Murphy-Goode's job contest turns sour
Filed under: Company News, Economy
A month ago, DailyFinance reported on Murphy-Goode's search for an all-purpose networker-for-hire. The Sonoma-based winemaker conducted its quest through an online contest that encouraged candidates to submit videos to the company's site. These clips, in turn, were re-posted on YouTube, giving Murphy-Goode an impressive amount of online publicity. Over the ensuing weeks, as viewers were able to vote for their favorite contestants, the search drew huge amounts of traffic to the company's website.
The big prize -- a six-month social networking gig, complete with a $60,000 paycheck and free room and board -- was an impressive reward. However, when compared with the free publicity of the viral campaign, it was a fantastic bargain. Unfortunately, with the contest closed, it seems likely that Murphy-Goode's publicity, rather than aging, is beginning to sour.
The biggest problem lies in allegations that the company largely ignored the public votes that it so aggressively solicited. While some popular candidates, like Atlanta's Hardy Wallace, were brought in for interviews, others weren't. San Francisco's Martin Sargent, the top vote-getter, wasn't given an interview; neither was the very popular Dan Leadbetter.
In fact, some candidates admitted that they had been contacted by a recruiter, who informed them that the online votes were relatively unimportant. While this information leaked last month, it gained momentum after the contest was over. When Sargent posted the news of his rejection to his Twitter feed, it drew the attention of Digg founder Kevin Rose, who re-twittered it to his 900,000 followers. Re-re-twittered and featured on Digg, the story continued to gain momentum as the winery went into damage-control mode, posting an explanation on Facebook.
Using contests as a promotional method seems to be emerging as a major tool for online marketing. It has proven very useful to Queensland, Australia, whose "Best job in the world" contest drew almost 35,000 applications and put the obscure state on the map. In fact, David Ready, Jr., the winemaker who conducted Murphy-Goode's contest, admitted that he was inspired by Queensland's search.
In retrospect, just as Queensland's contest shows the strengths of a viral contest, Murphy-Goode's shows the dangers. In searching for a social networking maven, the company attempted to take advantage of Web 2.0 and connective media. Unfortunately, the people that it attracted are also exactly the kind of applicants who are best positioned to damage the company's name. Further, by suggesting that it was engaging in a Democratic process, the company drew the attention (and, ultimately, the ire) of similarly plugged-in networkers.
Now that the truth is on the table, it will be interesting to see if Murphy-Goode can swallow the bitter cup that it has been passed.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-10-2009 @ 7:45PM
Robyn said...
Little correction... Kevin Rose (@kevinRose) founded Digg... not Twitter. Check it out: http://kevinrose.com/
Evan Willams (@ev) and Biz Stone (@biz) founded Twitter.
We do have a bunch of young, awesome, and super brilliant founders running around the Bay Area... it's easy to get them mixed up.
Reply
7-10-2009 @ 7:46PM
Bruce Watson said...
Robyn-
Thanks so much for the correction. I'm changing the post!
Thanks for dropping in!
7-11-2009 @ 7:01AM
Wish Belkin said...
"by suggesting that it was engaging in a Democratic process, the company drew the attention (and, ultimately, the ire) of similarly plugged-in networkers."
_________________________________________
Liars are worse than thieves. You can watch a thief.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 8:32AM
farside62 said...
Boycott Murphy-Goode's
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 9:16AM
Max65 said...
Popularity does not necessarily mean qualified.
Reply
7-12-2009 @ 3:22PM
yaniel said...
considering martin sargent hosts his own wine show, is VERY popular in web2.0/social media, i think he's the ideal candidate they needed.
7-12-2009 @ 1:30PM
john gannon said...
Why not change the name to Madoff Winery?
Reply
7-12-2009 @ 9:18PM
Aurelia said...
While I understand the angle of this article, I disagree with how people have turned against Murphy-Goode. Although their hiring process was quite exciting and cool, it was more than a contest, it was a hiring process. Ultimately they needed to find an applicant that fit for their company. I agree the public opinion should have weighed more, but the application is more important. I don't know Martin's background, so I'm not saying he wasn't qualified, because he very well could have been. However, the applicants they picked were for a reason, there was something in their resume or video that sparked an interest with the winery. While it's acceptable to be disappointed, we should respect their decision. It's a shame this experience has taken should a sour turn.
Reply
7-16-2009 @ 3:45PM
Caspian said...
your right in the sense that they picked someone who thought would fit the company, but they didn't even give Martin a chance for an interview.
7-14-2009 @ 8:07PM
Andrew said...
They should have just said that their internal votes (ie Board of Directors) votes count for 2/3 while the public vote is 1/3, or just keep the exact calculation private.
Reply
7-16-2009 @ 4:10PM
Aurelia said...
They never said that they were picking based on popular vote. I think applicants just assumed because there was the ability to vote. It began to seem more like a contest than an application process. I applied myself, however I recognized that while I was in the top 30 by votes I did not make the top 50 because my resume did not have the background they were looking for. They did not give a lot of people interviews, there were almost 2000 applicants. Murphy-Goode is a company who knows what they are looking for, as does any company. I really think people need to recognize that it was not a conspiracy against Martin or anyone else. There was a lot of detailed documentation dispersed online with the application terms. I know because I researched it heavily before applying. I do not believe they did anything different than what was explained before the selection process began.
Reply
7-21-2009 @ 12:30PM
Derrek said...
then what the hell was the point of voting then