Talk:Shore Fire Media

The word "the"

(8/18/16) Deleted "the" from before Zac Brown Band, because that is the band's preferred style. I work as Shore Fire Media's content director; keeping the company's page correct and current is part of the scope of my employment. Brian mansfield (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brian mansfield: This isn't a major issue but so you know, the band's preference is not how these sorts of things are decided. Good news, bad news, preferences: these can't be considered if we're trying to be fair. (I will say, however, that since the band's preference doesn't include the word "the," using it is erroneous so yeah, it should go.) Thank you for disclosing your relationship but if you haven't already, please read our guideline on possible conflicts of interest before you edit again. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I work as Shore Fire's content director, and monitoring the accuracy of this page is part of the scope of my employment. I'd like to propose some changes that would make the entry more accurate and more current, as well as fix some redundancies and minor style issues. I believe I've added sourcing for all the new information, but I don't think I've quite figured out the language to insert it correctly (so please check that). I want to respect Wikipedia's COI guidelines, so I haven't made the changes myself, and I've tried to keep the tone neutral. I'd appreciate comments or suggestions. Brian mansfield (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brian, thanks for proposing the changes here. I think they're mainly solid. I'll make the changes on the article page as appropriate. (Adding in section breaks - future ref probably better to do this in your sanbox and then post a link on the talk page.) Julie JSFarman (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edits by Brian mansfield

Shore Fire Media

Industry	Marketing, Public Relations
Founded	Brooklyn, NY, US (1990)
Founder	Marilyn Laverty
Number of locations	Brooklyn, NY Nashville, TN
Website	www.shorefire.com

Shore Fire Media is a publicity and media management firm, based in Brooklyn, New York, that specializes in entertainment and popular culture. Founded in 1990 by Marilyn Laverty, the company has run industry recognized campaigns for artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Lana Del Rey, and Zac Brown Band. In 2011 Laverty was named one of Billboard's "Top 40 Women in Music."

History

Shore Fire Media was founded in 1990 by Marilyn Laverty in a small office in Brooklyn, New York with one employee and two desks, and future company senior VP Mark Satlof as a consultant. Laverty previously had worked for 13 years at Columbia Records, rising to become VP of publicity.

Shore Fire appeared on The New York Observer’s "Power List 50" of New York's top public relations firms in 2013, 2014, and 2015.

Notable campaigns

While the company originally focused on the music industry, it later branched into a wider client base including venues, businesses, websites, books, and non-music events. Other clients include entertainers, authors, comedians, apps and services, non-profit organizations, and trade associations, as well as health and lifestyle brands.

Since the 2013 opening of its Nashville office, the firm has represented country acts such as Kenny Chesney, Zac Brown Band, Lee Brice, Brandy Clark, Martina McBride, and Lee Ann Womack. In 2014, the firm began representing Maria Rodale, CEO and Chairman of lifestyle publishers Rodale, Inc. Companies and non-profits have included TuneCore, A2IM, Intelligence Squared, Friedman Diabetes Institute, WhyHunger, Downtown Music Publishing, and Music & Memory.

Other current and past music clients have included Bon Iver, Elvis Costello, Carole King, Bonnie Raitt, and St. Vincent (musician), as well as Summerfest, Brooklyn Bowl, and Fare The Well: Celebrating 50 Years of the Grateful Dead.

The company gained recognition with the launch of the Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band's The Rising in July 2002, which was Springsteen's first studio album with the band since 1984. According to The New York Times, Shore Fire released only ten copies to selected listeners before the release, as compared to the industry standard of releasing hundreds of promos.

External links

• ShoreFireMedia.com
• Shore Fire Blog

2016 updates

Suggesting edits to bring the existing entry up to date.

In the first paragraph, I propose changing this existing sentence:

In 2011 Laverty was named one of Billboard's "Top 40 Women in Music."

to the following:

In 2016 Billboard's annual "Women in Music" issue named Laverty one of the music industry's most powerful female executives.

In this History section, I propose changing the current sentence:

Shore Fire appeared on The New York Observer’s "Power List 50" of New York's top public relations firms in 2013, 2014, and 2015.

To the following:

Shore Fire appeared on The New York Observer’s "Power List 50" of New York's top public relations firms in 2013, 2014, and 2015 and was listed as the top arts/culture/media firm by the publication in 2016.

