm not interested in insults and rage, but I am interested in asking questions, maybe trying to explain why some things are the way they are. I might be able to put some of the more controversial discussions in context, or explain some things that have been misreported. So, venting rants aside...what would you like to discuss? If you can be civil, I can be civil. 

Where's the beef?

Here's the issue. In Ms. Glasser's otherwise well-written and interesting piece on the role of community managers at game development studios and publishers, she uses both my piece and Develop's as examples where people were quoted as company representatives out of turn. "Amrich's quotes were not official Activision statements," she writes, additionally pointing out "None of the sites that ran the story corrected their posts" (a "correction" of course implying that something was incorrect to begin with).

Let's break down Amrich's actions real quick:

1.) Entered a public Facebook group named "Gamers against Bobby Kotick & Activision."

2.) Engaged the group in conversation on a wide range of topics that centered on his employer, Activision.

3.) Repeatedly solicited questions from group members regarding his place of employment, many of which explicitly pertained to the situation at Infinity Ward.

4.) Answered said questions with authority.

Furthermore, at no point in the thread does Amrich claim "none of my statements represent my employer," or anything to that effect. In fact, he goes out of his way to distinguish where he's from and why he's in the thread -- to defend Activision as an Activision representative and "put some of the more controversial discussions in context, or explain some things that have been misreported." 

Glasser, by way of Amrich's subsequent personal blog post, argues in her GamePro piece that this, in fact, was not the case. Apparently, it was actually all a big misunderstanding. She argues that Amrich's statements -- made in a public forum based on dislike of the company that he works for, in a thread that he started titled "Discussion about Activision" -- are actually not representative of his company. They were "personal conjecture." Amrich, for his part, admits at least partial responsibility.

"'[It] was inevitable that the lines would be blurred,' Amrich said in an apology on his Activision blog. 'Problem is, this time, I think I helped blur them. I'll be more clear from now on when I'm speaking off the top of my head, the way I was in that conversation, and when I am referencing official info.'" 

Community mismanagement

Now, again, I like the piece she wrote. It's full of interesting insights into the changing role of community managers in our industry. Unfortunately, it's based on a factually incorrect anecdote about a relatively green community manager (Dan Amrich was a game journalist for many years, only recently switching to the production side at Activision) being "misquoted" when he was actually just offering "personal conjecture." Here's the thing: Whether Mr. Amrich likes it or not, speaking about Activision in a public forum (whether it be on Facebook or overheard by an unsuspecting bystander at his local fast-food chain) is always him speaking on behalf of the company.

If I were to get out of my mind drunk at an industry event, explaining myself by saying, "I wasn't representing Joystiq, I was drunk on my own accord" is not acceptable. I'm a representative of my company whether I like it or not, and that means that if I'm going to engage people in a public forum, I have to be willing to accept the consequences.

The real shame for me is that AJ's piece is a really great read otherwise. I just wish she hadn't dragged my piece incorrectly through the mud to write it.