DailyDirt: Advertising Is Content, And It's Often Better When It's Amusing

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Advertising is a difficult business. Companies want to make people aware of their products, but not everyone wants to be bombarded by various offers for products that they might not want or need. For consumer goods, it's sometimes possible to avoid being annoying by making ads that are amusing -- so the audience at least gets a laugh or some entertainment value out of the experience. Here are just a few examples of promotional campaigns that might be somewhat humorous.

• Ten years ago, Burger King introduced its Subservient Chicken campaign which allowed internet users to control the actions of a guy dressed up in a chicken suit. It was brilliantly engaging for 2004. Kids today might not care about watching a guy in a chicken suit do push-ups on command, but sequels are always a good idea, right? [url]
• Ever run out of reading material while on a long flight? SkyMall magazines can waste some time and introduce you to some products you'd ever encountered before. But what if the product descriptions were a bit more honest (and funny)? [url]
• A Craigslist ad for a generously "fair condition" 1996 Nissan Maxima GLE got the attention of some folks at Nissan, so they bought the car, restored it, and placed it on display at Nissan headquarters in Franklin, Tennessee. The Craigslist ad was kinda funny, but what's the message from Nissan? We take pride in all of our cars? Our cars clean up nice, even after almost two decades? [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: ads, advertising, content, funny, maxima, promotions, subservient chicken, viral ads
Companies: burger king, craigslist, nissan, skymall

LG/Netflix Rebate Site Exposes User Data With AT&T-Esque Hole [Updated]

from the self-hacking? dept

[Update: hole has been closed by ACB's IT team]

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is so severely flawed that people are extremely hesitant to report security holes in websites, especially after witnessing what happened to Weev (Andrew Auernheimer), who went to jail for exposing a flaw in AT&T's site that exposed user info when values in the URL were incremented.

The same goes here with this submission from an anonymous Techdirt reader who added this note, along with a link to a post in the Computer Security subreddit.

"I remember a person was recently arrested for finding this same flaw in a website and told (at&t/apple??) about it. He was arrested and jailed if I remember right. This is the type of chilling effects that come when people view techies as hackers and are arrested for pointing out flaws.

The flaw is in:

http://www.acbincentives.com/lgnetflix/claimdetails.asp?txtclaimnum=30345

By changing the number at the end you can harvest personal info.

I won't report the flaw, I could go to jail."

Is that overdramatic? Doubtful. People have reported security flaws to companies only to have these entities press charges, file lawsuits or otherwise tell them to shut up. Weev's only out because the government's case was brought in the wrong venue. The CFAA, which has been used to punish many helpful people, is still intact and as awful as ever.

As the (also anonymous) redditor points out, he or she has tried to contact the company but has found no avenue to address this security hole which exposes names, addresses and email addresses of customers sending in claims for a free year of Netflix streaming that came bundled with their purchase of an LG Smart TV. Incrementing the digits at the end of the URL brings up other claims, some with images of receipts attached. In addition, anyone can upload support documents to these claims.

Here's a screenshot of the hole in question:


As the original poster points out, with a little coding, someone could put together a database of addresses that most likely house a brand new LG Smart TV. And this may not just be limited to LG. ACB Incentives is the company behind this promotion, and it handles the same sort of online rebate forms for a variety of companies. These rebate submission sites all branch off acbincentives.com, which could mean it's just a matter of figuring out how each one handles submitted claims, URL-wise.

Now, I've contacted the company to let them know. Amanda Phelps at the Memphis branch says she's bringing it to the attention of programming. I also let her know that it may affect other rebate pages but that I can't confirm that. We'll see how quickly this is closed*, but all in all, the people at ACB seemed to be concerned and helpful, rather than suspcious.

*Very quickly, it appears. See note at top of post.

But the underlying point remains. Many people who discover these flaws aren't criminals and aren't looking to expose the data of thousands of unsuspecting users. They're simply concerned that this is happening and often incredulous that major companies would be this careless with customers' data. That the kneejerk reaction has often been to shoot the messenger definitely gives those discovering these holes second thoughts as to reporting them, a hesitation that could allow someone with more nefarious aims to exploit the exposed data. The law needs to change, and so does the attitude that anyone discovering a flaw must be some sort of evil hacker -- or that the entity must do whatever it takes, even if it means throwing the CFAA at someone, just to prevent a little embarrassment.

