Tag Archives: johnny mnemonic

Johnny Mnemonic: Music Journalism 101 – eBay Trolls Must Die!

ebay trolls

I’ve got a bad feeling about this. Meanwhile, wanna buy a slightly used lawn jockey?


My girlfriend and I recently moved across town, and in the ensuing packing/unpacking ritual I realized I had wayyyyyy too many CDs. How many is too many, you ask? Too many to listen to in a single lifetime, that’s how many. Too many to fit onto my office shelves, that’s how many (ask me sometime about the U-haul boxes still filled with CDs).

How about too many to load onto a two-terabyte hard drive? That’s a lot of fucking discs.

I know, I know, don’t cry for me, Argentina. One could call it an embarrassment of riches, but to my girlfriend it’s just an embarrassment when the aforementioned U-haul boxes are spilling out of my office and into our den. “I’d love to have a nice large ficus in the corner of the room,” she sniffed, “but your damn boxes are in the way.”

So I did what every music journalist worth his profession does at some point in his career: I decided to eBay the stuff. And yes, before you folks in the peanut gallery get started in on me, many of the CDs are indeed promotional items that record labels sent to me in hopes of netting a review, and yes, many of them were never listened to. Did I mention I have too many CDs to listen to in a single lifetime? So do you really think I have time to write about ‘em? Let me be perfectly clear here: I didn’t solicit their arrival at my mailbox—as a writer I have always made it my policy that if I do request a specific title I plan to review it, and I always send out the links to the labels upon publication—and they are considered gifts to moi, and once they have been handed over to me I can absolutely do whatever I want. I can play ‘em, write about ‘em, land fill ‘em, sell ‘em, re-gift ‘em to a friend, even toss ‘em in the air and practice my skeet shooting.

Those stickers or stamps on some of them that say “loaned for promotion only” and “promotional – not for sale”? They’re bullshit. The labels put those notifications on there to scare you from trying to unload your promos for profit, but they are not legally binding in any way, shape or form, and this has been tested in the courts with the judges ruling in favor of the resellers, not the labels, so don’t be fooled.

Back to eBaying in a sec. Let me just interject at this point that I an eternally grateful for all the swag I’ve received over the years—when I was a contributing editor at Spin I routinely received over a hundred discs per week, sometimes more; the head reviews editor would get twice that many—and I hope I have reciprocated in some small fashion by writing about the artists on the labels who have serviced me promotionally. Back when I started out as a cub reporter in the late ‘80s I was thrilled to be getting the occasional LP or cassette, and I still get a charge opening up the daily mail to see what musical treats await me. I do not take any of this for granted, trust me, and even though I went through, roughly speaking, a two-year stretch living in England when I wasn’t doing a lot of writing, the music that continued to arrive in the post helped keep me plugged in and stay current. Upon completion of my overseas job and returning home to the States, I’ve resumed writing for such fine publications as BLURT, so a big thank-you to everyone who has been and is still sending me physical promotional materials. (That Black Keys tour attire was pretty sweet, by the way. I didn’t know anybody but me still appreciated satin baseball jackets.)

But have I mentioned that I receive way too many CDs to listen to/review in a single lifetime? The surplus is astounding. (You can read my previous “Music Journalism 101” column for my thoughts on digital promos.) At the moment there isn’t a used record store near me where I would normally be able to unloading that surplus, so my only option is eBay. A cinch, right?

Boy, was I wrong. The first thing I learned was that people who shop on eBay are bargain hunters, which didn’t really surprise me because when I have shopped on eBay I was looking for a bargain myself. The second thing I learned was that people who shop on eBay for music are extreme bargain hunters—the type who have taken that whole 99-cent CD ethos so closely to heart that they expect ALL discs to sell for under a buck. But c’mon: would you expect to get, say, the 3-CD deluxe edition reissue of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours for 99 cents? It has a list price of $25, and it typically sells for around $18 or $19 new, so getting a pristine, only-played-once promo copy from me for $12 + $2 shipping seems like a pretty fair deal, right?

Wrong. The third thing I learned was that people who shop on eBay for music and are extreme bargain hunters like to lodge complaints after they’ve won an auction and received their merchandise in order blackmail the sellers into giving ‘em a kickback. They are trolls, pure and simple—bullies and cheats who think that the customer is always right and then take that notion to extremes.

