Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  nonuser, 4 Aug 2005 @ 7:01pm

  
  

  this kind of guerilla marketing

  seems spunky and clever when it's done by a small, struggling outfit, but tacky and over the top when one of the big guys does it. Microsoft's astroturfing campaign is another example. It comes down to role awareness, I guess.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Ivan Sick, 4 Aug 2005 @ 8:32pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  What happened, a class action suit was started because people believed and then disagreed with somebody they never even heard of before? It was a goofy thing for Sony to do, sure, but why does stupidity continue to be mollycoddled?
  I'd like to know what the basis of this suit is. "The fake guy said Hollow Man was a good movie and it wasn't! Wwwaaaaaaahh"?

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Boilerbob, 5 Aug 2005 @ 7:01am

    
    

    Re: No Subject Given

    I'd like to know what the basis of this suit is.
    
    It's called false advertising. Granted the damages to movie goers was small (who hasn't left a movie saying that was a waste of money) but Sony LIED on their advertising. The marketting people that authorized the quotes were fired and the public is aware that you can't just listen to whatever the ads say. That's the benifit of the lawsuit not to get my $5 back.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  thecaptain, 5 Aug 2005 @ 4:52am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  The sad part is how many people will have the receipt or ticket stub to even COLLECT that measly 5 bucks?
  
  The only winner here were the lawyers on both sides...I mean, the fine was low enough that Sony would consider that "the cost of doing business" and simply continue or find some OTHER way of misleading the consumer (yeah, those quotes on posters and adds might not have sold the movie to people...but what pisses me off is the fact that they tried and figured they could get away with it....lets have some accountability)

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Beck, 5 Aug 2005 @ 7:09am

  
  

  One Judge Had It Right

  From other coverage:
  

  When the California courts agreed to let the suit go forward as a class action, a dissenting judge called it a "farce" and "the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal", saying: "We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys."

  
  
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    spam, 5 Aug 2005 @ 11:14am

    
    

    Re: One Judge Had It Right

    that judge is very right.
    
    The lawyers should be barred from collecting any money unless the consumers do as well.
    
    Lawyers are overpriced greedy leeches on society.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  GunGeek, 5 Aug 2005 @ 7:43am

  
  

  No consumers will collect

  Here's my prediction:
  
  NOBODY will get their $5 or even a fraction of it.
  
  The settlement provides for only a maximum $750,000 payout to the people that weren't specifically named as plaintiffs, and that gets spent at a maximum of $5 per claimant. If the amount per person gets down less than $1.50, then the WHOLE chunk goes to a charity and NONE of the moviegoers gets a penny.
  
  And you just KNOW that more than 500,000 people are going to put in for their free $5.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]