Brian mansfield (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

Made some changes to the page because the company Shore Fire is more of a media firm other than just music, and this should be reflected.

Verification issues

Some of the listed artists and companies in the Notable campaigns section were not in the citations given, while other statements are unsourced. It's very important that statements on Wikipedia can be verified. Therefore, I've removed the names that are unsupported by the citations given and added citation needed tags to other statements [1] If sources can be found that support the names I removed, please do add them back in. In the meantime, please leave them out. Ca2james (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding: BrillLyle, when you added information about Grammy nominations to the lede here, you included a quote from an infographic in the cite. However, that infographic is not present in the source article. I've tagged it with failed verification for now. Could you please double-check to see where you found that infographic? Perhaps the website changed since you viewed it (although I cannot know this for certain since you did not include an accessdate in this cite). Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: That's my fault. I just did a scrub to clean up what was existing. I haven't had a chance yet to go back and add better citations to the page. I can do that if you give me a bit of time.

I have a screen capture of this citation because it was on the paper version of the article and I was able to get a non-public scan. I could send it to you. But it is copyrighted information that is not in the link. But I can verify it does exist in the paper version of this article. It shouldn't fail verification because the link doesn't include this additional information, right? I wasn't sure how to approach this. I don't think that Variety will ever include the graphic, but the data is there. What are your thoughts on this? Happy to try to address this, as the facts are true.

-- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BrillLyle I'm in no rush, I was just looking at the article and saw the inconsistencies and figured they should be noted. Regarding the infographic, if it appears in the paper version then one way to handle it is to use the cite magazine template instead of cite news and to include the page number on which the infographic appears. Since the infographic is not online, I don't know that including the url to the article is needed. When you update the citation feel free to remove the failed verification template. Thanks again. Ca2james (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: Okay. I left the URL in hidden text so I can go back and check if they add the infographic, but I added the page number as you suggested. I hope that helps a bit. I also added a few more citations to cover the citation needed flags. Please let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. I know public relations companies are problematic but I was hoping that since this one covers music (I'm a big music fan) that I would try to counterbalance the negative rep of PR and try and fix this one up. I want to be 100% constructive here. I am also in no way connected to this company, just a big music fan. Thanks for your help with this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle, thanks for making that change! I saw that you'd added citations for the companies Shore Fire has worked with. Instead of adding them all to the end of the sentence, it might be better to add each citation immediately after the text it supports. I'm not convinced that the list is necessarily needed as it does come across as promotional. I realize that it's difficult to not have promotional aspects when we're dealing with a PR company but it might be best to just put one or two of the most notable connections there. Maybe as a rule of thumb, only include those connections for which there are multiple secondary reliable sources out there, and use just one strong source for each? Ca2james (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: I am not really interested in continuing this conversation. I think I have been pretty patient here, especially given the fact that you are not really a very experienced editor. If you want to improve the page by finding these additional citations -- after you essentially forced me to add citations after deleting pertinent information from the page -- then go for it. But at this point, it's pretty clear that your behavior is nit picking the page to death, and your editing is not helpful or constructive. Please stop checking my edits. As I said elsewhere, I am an experienced editor, and quite frankly YOU are not. Please either contribute significantly to improve the page with actual content and citations, or walk away. I'm done here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Relationship with Bruce Springsteen