Here’s what happened with the Fleetwood Mac joint. (Seller = me, Troll = buyer, who, in the interest of diplomacy, will not be identified, although I am mulling over at least listing his eBay I.D. so other folks can avoid doing business with the jerk). Troll wins auction, posts $14 to my PayPal account; Seller ships it right out, w/complementary USPS tracking (actually, that’s more to protect me than the buyer, but it’s still standard procedure). Troll receives merchandise, promptly opens a dispute with eBay, claiming the item “didn’t match the description” in the original listing (Seller’s PayPal funds are therefore temporarily frozen): “The item was listed as brand new at the price of a brand new set. The item was open and used. I would like A partial refund before I make my decision on feedback for this item.” (Note veiled threat about leaving negative feedback. That was my first clue that this was not going to go swimmingly, or in the words of Hans Solo, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”)


Seller responds: “Hi – The CD is indeed brand new and never played, just not in plastic; it is a promotional copy. Please refer to the original description in our eBay listing, which clearly stated: ‘Item is brand new and unplayed. NOT in shrink wrap.’ However, I have no problem with a partial refund of $5.00 OR with you returning the item for a full refund if you are unhappy with your purchase, and will also be happy to refund your return postage so you don’t incur expenses. If so, please ship the CD back 1st class WITH TRACKING (that protects both of us).”

Troll responds: “I believe I should be offered more than 5 bucks back on a item that is clearly stated Brand New / Never Played, not opened because it is a promotional copy like New, like your heading should have stated. Also promotional copies are usually marked not for resale and there is a reason for that, like issues as this one. Also there is legal liability on the buyer and the seller on promotional copies because promotional copies are given out freely by the record label. All your really doing is taking off the shipping price for me. So is 5 dollars really your best offer? Because that is not even close to middle of the road with your customer.” (Note the comment about “legal liability,” another veiled threat; I have explained how THAT actually works several paragraphs earlier in this editorial.)

Troll additionally responds: “I believe that a refund of $8.50 would be fair for both of us. And then proper feed back can be given. Thank you.” (Note the leaving-feedback threat, levied a second time, and since a dollar amount is mentioned, additionally note that I am now being blackmailed by the Troll, who apparently wants to get the Fleetwood Mac set for a total of $5.50 instead of the original agreed-upon price of $14 + $2 postage.)

Seller responds: “Hi – thank you for your response. As the buyer you are clearly very unhappy with your purchase, and that is never my goal. So please return the item in the mail (make sure you ship First Class WITH Tracking in order to protect both of us). Upon receipt and inspection of the item a Full Refund will be tendered via PayPal. If you also indicate what your return postage fees are, I will additionally refund that amount as a good faith gesture so that you will have incurred zero expenses and are 100% satisfied.” (Here I quickly determined that this whole transaction sequence needs to be eliminated so I’m covering my ass by documenting that I have demonstrated my willingness to abide by eBay’s policies on refunds.)

Troll responds: “Hope you like the color red because that’s what you get when you don’t work out issues with your customer. No I will keep the Item and send you negative feedback. I will never buy from you again. Good day.” (Note that I made not one but two good faith gestures in order to “work out issues” with the Troll, and also strictly adhered to eBay’s stated policies on refunding when a customer is dissatisfied. The Troll did not accept either.)

As the Troll had decided to keep the item he had paid for, the case was duly closed by eBay and my PayPal funds were freed up. He also kept his promise to leave bright red negative feedback about the transaction: “This person sends counterfeit, replica, and unauthorized copies! (F-)” So what we have now is a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation by the Troll, who is accusing me of selling fake merchandise on eBay—like someone selling bogus Louis Vuitton designer handbags or something—when he has already acknowledged that the Fleetwood Mac was indeed a promotional copy. Clearly he aims to get me booted off eBay. Did I mention that I had a bad feeling about this all along?


I know, I know… don’t cry for me again, Argentina. Upon doing a little research, I discovered several other similar transactions gone awry at the hands of this Troll. Maybe I should “screen” all prospective buyers when I’m eBaying to minimize the risk of getting “Troll’d”, I dunno. That seems like a lot of extra work for what are essentially simple, low-dollar transactions; the most I’ve made on a single item to date has been $75 for an out-of-print (not promo) box set. But the eBay forums are full of similar stories in which Trolls, er, Buyers have bullied, blackmailed, scammed and otherwise ripped off Sellers, and the scales at eBay definitely appear to be tilted in the Buyers’ favor. So I probably have no choice.