Filed Under: cfaa, cybersecurity, promotions, rebates, security, security hole, user data
Companies: acb incentives, lg

GOG Working Their Publicity Magic Via The Government Shutdown

from the idle-hands dept

I'm not sure if you heard, but the United States government has been shut down, or has been "slimmed down," or is partially funded, or whatever some talking noggin on your favorite cable news network has told you this news cycle. Terror is being expressed, much talk has been made over the dire consequences, and everyone is looking for someone to blame as our government pulls its latest hissy-fit slap-fight instead of being productive. Yay, democracy. Anyway, the result is a great many furloughed government employees with their retroactive pay guaranteed and a whole lot of self-reflection time on their hands.

No worries, because retro-gaming website Good Old Games is here to help. They've decided to make the further assclown-ery of our esteemed elected lizard-people a sort of theme for their latest publicity stunt. They're going halvsies with customers on game titles like Capitalism 2 and Theme Hospital. But the deal is even better if you're one of those furloughed folks on the government teet.

Finally, we would like to express our condolences to everyone who's been furloughed by the shutdown. More than that, actually, we'd like to offer you the games pack of our special Shutdown Promo for free. Send an email to thanksobama@gog.com with your picture holding the official furlough letter you received, before Friday 11 October 2013 at 12:00 EDT and we'll give you The Guild: Gold Edition, Capitalism, Capitalism 2, Tropico: Gold Edition, Alpha Centauri + Alien Crossfire, Theme Hospital, and Redneck Rampage free.

GOG, which has experimented with some forward-thinking promotions in the past, really knows how to turn government ineptitude into an opportunity. Yes, this is an obvious publicity stunt. Yes, I'm helping that stunt by writing this article. But I don't care, because the prospect of government employees essentially getting retroactively paid to play games based on healthcare, government, and capitalism, all of which they're getting for free, is the kind of recursive irony that tastes as good as a cut of prime rib.

So if you're sitting at home because our two party system has melted into a massive talking-points circle-jerk, pass the time by playing some games for free. And know that we Americans all appreciate the work you aren't doing thanks to the weirdos we all sent to Washington.

Filed Under: games, government shutdown, promotions
Companies: gog, good old games

When Twitter Promotions Go Wrong: IL Pizzeria Offers Food For Flashing

from the just-gtfo dept

By now you should be familiar with the concept of advertising being content and content being advertising. If you're new to the class, the idea is that clever, timely, and wanted ads can be every bit as entertaining and drawing as entertainment content itself. It's essentially what makes a good ad: something you want being presented in the way you want it, all without pissing you or a large section of the customer off base. Oreo serves as a wonderful example of this, having put out a timely Twitter quip as an ad in last year's Super Bowl.

But make no mistake, you can do this wrong. And one pizzeria in Champaign, IL, home of the University of Illinois, got it horribly, horribly wrong.

If you're a female customer who goes to Drew's Pizzeria in Champaign, you can apparently flash your boobs and walk away with some free pizza. Since sober girls usually won't flash people for free pizza, it seems that these boobs-for-pizza trades unsurprisingly happen more often at night, according to a Craigslist post.

Drew's Pizzeria's Twitter account, now deleted in an attempt to bury its head in the internet sand, offered such wonderful incentives to eat their pie as:

"FREE PIZZA for the next pair of nips right now, ladies only!"

"Pizzas $5 right at Drews or free for titties."

"WE WANT MORE TITS!!! #showusyourtits #uiuc FREE PIZZA"

Now, we have a couple of problems here. First, while you won't find a guy with a deeper appreciation of the female anatomy than I, screaming how much you want to see boobs at your pizzeria using the all-caps faux pas is akin to the creepy guy in the corner of the strip club who keeps asking one stripper exactly what time she'd be leaving out the back and whether she's allergic to ether. And who didn't see the eventual backlash coming? Large swaths of men may think of free-spirited ho-bags when the term "college girl" is uttered, but that's bullshit. College is also the place where feminism spreads, where activism finds roots, and where the love of battling a corporation is second only to a love of a cancelled class. Of course people rallied against these idiots.

But, hey, they cancelled their Twitter account, so they're clearly sorry. I imagine we'll get a claim of a hack by the Syrian Electronic Army any moment now. In the meantime, there has to be a better-behaved business that will sell you some pizza in rural Illinois.

