Dan said at December 30th, 2006 at 12:23am

Unfortunately, the democratising of the media you reference also leaves readers open to being manipulated by the alleged journalists as well. Nobody seems to mind that the writer remains anonymous and makes no reference to any background or certifications that might make him/her a credible source for the judgements being made (one entire section relies on nothing more than the writer’s palate to determine whether NOKA’s claim that their source material is made to their strict specifications is true, which he/she dismisses as a lie — and you extend with the image you’ve selected for your post). If the author was a respected foodie, that might not be so worrisome, but his previous claim to fame appears to be a multi-part post on chicken fried steak! Do we know whether the author may be motivated by something other than an altruistic urge to muckrake? Perhaps he/she is a competitor? By remaining anonymous, these questions can’t be answered. Neither has anybody mentioned that the writer actually determined that NOKA really IS high quality, highly pure single-source chocolate, exactly as the company claims. And to top it off, the Web-wide anger over the company’s prices misses the central point that NOKA is not meant as a consumption product any more than a fruit basket is. Both are gifts that present the food in such a way that it can be appreciated. It would be like comparing the cost of pears at the store (about a dollar a pound) to the per-pound cost of the pears in a fruit basket (between $30 and $45). Is that a mark-up of 2,900 to 4,400 percent? Not if you’re reasonable and deduce that they are two completely different types of products.

NOKA Chocolate said at December 31st, 2006 at 2:19am

While that report argues that NOKA represents itself as a chocolate maker, we have only ever claimed to be a chocolatier. If you’ll allow us a few paragraphs to comment further…

The couverture that we use is _made to our strict specifications_. We specify the source ingredients, the region from which the ingredients are sourced and the process by which the couverture is made.

The quality and purity of our chocolates and truffles are stellar, which is why NōKA Chocolate was the top ranked luxury chocolate in the world by the food editors of TASTE.

Tasting NōKA Chocolate is about the overall experience of NōKA Chocolate. It’s a special luxury that begins with elegantly designed packaging and encourages an sensor appreciation of the look, aroma, flavor and texture of our chocolates and truffles. The Optimal Tasting Guide and vividly descriptive Flavor Profiles included with each gift provide each gift recipient with the tools to enjoy his or her own chocolate tasting whether it be alone or a special event.

NōKA Chocolate is proud to provide people with a special, up-scale choice when selecting a gift for themselves or for someone else. Simplistic pound by pound comparisons do not accurately reflect the holistic chocolate experience that NOKA offers.

We love gourmet chocolate, so we advocate for it whenever possible. Thanks for the opportunity to tell our side of the story.

James Cridland said at December 31st, 2006 at 11:31am

Interesting replies.

Noka is doing what any decent company should do: monitor what’s being said about it in blogs, and responding - even if in this case it’s copy/pasting a standard reply. I’m already pretty impressed at what Noka are doing: and, given I’m using Noka’s current predicment as an example for us in the media, it’s timely: because we should *all* be checking what’s in blogs about us.

Dave appears to be taking umbrage at my illustrative image. For what it’s worth, after I admired Ben Hammersley doing similar, I add a Creative Commons image to all my posts these days - normally one of mine, though this one isn’t - to illustrate a story and add a little bit of colour to otherwise flat and white pages. In the copy, I’m pretty clear to say that I don’t think anyone’s doing anything wrong here. I still believe that: in retrospect, perhaps the image choice doesn’t give that impression.

Secondly, he’s quite right that the original poster might have other motives for saying what he did: but that’s no different to any ‘proper’ journalist, or any other human being. From Fox News always toeing the Bush line (because they’ve been told to), to financial journalists bigging-up shares that they happen to own as well, to freebie laptops being sent by Microsoft to prominent bloggers, the job of any reader is to be aware that things may not always be what they seem. Where I speak about companies (which I don’t do very often), I always try to make clear any financial relationship I have with them. Perhaps, like lifehacker does, I might also declare any freebies I get (as part of my job or my blogging life).

Alex Douglass said at December 31st, 2006 at 8:21pm

As has become clear on other sites, “Dan” is in fact Noka’s PR guy (although he claims he only took them on after his first defensive postings. Hmmm). There’s a lively discussion on Noka’s statement in reaction to the DallasFood series on the DallasFood forum, at http://www.dallasfood.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=142. Watching the statement get picked apart, it’s hard to be too impressed with the company’s reaction, especially their unwillingness to do what 20 other chocolate companies did in terms of disclosing the source of their chocolate. It’s all pretty interesting to watch unfold, and I’ve done so while enjoying some very good chocolate (while forgoing the Premium Noka Chocolate Experience, which apparently makes otherwise sentient people willing to pay hundreds of dollars for nickel-sized slivers of chocolate).

Georgia said at December 31st, 2006 at 9:20pm

The Dan above is Noka’s pr rep. http://www.keeneypr.com/en/art/?222

James Cridland said at December 31st, 2006 at 9:58pm

Thanks for the heads-up, Alex, Georgia.

Dan does make a rebuttal on his own website (which Georgia links to): he claims (his italics):

I did not disclose a tie to the business in question in my comments because I did not have any tie (now here’s the sticky part) at the time.

I said earlier:

I don’t think anyone’s doing anything wrong here

- I retract this statement. While Dan did use his real email address; I’m disappointed that he didn’t make his affiliation known. I find it’s a little rich to claim that at the time (12.00am GMT, 7.00pm CST) he had no tie to the business, but surprisingly, just TWO working hours later (at 5.00pm GMT; 11.00am CST), does. If you’re negotiating with a company to do their PR - sorry, ‘reputation management’ - then it’s a barefaced lie to claim you are wholly unconnected.

However, Dan bothered to read my posting, and also bothered to reply to the points raised in it. I see no problem with the much copy’n'pasted “pears” thing: it is relevant to the post. In short, Dan did a much better job than Noka did: although, I ought to stress, the fact that Noka posted here shows that they’ve also a pretty good concept of PRing. Sorry, ‘reputation management’. Whatever.

Dan has done a good job. He’s even asking for advice in his posting. He’s mine. If you’re in negotiation with Noka (and, given the story broke on December 9, you probably have been for a while), then my advice to you would be not to post until you’ve signed your PR - sorry, sorry, ‘reputation management’ - contract. Then, this whole thing won’t get blown open for entirely the wrong reasons: which is exactly what’s happening now.

Dan said at January 2nd, 2007 at 8:52pm

DISCLOSURE: As I write this comment I am engaged as a PR person representing NOKA. The original comments were written prior to that and reflected my personal opinion. However, facts are facts and that makes it worthy of an update. So as Kirk Brewer suggested in a post on my site (www.dpkpr.com), I am posting this update. Thanks to Kirk and others for their constructive feedback. As others have noted, NOKA has issued a statement regarding the issues raised by Dallas Food and we are in the process of getting that out. Since my personal opinions are no longer relevant, I won’t be reposting.