The fourth thing I learned from all this? To paraphrase an old saying—seller beware.


Johnny Mnemonic is the pseudonym (duh) of a “highly-regarded” national writer with, he advises us, over a quarter-century’s worth experience working as a music critic, reporter, editor and television executive. We’ve never met him face-to-face, and he further advises he will be delivering his blogs to us via the “double blind drop-box method,” whatever that is, to ensure his anonymity. You can contact him via this magazine or simply by posting a comment below. His Twitter handle is @JohnnyMnemonicX

 Here are links to his last installment, as well as previously published blog originally written in 2012.

Seven Deadly Sins of PR



Johnny Mnemonic: Music Journalism 101 – The Seven Deadly Sins of P.R.

Johnny M

You’ve Got Mail!


 Before I get started, a belated thanks and apology to BLURT. The thank-you part is for allowing me such a forum, which the editor pledges will be published sans filtering, censoring or editorial tinkering. [Oh really, John? –Tinkering Ed.] The apology, of course, is for being the slack-ass goofball that I am and essentially disappearing for over a year and not filing a single missive during that period. I’d like to tell you that I got married, my mother died, or that I was in rehab, but none of that would be true. Shit happens, people get busy with other stuff (like, uh, trying to pay the rent by taking paying gigs), and I can’t promise it won’t happen again. But for now, as the powers that be decreed last week, I’m back and I hope to keep this “Music Journalism 101” column a regular thing.

 Okay. Although I’ve been a so-called music critic since the ‘80s, for the past five years I’ve occupied myself primarily with electronic media and marketing, including a semi-gratifying stint in London working with MTV networks. Still, I kept at least a toe or two in the rock-write biz in order to (a) stay current with musical trends, and (b) keep the free swag coming. Something I never anticipated, however, was how the very landscape of music journalism would change, and not necessarily in a positive way. I’ve touched upon this in some of my previous blog entries, so this time I’d like to focus on one of my pet peeves, one that I suspect is shared by this publication’s editor as well as its staffers: the mass-mailed p.r. pitch.

 Back when I got started in the business, the Internet was still but a moist glint in Al Gore’s eye. I actually was an early email adopter, getting online in the early ‘90s and having great fun forwarding clever jokes to everyone on my listserv. But at that point, since probably less than a quarter of the population even knew what email was (that would all change with that stupid Tom Hanks-Meg Ryan movie), the business of music promotion was still conducted as it always had, via snail mail and phone call follow-ups. While time-consuming and even occasionally expensive—you youngsters out there with unlimited calling plans probably don’t even know what the term “long distance charge” means—the more personal touch engendered in particular by the phone conversations between publicists and journalist served to cement a long of mutually beneficial long-term relationships. Just ask some of the older SXSW regulars who also came up through the ranks in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s.

 No longer. The accepted practice in 2014 is the bulk-mail/mass-mailed pitch, and if you have read this far you are no doubt nodding your head when I note that fully ¾ of the daily accumulation in my inbox comprises such spam, er, unsolicited pitches. Granted, this is probably what we’d term “a necessary evil” given the unwieldiness of publicists cold-calling journalists in the era of Caller I.D. and Blocking; it might even be considered the tradeoff for getting all those free CDs and albums in the mail, not to mention guest-list privileges for concerts and access to the artists that we are looking to write about an interview.

 Still, it can be aggravating as fuck. Particularly when the emails fall into certain categories.

 For lack of any better terminology, I’ll classify each of the following p.r. pitch excerpts as Sin Of Presumption, Sin Of Smarm (otherwise known as Sin Of False Flattery), Sin Of Blatant Falsehood, Sin Of Redundancy, Sin Of Spelling/Grammar, Sin Of Bait-and-Switch, and, as a generally catch-all category, Sin Of Annoyance. What they all have in common: just as nominal Internet trends become memes through virality, as soon as one fledgling p.r. agent or two adopts these strategies, scores more notice and follow suit, sometimes throwing in little variations here and there but essentially replicating the original style of pitch or salutation—and to such a degree of ubiquity that you’d be forgiven for wondering if somewhere there is a lone person who writes every press release in circulation and everyone else simply licenses them from him. (Cue up that old joke about the Internet actually being a fat guy living in his parents’ basement in New Jersey.) Bottom line: you know that saying love the sinner, hate the sin? In this scenario, fuhgettaboutit. Assuming these are in fact sins, then I hate the people who keep committing ‘em, too, every single goddam one of you.


