celebrities, all on the payroll of Pragat, appeared on television shows, in advertisements, and infomercials and without reservation sang the praises of the Pragat ratings. The thrust of the Pragat campaign was that its “judgment,” about a person was more reliable than members of the general public. Tag lines like, “Because you don’t know as much about your friends, neighbors, and colleagues as we do” or “What do you really know about your friends and neighbors?” or, somewhat ominously “Everyone has secrets, except from Pragat,” became ubiquitous.
Thousands of focus groups told Pragat what he was hoping for: the campaign was completely effective. Thus, on the eve of the launch of Pragat’s website, the mindset of the American public was that the ratings would truly be reflective of a person’s inherent worth. As the Pragat team would soon learn, the statement by one reporter and a slogan later trademarked by the company, “You are what you rate” would be a truism. One reason for this was that a number was so easy to use. Just as a 28 rating from Zagat’s Restaurant Guide instantly told a diner everything he or she wanted to know about a restaurant, a 28, or a 20, or a 10 immediately defined the person to whom it was applied. A 29 evoked the salt of the Earth, a four the scum of the Earth.
Pragat’s pre-launch party for investors, the press, and A-list celebrities, friends, and relatives was held in the Great Hall of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Midway into the evening, Pragat stood on a small stage, tapped on a champagne glass to gain his guests’ attention, and said: “Thank you for all coming. This effort took years to bring to market and I want to thank all members of my team, our investors, and friends who assured the public of the reliability and accuracy of our ratings.” With a bit of flourish, Pragat held up a cell phone, pushed a speed dial button, and said in a voice loud enough for all in the room to hear, “Now.” A fraction of a second later, the most anticipated, debated,maligned, divisive, and in some quarters, feared, website in history was launched. Traffic was so heavy immediately after the launch that the site had to shut down temporarily. The delay only heightened the frenzy of those anxious to see their long awaited personal ratings.
As people linked into the PPR website and searched for their names, many experienced a mix of high anticipation and dread not unlike that of a student receiving a college acceptance/rejection letter or a young lawyer receiving the results of the bar exam. To those who thought that their ratings were of paramount importance to their futures and many did, the experience was more akin to that of receiving the results of a biopsy. Of course, the next best thing to receiving a high PPR was having people you knew receive low PPRs. If there were a graph that measured national Schadenfreude, it definitely would have spiked at that moment.
The reaction to the site by Pragat’s guests might have been a microcosm for what was happening throughout the country. Fingers that minutes before were wrapped around the slender stems of champagne glasses were now directing Messrs. Blackberry, iPhone, or Android towards the Pragat site and the prompts to personal ratings. Once the ratings were revealed, some of Pragat’s guests laughed and gave high-fives; others cursed or walked out of the party without saying goodbye. Pragat’s former wife slapped him in the face. He savored the pain.
Because the ratings were housed only online, they were not static. New information about people was fed continuously into the PPR system. Thus, if someone did something horrible, his or her PPR would drop. If a person did something wonderful, his or her number would rise. Mimicking the stock market reports, the site had a daily “most active” list, populated more often than not by celebrities. Within months of its launch, a ticker tape showing PPRs began to appear on the