Organic Bouquet's Robert McLaughlin: Not So CEO-Like

If someone representing a company you were in charge of had genuinely cyber-harassed and threatened a vocally disgruntled customer, wouldn't you be all over the situation? Wouldn't you want to act quickly to narrow down the number of people you supplied photos to -- the ones the individual described while cyber-harassing the customer? Wouldn't you want to work with law enforcement to get the harasser's IP address from the web site where the illegal comments were made? Since your company would be legally responsible for the threats made on your company's behalf, wouldn't you want to ensure the customer you were doing all you could to sever any and all ties with that individual?

Not Organic Bouquet CEO Robert McLaughlin.

In the four days since the exchange below where I asked him to apprise me of progress in tracking down the supposed Colombian cyber-harasser and cooperating with law enforcement, I've heard nothing. He says he hopes he and I could "come together on a positive project" one day yet has taken no action yet to remedy my bungled order (what caused the criticism that led to the harassment in the first place), and continues to contradict himself or make outright false statements without seeming to see the need to account for them. Very weird, non-CEO behavior, which just makes it seem more and more like he was the supposed Colombian. [If links aren't working, try the end of the post.]

Below McLaughlin does rightly point out that I made a mistake. The apparent tracking of my online criticism of his company and attempting to bully me into removing critical comments seemed creepy and intimidating enough to be considered cyber-stalking, so that's how I described it. Apparently that was an inaccurate description, and since the exchange below I have described the behavior according to the legal terminology that the FBI points us to: electronic harassment and electronic threats. Cyber-stalking has to do with violent threats, while this supposed Colombian supplier was only threatening to "watch" and "follow" me and ruin any and all future employment prospects. My apologies for not yet understanding the correct terminology.

Since Mr. McLaughlin has been so inconsistent and unbelievable and taken so little action to convince me that he was not the one who conducted the cyber-harassment and threats, I still sincerely believe that it was him (or someone he allowed to write on his behalf or using his email address). 

Monday, May 24, 2010, Kyeann Sayer to Robert McLaughlin:

Mr. McLaughlin,

I was equally surprised that my straightforward, factual comments on Sustainlane turned into a "war" in which I very patiently responded to long, bizarre and viscous attacks by someone representing Organic Bouquet. It's strange -- you seem to be using the fact that your company representative took such action to justify your having used that cyberstalker's arguments about me in your own Better Business Bureau rebuttal. I don't see how you can expect me to consider such rationalizations any sort of sincere effort to explain or take responsibility. Since you now admit that you used the cyberstalker's false, slanderous arguments about me and my intentions in your BBB report, how do you explain your writing yesterday that you didn't know anything about me or my intentions? What that you write am I meant to take seriously or find believable?

If you were not the cyber-stalker (given your overall lack of believability I still honestly doubt this), I am formally requesting that you take action commiserate with the seriousness of this situation. I will supplement the report I made to the FBI with your BBB report. I have asked Sustainlane for the IP information of the cyberstalker but they have not provided it. You should be interested in obtaining it yourself or work with law enforcement to do so since OB is legally responsible for what was written. From an investigative perspective, if you genuinely believe it was someone in Columbia, you must be able to narrow down who you sent the photos to and who of those individuals would have been instantaneously available to rebut my comments, and who would have been on the computer at that times of the comments. OB has commented on a review below mine; the company has a history of responding to comments on Sustainlane. If it was a supplier in Columbia, I can imagine that you would be as committed as I am to discovering who it was so we can report to the proper U.S. authorities which foreign agent acting on your company's behalf has threatened me. I would also imagine that the company would want to sever its relationship with a company or individual who would take such reckless, illegal action. That is the outcome I expect. These practical steps are the actions of a CEO who takes felony cyberstalking and intimidation seriously.

Please apprise me of your progress. I will continue to update my blog, reporting on how the company takes (or does not take) responsibility for such a serious crime and how federal law enforcement responds to my report. What I have written so far includes the facts surrounding what happened, my analysis of them, and my opinions regarding them. If you find a factual error please let me know. I have posted links to your responses, and pasted parts of them into posts, so readers can judge for themselves.   I will not be intimidated by cyber-threats, or any baseless effort to equate my legal on-line writing with them.

I formally request answers to my consumer questions about the sustainability of your growth model and how it has affected domestic employees and the company's overall environmental impact. Just as the public personal attacks seemed designed to deflect such questions, I suspect that your continued vagueness relates to a lack of desire to answer those questions. You might also still want to send me a correct order and credit my SkyMiles account -- these are concrete actions (rather than vague pronouncements about a "positive project") that would demonstrate sincerity now and would have eliminated your company's need to respond illegally to a negative review in the first place.

Sincerely,

Kyeann Sayer


On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Robert McLaughlin wrote:
Kyeann,

I appreciate your reply...to be honest I don’t know what to make of all the emails and blogs...... No one representing this company has blogged or posted, no one had been asked or paid to post anything, its a normal process for us to forward pictures to our third party fulfillment centers and suppliers when emails are received good and bad..there are so many employees in that 3rd party chain and I don’t know where things went from there, but as I mentioned, I told everyone to stop when you sent the links. Either they deleted the posts or you did, but it seems to be gone...I have no control of whoever posts, but I’m happy they’ve stopped.

Regarding my BBB response, I have to admit that I was suspicious of how a poor service issue could explode into a war between a disgruntled customer and others on a blog at our expense...my apologies, I have no proof of anything other than what you stated.

I can assure you we have looked at our internal processes and customer service to see where this could have been avoided....this entire situation goes so much against the grain of the good nature of this company that I’m shocked at this result.

I understand your freedom of speech and to post as a consumer or advocate that received poor service, but I do ask Formally that you remove all misstatements such as Organic Bouquet or myself being cyber stalkers or supporting cyber stalkers...those are false statements and equally egregious as the posters you have a problem with....and I appreciate your attention to the details.

Such a regretful situation and we really need to move forward..I would hope that could come together on a positive project one day

All the Best

Robert

~~

Very weird, non-CEO behavior, which just makes it seem more and more like he was the supposed Colombian.

The apparent tracking of my online criticism of his company and attempting to bully me into removing critical comments seemed creepy and intimidating enough to be considered cyber-stalking, so that's how I described it.

Apparently that was an inaccurate description, and since the exchange below I have described the behavior according to the legal terminology that the FBI points us to: electronic harassment and electronic threats.