“Dear Mr. Mnemonic: Thank you for having a magazine that truly champions new music—you are the lifeblood of the indie artist. XYZ ’s [not an actual  magazine or website name] elegantly and colorfully written reviews capture the essence of emerging musical artists and offer the reader the delight of discovering something new and special. [Insert generic query + pitch.]

        That one obviously falls under the heading of Sin Of Smarm or Sin Of False Flattery. It’s more transparent than an Oscar acceptance speech in which the winner thanks everyone involved with the movie right down to the set janitor. Well, of course I think I write elegantly and colorfully, not to mention pride myself in championing new music. But couldn’t the publicist be more specific and tell me which writing he or she is so smitten by? (I don’t even “have” a magazine; I just write for ‘em. Odd syntax, no? Perhaps the pitch was outsourced to some call center in a country where English isn’t the first language?)

 “Dear Mr. Mnemonic: I loved your recent elegant and colorful profile of [artist name redacted] because it truly demonstrated an appreciation for his music. Well done, sir! I think you’ll likewise enjoy my new client, [artist name redacted], who has a similarly compelling backstory and whose music is…”

        I had to ask. Clever, yes, but that pitch qualifies for the Sin Of Blatant Falsehood. Just as web-crawling bots are always on the lookout for valid email addresses that can be added to master spam lists, there’s a certain breed of p.r. flack who culls writers’ names from previously published stories and reviews but doesn’t actually read the stories and reviews other than noting what band was being written about. That detail is inserted into a False Flattery pitch and voila! we have a faux-personalized pitch aimed directly at moi, who is apparently too dumb to realize I’m being shamelessly manipulated. Just to be an asshole, I have on occasion emailed back to ask the person what specific aspects of the aforementioned story/review seemed to stand out the most. It works: they never write back after that. 

 “Dear Johnny – I hope you enjoyed the weekend. Just circling back to see if you received my previous email about [band name redacted] and their new LP, [album title redacted]. The album, which sees the group further refine their contemporary take on goth rock and darkwave, comes out on April 8 via [label name redacted].”

        Sin Of Presumption: This one is the type of pitch that inevitably arrives early on a Monday morning, hence the “I hope you enjoyed the weekend” intro—which, I hasten to add, starts to ping my Sin Of Annoyance radar when I have to read it or a variation thereof over and over at the start of every week. It’s kind of like a followup to a followup, with the phrase “just circling back” a dead giveaway, in that I’m being pitched on an already extant pitch, which I probably ignored initially in the hopes that I wouldn’t be harassed about those contemporary goth/darkwave rockers again. (I have never written about goth or darkwave in my entire career, other than a few reviews of Cleopatra Records releases back when that silly little label was dabbling briefly in space-rock and psych.) I ask you: do you think that I’m feeling guilty about not responding to the first pitch and sitting here hoping that you’ll pitch me a second time so I can atone for deleting the earlier email?

      (Aside: The weekly Friday afternoon corollary is equally bad, although for some reason a lot of folks are in a better mood on Friday afternoons than Monday mornings, so anecdotal evidence suggests that the Friday pitch is a better gambit: “Hi Johnny, before everyone takes off for the weekend, wanted to make sure you had a chance to hear…” etc. etc. Please don’t interpret that as a suggestion. Me, I love bulk deleting emails before closing up shop for the weekend.)

        (Aside Pt. II: The whole “circling back/previous email” stuff appears to have been crafted by a psychologist, because it clearly aims to trigger a subtle guilt reflex on the part of the recipient. Some pitches are actually blatant about it, using phrases like “haven’t heard back from you yet” or “making sure you saw the previous email” or even “could you please take the time to let me know what you thought…”. Beyond the pale, yes, but increasingly common.)