Filed Under: pizza, promotions

EMI Was Actively Giving Away MP3s It Accused Michael Roberston Of Downloading Illegally

from the oops dept

You may recall EMI / Capitol Records ongoing lawsuit against MP3Tunes and its founder/CEO Michael Robertson. The initial ruling in that case went almost entirely against EMI, with one small exception that we'll get to soon. EMI asked the court to reconsider the ruling, claiming that it had made some mistakes, but the court slammed EMI for some questionable behavior, including taking a number of quotes completely out of context as an attempt to mislead the court. The latest on that case is that following the appeals court ruling in the YouTube/Viacom case that sent that case back to the lower court, EMI pretended that the ruling changed everything and required a new ruling. The two sides are currently filing motions back and forth over that, with MP3Tunes pointing out that nothing in that ruling actually changes anything, and EMI claiming otherwise. Given the narrow aspects of the Viacom ruling, I think that EMI is still unlikely to get very far. Still, it's fairly amazing how much time, money and effort it has spent on this case, even as the company itself got into serious trouble and was sold off in, effectively, a fire sale.

Which then brings us to the other aspect of the case. The one area in which EMI "prevailed" in the original case was in the part they filed against Robertson personally. The court had ruled on summary judgment that Robertson was liable directly for 47 songs that he had personally "sideloaded" into MP3Tunes. However, even that part of the case was strange. Initially, EMI had claimed that it had never, ever, ever authorized any MP3s to be given out for free for promotional purposes. In response, Robertson crowdsourced examples of over 1,400 cases where EMI was clearly giving away MP3s for free. However, the court still ruled that he was liable.

In the latest filing about that, Robertson hits back on a number of points, starting with the fact that the court ruled on summary judgment on the issue, even though EMI and Robertson had already agreed that the summary judgment part of the dispute wouldn't cover Robertson's personal liability. Because of that, he didn't present the full argument for why he shouldn't be liable, and thus he's asking that the court allow that part to go to trial in order to show that the evidence of his own infringement is lacking.

In order to support that, Robertson's filing demonstrates a few important things. First, it shows a bunch of evidence that EMI purposefully and deliberately marketed its music to various sites asking them to give away MP3s and even to share the music widely. Second, it shows that, despite being asked for this info during discovery, EMI did not provide it. Instead, Robertson got it later from other sources. This is a big no-no, and EMI may run into some issues for failing to hand over the required information during discovery. Still, what the filing shows is that EMI regularly and frequently hired companies to distribute MP3s for free, and encouraged them to be put up on various websites and shared widely. And this includes some of the songs that Robertson is accused of infringing and some of the sites he's accused of downloading the songs from.

Reading pages five through nine in the motion he filed demonstrates this over and over again, including in an email from an EMI Publishing employee, who not only is planning a promotional download but says part of the plan is to "encourage as many third party online zines, podcasts, blogs, major web portals to host the MP3 for free download on their site." Here's just a snippet of some of the examples Robertson turned up of EMI using free MP3s in marketing (which they did not properly disclose):

For example, Definitive Jux (an EMI label) entered into an agreement with viral marketing firm, Better Propaganda, which granted Better Propaganda the right "to use, copy, distribute, display and perform [a specified song] on and through the Internet and the World Wide Web..."). This song remains available on the Better Propaganda site. Plaintiffs did not produce this document....

Similarly, Astralwerks (another EMI label) engaged Toolshed, Inc. ("Toolshed"), a Viral marketing firm, to distribute sound recordings pursuant to a marketing program by which Toolshed would virally distribute free MP3 downloads through various blogs and Toolshed's own website. Importantly, Toolshed's webpage for downloads notes clearly that "All songs . . . are pre-licensed for use on your site. Simply browse, find music you like, and copy it to your page." .... Toolshed has done projects for numerous labels, including EMI labels Astralwerks, Capitol Records, Caroline Records and Definitive Jux Toolshed distributed free MP3s for numerous of Plaintiffs' artists -- including Air, Willy Mason, Bat for Lashes, Pacificl, Carbon/Silicon, The Perceptionists, and Amos Lee -- including one of the same artists that Robertson is accused of wrongfully sideloading.... Plaintiffs did not produce documents they exchanged with Toolshed relating to those projects.

One project by Toolshed is especially important: as emails (dated March 5, 2007) provided to Robertson from Toolshed indicate, Astralwerks paid Toolshed to get websites to give away MP3s for the new release of the album "Pocket Symphony" by Air, to be released on March 6, 2007.... Toolshed achieved coverage, including free downloads of a track and/or video placement, with numerous sites, including 3HiVe, Donewaiting, Kevchino, Music for Kids Who Can't Read Good, Muzzle of Bees, PopMatters, Sixeyes, Stereogum, Antville, and Kingbline..., some of the same sites and the same artist from which Robertson is accused of wrongfully downloading Plaintiffs' songs and which Plaintiffs have alleged are unauthorized sources of MP3's.... Plaintiffs did not produce such documents.

