"E-mail works." These are the final two words of Jeff Jarvis's BuzzMachine post today about his Dell Computer incident. He notes that received a refund for his laptop and a positive overture from Dell for continued dialogue. This is not a simple issue -- not nearly as simple as it seems. When I lead a session later next month at the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals annual conference , I'm not 100% sure where I will land on this topic. Should companies have business processes to measure high-reach influencers like Jeff Jarvis? Absolutely! Do most call-centers need better offensive and defensive "radar" to aid response and recovery tactics? Without question. Should compensation or recovery-formulas vary based on the size of a consumer's megaphone, or the depth of damage incurred by their complaint virus? This is a much tougher question, and even the blogophere has had a few nasty battles related to "A-listers" versus everyone else. If anything, Jeff Jarvis, Glenn Reynolds, and others prominent bloggers have made it unmistakably clear to every brand, company, and media outlet that "transparency" rules. If the world now knows Jeff Jarvis got a full refund because his (ostensibly well-justified) viral complaint, will "gamers" co-opt the process and pursue unjustified compensation from Dell? How will Dell "vet" out the legitimate from the illegitimate? I've spent the last six years consulting with call-centers and consumer relations departments, and this is a very common and complex challenge. In the end, Jeff Jarvis received his refund, but Dell (and the rest of Corporate America) inherited a new set of critically important questions.