 “Dude! Thank you SO MUCH for the GREAT review of [redacted] and the link. We passed it along to the artist and her label and they were SO THRILLED they IMMEDIATELY put it out on her social media. Do you think you might want to interview her for a feature as well? Oh, and while I have you here, I’m working with a new client, [redacted], who I’m sending you a private link to an audio stream. I really think it will be up your alley—what would you think about a review?

        This is the somewhat complicated Sin Of Bait-and-Switch. In the retail world it’s a kind of legalized false advertising, whereby you get people in the doors based on a tantalizing pitch, and then once they are there you try to upsell them with an entirely different product, sometimes even having “just sold out” of the advertised item but “happen to have a special on” this other piece of junk. You can see the genius dynamic behind the strategy, because the writer has already become semi-engaged in the process: I did, after all, like the first artist enough to write about her, so there’s actually a chance that I am in fact interested in talking to her as well; and with that foot in the door the publicist can toss out a secondary “softer” pitch. Well, aside from the fact that this whole thing smacks of multiple sins, including Redundancy, Smarm and Presumption (and possibly even Grammar), it’s galling to think that I have inadvertently set in motion the proverbial never-ending-email-chain simply because I was enthusiastic enough to write about the artist and then nice enough to send the publicist a link to the review (or, in some cases, sent a PDF or mailed a photocopy, old-school style). I realize that a foot in the door is sometimes the only opening someone is gonna get regarding the second artist, but once in awhile etiquette should dictate that a simple thank-you is not only sufficient, but the appropriate response.

        Oh, and never write “while I have you here” in an email. This isn’t a telephone conversation. And you’re increasing the likelihood that there never will be one, either.

 “Hey Johnny! Check out this SoundCloud link of the album [redacted] from the stellar West Coast band, [redacted]. The album, out via [redacted] on March 28th, has a 70’s rock sound to it mashed with contemporary rock elements. The singer has been compared to Matt Bellamy of Muse and Freddy Mercury…”

            Sin Of Spelling/Grammar: Now, before you get all don’t-be-so-nit-picky on me, keep in mind that while, yes, I have done my share of copy-editing in the past and therefore spotting goofs becomes, to a degree, second nature. Note that when I worked as a copy editor I also dealt with a huge experience gap among the contributors since they included everyone from 50-year old seasoned veterans of the roccrit biz to very green 20-somethings who had barely gotten their feet wet at their college newspapers. I can be pretty tolerant of writers’ foibles and peculiarities, in other words. Not so with press releases. Look at it this way: if you are sending out a pitch, you are representing a client who is paying you for your professionalism, and that includes not distracting the recipient of the pitch with visual hiccups such as the four in the excerpt above. They are (1) the lead singer of Queen’s first name misspelled; (2) incorrect apostrophe usage for the numeric “seventies” (it’s not possessive, but plural, and therefore requires an abbreviation apostrophe, i.e. ‘70s, not 70’s; (3) unnecessary comma after the term “west coast band”—this drives me up the fucking wall, period; and (4) incorrect usage of the term “mashed”—while I suspect the likely culprit for that goof derives from the ubiquity of the word “mashup,” anybody with any grammatical sense will know that the writer meant to say “meshed.”

       So I deleted the pitch before I’d even gotten to the second paragraph. FAIL. Not an epic fail. But a fail just the same. It’s illiterate and borderline incoherent. Allow me to recap: you are getting paid for this. Important people are reading your stuff, along with even more unimportant people. Do you think if you worked at a bank your boss would tolerate sending out error-strewn missives to the bank’s top depositors and clients? Nope. You’d be back working the Burger King drive-through window in a heartbeat.


 Come to think of it, Burger King employees make more money that 90% of the music writers I know. Food for thought, friends. But that’s a topic to be dealt with in a future column.


  Johnny Mnemonic is the pseudonym (duh) of a “highly-regarded” national writer with, he advises us, over a quarter-century’s worth experience working as a music critic, reporter, editor and television executive. We’ve never met him face-to-face, and he further advises he will be delivering his blogs to us via the “double blind drop-box method,” whatever that is, to ensure his anonymity. You can contact him via this magazine or simply by posting a comment below. His Twitter handle is @JohnnyMnemonicX

 Here are links to his previously published blogs, originally written in 2012.