In many ways, this is reminiscent of the whole Dajaz1 situation, in which the lawyers are insisting that the distribution on various blogs is infringing, at the very same time that their marketing people are begging those same sites to offer up the songs as a promotion.

Separate from all of this, but in the same filing, Robertson hits back on the claims that the use of cover art in MP3Tunes infringed. The filing notes that MP3Tunes had licensed all the cover art from Amazon and that EMI never even bother to show that it held the copyright in the cover art. All they showed was that the company had copyrights in the songs, but that's different from the cover art (and made more complicated by the fact that the copyright in the cover art might belong to the artists who created the art, rather than EMI).

All in all, the filing reinforces what's already come out in the earlier rulings: which is that EMI seems to have an incredibly weak case here, but due to what appears to be a random infatuation with going after Robertson personally, is just throwing everything it can at him.

Filed Under: copyright, downloads, infringement, michael robertson, promotions

BitTorrent Book Promotion Drives 40% Of Downloaders To Book's Amazon Page

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

Popular author Tim Ferriss got some attention recently when his latest book, The 4-Hour Chef, was published by Amazon, with a big push to try to make it a best seller (the first Amazon published book to get such a push, apparently). This scared off Barnes & Noble who refused to sell the book, because, apparently, it's run by childish and petulant execs. Ferriss, who is known for his rather extreme ability to market the hell out of anything, has actually been using this to his own advantage, continually calling out the fact that Barnes & Noble is refusing to carry the book, and using non-standard promotion techniques, including having the book sold via Panera restaurants and... doing a big promotion deal with BitTorrent. To be honest, I found some of the language used to promote that deal a bit misleading, as it appeared some people thought he was distributing the book itself via BitTorrent. Instead, he teamed up with the company to distribute "an exclusive bundle" of extra, related, content. That's still cool, but having watched some of the hype behind it, you could see how some might see it as bait and switch.

However, it appears that my concerns may have been overblown. Late last week, Ferris revealed that not only did the book land on various best seller lists (despite the lack of Barnes & Noble sales), but an astounding number of people who downloaded that extra content bundle on BitTorrent also clicked a "support the artist" button:

For instance, BitTorrent conversion is NUTS. Of 210,000 downloads (of this bundle) earlier this week, more than 85,000 clicked through “Support the Author” to the book’s Amazon page. We all had to triple and quadruple check that to believe it.

Now, of course, not everyone who clicks will buy -- and he admits that as well. But, that's still an extra 85,000 people going to the Amazon page. Some of them are likely to buy.

Even at a 1% conversion after clicking an effective “buy now” link, that translates to 850 books… and BitTorrent is only accelerating. Wow.

But BitTorrent is only for pirates and only hurts authors and artists, right?

Filed Under: bittorrent, clickthroughs, promotions, tim ferriss
Companies: amazon

Nestle: Buy Our Candy So We Can Hunt You Down

from the and-scare-the-nougat-out-of-you dept

Corporate contests. They so often lead to hijinks at the hands of technology, such as that time the internet decided Mountain Dew's new flavor should be "Gushing Granny." Oh, and there was that one online promotion that sent something called Taylor Swift to sing at a school for the deaf. But, lest you think that this volatile mixture of technology and corporate contests is good only for laughs, picture the following.

You're walking down a street in a European city, reading about how something someone did somewhere upset a major world religion, and you decide you need respite from the madness of the news. So you walk into a corner store, buy a candy bar, and tear it open, ready to bite into a soft, gooey explosion of stress-melting flavor-gasm. That, of course, is when the black helicopters and MiBs appear out of nowhere, rushing you with an ominous black suitcase. If someone froze you right there in that moment, what do you think you would likely expect to happen next?

Image source: CC BY 2.0

Well, you'd be wrong (probably). Because those aren't darkly dressed neo-terrorists that have for some reason decided to specifically blow you up with a neutron bomb (dear lord, you're self-centered). No, it's your friendly folks at Nestle, responding to the GPS technology in your treat to hand you £10,000 in cold, pants-crappingly terrifying cash. It's all part of the new Nestle contest to reward customers by tracking them down via GPS technology in their candybars within 24 hours of being consumed. They named this campaign "Nestle: we will find you!", because apparently "Nestle: we could find and kill you for eating our products anytime we wanted to" didn't strike quite the right tone.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that there's no reason for me to think this contest will play out the way I described above. Well, here's Nestle's own ad for the contest.

