I had a major liquidity event that had to be covered by tech analysts, even people who didn't like me. And when they wrote their pieces, they generally said that they didn't, in one way or another -- and one even said why.
Or is it just the way it seemed to him? That was the ephiphany I had a few days ago. To him, that must be what it looked like. Because he was doing the same things he was always doing, nothing changed with him. But one day, after me writing a bunch of glowing stuff about his work, I wrote something negative. That must have been what he saw as the "turn." And it makes perfect sense from his point of view.
I had been under the impression that his conference was run a certain way. That people speaking were chosen for merit, that they didn't pay for the right to speak. I learned that this wasn't true. The keynote speakers had all paid for their slots. And when they spoke they delivered ads, targeted directly at the people in the room. There were even calls-to-action -- Act Now -- this offer expires, etc etc. It was so completely obvious, and was not even slightly disclosed. Maybe the guy putting on the conference thought it was so obvious that he didn't need to disclose. The disappointment I felt was felt by others who were quite vocal in the hallway conversation.
So I wrote a piece basically saying I didn't like the conference. Big deal. I know it wouldn't matter much. People would still go, and over the years the conference grew and grew, and as far as I know they continue to do the same thing. I don't go to the conference because I don't like my time being used that way. I don't like watching commercial TV, but I put up with it, because at least it's honest. This was both a waste of time and dishonest.