BrillLyle, you restored the following text: She has a long-standing relationship with musician Bruce Springsteen. which is sourced to this Billboard page. However, there's nothing in that source that says anything about a relationship of any kind between the two people. About Springsteen, the source only says Founded in 1993 by Bruce Springsteen's co-manager Barbara Carr. The fact that Laverty was honoured 10 years ago by an organization founded by someone related to Springsteen does not create a relationship between Laverty and Springsteen. It's WP:SYNTH to say so. Do you have a source specifically describing a relationship? If not, the text I'm challenging should be removed. Ca2james (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding: BrillLyle, it looks like Laverty represented Springsteen (and Wynton Marsalis) at Columbia before she formed Shore Fire Media and then represented him at her new company, which does make for a long-standing relationship with Springsteen. However, the current citation does not support this text. It isn't enough that a statement be true and have a citation; the citation must directly support the statement, especially when we're talking about living people. I'm going to remove the existing citation and put a citation needed tag there while I'm looking for good sources for this information. Ca2james (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ca2james: Again, your misunderstanding of citations and the content in citations actually impacts negatively on the page. This is not productive, this conversation or your actions on the page. It would be great if you would also trust that other editors would have addressed this. Again, nitpicking on something that is completely legitimate -- and has been on the page for eons. I'm really exhausted by all of this. Isn't there another article or two you could go work on and again add actual content, instead of chipping away here?!? -- BrillLyle (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"What the? BrillLyle, verifiability is one of the pillars of this site, and it seems to me you're telling me to ignore it. When we're talking about living people - as we were here, with Laverty and Springsteen - it's extremely important that everything claimed about them be verified. The citation that was there didn't support the text. We can't just add any old citation to text and call it done, and per WP:SOFIXIT, I definitely should note and fix errors I see. That's as much a part of editing as adding content. An experienced editor like you must know that other editors checking citations isn't a bad thing because it helps the encyclopaedia. Now please, assume good faith here and take a step back. Ca2james (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ca2james: See this is the problem. I am not telling you to ignore verifiability. I am telling you to use common sense and understand context of citations. Please stop lecturing me on the 5 pillars and policy. I'm sad because this is such an obvious stumbling block for you as a new editor. I know you are coming from a well-intentioned place, but you are not understanding things here, which is a concern. And has become an irritant, as you are not listening. Please learn from this. I have tried to communicate with you but you keep not listening, not understanding. Edit more. Learn from that. I'm done. BrillLyle (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Ca2james: At this point I consider this trolling. I am disengaging. Good luck. BrillLyle (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been listening and trying to understand. I'm really not setting out to be difficult here but I'm feeling quite attacked and insulted and I don't understand this reaction or the depth of it. Instead of being aggressive and irritated and telling me I'm trolling and inexperience, it would have been better if you'd made an effort to explain your position and how it fit into policies and guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Here you go. https://books.google.com/books?id=qbr6WdsnLzQC&pg=PA12 - "Laverty, longtime publicist for Team Springsteen", dated 2011.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Selected roster

I've removed the Selected roster section per WP:NOTDIR #7 as it was a simple list of clients sourced only to the company's website. There are WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO concerns, too: if these artists have received secondary, independent reliable source coverage then their names should be incorporated into the Notable campaigns section (which might in that case need a header change). I know we're allowed to use primary sources for basic facts but basing an entire section on primary sources, especially a section that's a partial client list, reads as promotional. Ca2james (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: I reverted your destructive, unreasonable edit. At this point I am convinced you are bullying and trolling here. You are attacking a page which was completely acceptable before you started "working" on it. For the gajillionth time, please stop. Please stop misunderstanding Wikipedia rules as a way to ruin content. Please move to another page. And please do more than delete things. Please learn how to edit and make some actual contributions to Wikipedia. I am so sick of what you are doing here. BrillLyle (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop editing this article just because you don't like what I'm doing and and are trying to bully me off the page. Let's focus on the content. My edit was grounded in policies and guidelines, as I've outlined above. Which policies and guidelines support the addition of the text? Let's discuss this. Ca2james (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In case you're not familiar with the term: what BrillLyle is doing above is called gaslighting. Rebbing 21:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the bare list of clients on editorial, promotional, and NOTDIRECTORY grounds. Rebbing 21:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to edit war over it so I was hoping we all could come to some kind of compromise, possibly incorporating the names with secondary sources into the text. There's also a list of company clients sourced only to the PR website which might need to be removed too. I've been hunting for secondary sources for them, too, but I haven't found any yet. Ca2james (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this really comes under #7 - that speaks to simple lists without context, not selected lists of wiki-notable individuals. While notability is not inherited, seeing who they represent helps give an encyclopedic understanding of their own notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, SarekOfVulcan; I see your point re #7. Shore Fire Media has somewhere over 50 clients so if a client list is included, we'd need some selection criteria. The most commonly mentioned names in secondary sources are Bruce Springsteen, Elvis Costello, Bon Iver, Lana Del Rey, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, and Zac Brown Band so it makes sense to include those in such a list. What if we modified the list to include them? Ca2james (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)