Now, I'm generally all for creative promotions, but this all seems terrifying. A private company is going to track me down via GPS and throw a suitcase at me in a major city? Well, not me, since not only am I not European, but I'm one of the six people on the planet that absolutely hates chocolate...but you, sweet Euro-reader! It could be you who fudges your pants after eating fudge! So, in conclusion, the article gives a listing of the candy bars you should avoid if you don't want to be hunted down.

The grand prizes for Nestle's We Will Find You promotion, involve these four chocolate products: KitKat 4 Finger, KitKat Chunky, Aero Peppermint Medium and Yorkie Milk.

($10 says there's a porno parody of those candy names out there somewhere.)

Filed Under: candy bar, gps, location, promotions, scary
Companies: nestle

Does Anyone Who Develops New Products In Hollywood Ask 'Would I Ever Actually Use This?'

from the you-do-what-to-do-what-now? dept

For all the lip service the MPAA has been paying to the claim that it loves tech innovations and wants to work with the tech industry to build cool things, why is it that every new "innovation" the industry comes up with only seems to make life complicated for people in ways that make no sense at all? For example, we recently talked about Warner Bros. ridiculous disc-to-digital offering in which people who want a digital version of movies they have on DVD can drive to a store where someone will rip the movie for them. In a world where the ability to rip your DVDs in the comfort of your own home is commonplace, that makes no sense at all.

I think we can add to this "huh?" discussion: the new effort from Fox, in which the studio will be putting up giant murals in malls to try to make it "easier" for you to buy DVDs. Here's how it works according to Deadline.com:

As part of an exclusive one-year partnership with Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, the malls will have a wall with cover art and QR codes for many the studio’s home videos. People who want to buy the movie or TV show can download a smartphone app called Fox Movie Mall, available for both iPhones and Android devices. It will enable them to scan an image and go directly to a Web site to complete the purchase for a DVD or Blu-ray disc shipped free to their home.

So, yeah. You go to a mall (physical) and download a special app (digital) which you then use to scan a silly QR code (digital) to be sent to a website (digital) to order a DVD (physical) to be shipped to your home (physical). There are a bunch of ridiculous extra steps here and I can't figure out how any of this makes sense. If you have people in a mall already and you're trying to get people to buy physical product, why not just let them scan and pick up the physical product? If you're focusing on the digital components, why require a specialized app that no one's going to want to download, and then not offer a digital version of the film?

Fox execs claim that they expect this new effort "to reach as many 60 million people over the next four months with the mall wallscapes." I guess that depends on your interpretation of "reach." If you mean 60 million people may walk by and ignore these murals, perhaps that's true. Though that suggests Fox must be spending a ridiculous amount of money to get these murals pretty much everywhere. If you mean that 60 million people will actually pay any attention at all to this convoluted system to buy an obsolete product fewer and fewer people actually want, well, then someone's done a miscalculation somewhere.

Seriously: how hard is it for folks in Hollywood to ask this simple question: "Would I ever use this product that I'm developing?" If the answer is "not in a million years" perhaps it's time to move on to building products that consumers actually want.

Filed Under: dvds, malls, murals, promotions, sales
Companies: fox

ABC Affiliates Blocked From Interviewing Johnny Depp Because He Is Promoting A Film Not Produced By Disney

from the taking-the-ball-and-going-home dept

Disney recently released the fourth entry of the Pirates of the Caribbean on DVD. With this, the full force of Disney's marketing muscle is on the loose. This includes enforcement of a clause in Depp's contract that prevents any ABC affiliate from interviewing him if it relates to any non-Disney film.

Otm Shank writes in to let us know that the Austin based KVUE, an ABC affiliate not owned by Disney, attended a premiere of Depp's new movie The Rum Diary but was not allowed to interview him. As pointed out by TVSpy, KVUE reporter Shelton Green said:

We came here expecting to talk with one of the biggest names in Hollywood. But apparently Disney doesn't want Johnny Depp’s new movie, premiering here at the Paramount, to get more exposure than his newest 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie. So they didn't allow us to interview him, nor did they allow us to get video of him.

Is there really a point to this embargo? I don't think so. By enforcing this embargo on ABC affiliates, Disney is not helping to promote its films, but is rather forcing these local stations to lose value with their viewers. Which do you think most viewers and fans of Johnny Depp want to watch, a report about not being able to interview Johnny Depp or an interview with Johnny Depp? I guess Disney doesn't care about the fans of the actors they work so hard to 'protect'.

Filed Under: films, johnny depp, pirates caribbean, promotions
Companies: disney