DailyDirt: Be Careful What You Ask For

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The internet can be a rather dangerous place to ask people for suggestions. This is especially true for big brands and pop singers (eg. Taylor Swift's promotional contest that voted for her to play at the Horace Mann school for the deaf) who have a significant number of haters just waiting for an opportunity to troll. Marketing folks have been trying out some experiments in gathering "user generated content" from the internet, and here are a few of cases that didn't go quite as well as planned.

• Coca Cola has apologized for its "Share A Coke" website in South Africa that apparently didn't limit user input to people's names. Filtering user input is a lesson that seems to be re-taught again and again. [url]
• McDonald's asked people to share stories of their favorite memories of the burger chain giant, but not everyone had cheerful, glowing things to say. The #McDStories hashtag was pulled from promotion after just a couple hours. "#McDStories: McDialysis? I'm loving it!" [url]
• Back in 2009, Skittles turned over their main website to anyone on Twitter who simply mentioned "skittles" in their tweets. Was that campaign a success or a failure? Tell us in the comments below.... [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: advertising, brands, campaigns, coke, crowdsourcing, marketing, share a coke, skittles, ugc, user generated content
Companies: coca cola, mcdonald's, twitter

DailyDirt: Ads Are Content... And Should Be Shareable

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Everyone complains about intrusive and annoying ads. If ads were entertaining and enjoyable, people would actually want to watch them. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone reading Techdirt on a regular basis. Somehow, though, it's much easier to find ads that are annoying than enjoyable. Here are just a few examples of viral ads that prove that commercials don't have to be irritating or pushy to convey their marketing message.

• Jean-Claude Van Damme has performed his most epic splits ever for a Volvo ad. But before that, JCVD had a lot of practice doing the splits on film. [url]
• Goldieblox mashes up a Rube Goldberg machine with a Beastie Boys cover to promote its girl-targeted toy that is supposed to expand girls' toys beyond just dolls and pink accessories. If there's a formula for a viral ad, it probably should contain some catchy music or a Rube Goldberg contraption. [url]
• One of the most viral online ad campaigns of all time has to be Blendtec's series of 'Will it blend?' videos. Will an iPad blend? Yes, but first they had to cheat a little and bend the iPad in half to make it fit into the blender. [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, beastie boys, commercials, girls, jean-claude van damme, marketing, media, rube goldberg, splits, viral videos
Companies: blendtec, goldieblox, volvo

Dutch Telcos Used Customer Metadata, Retained To Fight Terrorism, For Everyday Marketing Purposes

from the I'm-shocked,-shocked dept

One of the ironies of European outrage over the global surveillance conducted by the NSA and GCHQ is that in the EU, communications metadata must be kept by law anyway, although not many people there realize it. That's a consequence of the Data Retention Directive, passed in 2006, which:

requires operators to retain certain categories of data (for identifying users and details of phone calls made and emails sent, excluding the content of those communications) for a period between six months and two years and to make them available, on request, to law enforcement authorities for the purposes of investigating, detecting and prosecuting serious crime and terrorism.

Notice the standard invocation of terrorism and serious crime as a justification for this kind of intrusive data gathering -- the implication being that such highly-personal information would only ever be used for the most heinous of crimes. In particular, it goes without saying that there is no question of it being accessed for anything more trivial -- like this, say:

Some Dutch telecommunications and Internet providers have exploited European Union laws mandating the retention of communications data to fight crime, using the retained data for unauthorised marketing purposes.

Of course, the news will come as no surprise to the many people who warned that exactly this kind of thing would happen if such stores of high-value data were created. But it does at least act as a useful reminder that whatever the protestations that privacy-destroying databases will only ever be used for the most serious crimes, there is always the risk of function creep or -- as in the Netherlands -- outright abuse. The only effective way to stop it is not to retain such personal information in the first place.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: crimes, data retention, marketing, netherlands, telcos, terrorism

DailyDirt: Changing The Way We Think About Charity

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

When we donate to charities, it's never clear exactly where the money goes and whether our donations actually benefit the people they're supposed to help. Many donors are often shocked and outraged when they learn that some executives at nonprofit charities are being paid salaries exceeding $1 million. But activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta thinks this anger is misplaced and could damage charity fundraising, pointing out that people blame capitalism for creating inequities in our society, but then they refuse to let nonprofits use the tools of capitalism to fix the problem. Here are a few more things to think about when it comes to charities.

• In a recent TED talk, Pallotta suggested that charities should be rewarded for what they actually accomplish even if it costs a lot. People may not like the idea that their money is being used to pay for a charity's CEO salary or for advertising and marketing, but they should think about it this way -- investing in a capable leader and effective marketing efforts will significantly increase the amount of money raised that can then be used to help those in need. [url]
• It's really hard to turn money into help. That's what Tim Myers, founder of the Haiti School Project, realized after having spent more than $100,000 to build a school in Villard, Haiti. [url]
• Somaliland's success could be partly due to its lack of foreign assistance. Somaliland has been operating successfully as an independent country since it seceded from Somalia in 1991. Since Somaliland isn't recognized as a country by the rest of the world, it hasn't been able to receive foreign aid. As a result, it has been surviving by raising local tax revenues, which its citizens have been using as leverage to make the government more accountable.[url]
• Experts at The Center for Global Development suggest that there may be an "aid-institutions paradox" in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. They concluded that foreign aid could undermine a developing country's long-term institutional development and that donors should consider giving money to other more beneficial development activities, such as eradicating endemic diseases, peacekeeping, regional or global public goods, and debt relief.[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: capitalism, charity, dan pallotta, debt relief, donations, economics, foreign aid, fundraising, marketing, nonprofits, tedtalk

Film Distributor Convinced Oscar Nominees To Take Down Their Own Short Films, Because No Real Film Would Be Online

from the wtf dept

While the Oscars already happened this past weekend, we missed this one bit of insanity in the lead up. Apparently, Carter Pilcher, CEO of distributor Shorts International, made the rounds last week telling all of the nominees for "best animated short film" that they needed to take their films down from any online site. Why? Because, apparently, online stuff is too lowbrow, and no serious filmmaker would ever promote their films online. From the letter:

The fact that all the films were put online is perplexing as Academy voters have other and better means of viewing the films, including through the Academy-provided DVDs of all the Live Action and Animated short film nominees sent to all voting members. Making the films available online creates no competitive advantage.

Unlike Webbies or Ani's, the Academy Award is designed to award excellence in the making of motion pictures that receive a cinematic release, not an online release. Since 2006, we have built theater audiences significantly and created widespread interest in the films themselves and their place in the movie theater. This release of the films on the Internet threatens to destroy 8 years of audience growth and the notion that these film gems are indeed movies--no feature length film would consider a free online release as a marketing tool!

First off, that last statement is pure hogwash. A large and growing number of feature length films have been released online for free as a marketing tool. There's a whole company called Vodo.net that has helped filmmakers do that. All the way back in 2008, we wrote about director Wayne Wang (who has directed movies like The Joy Luck Club, Smoke and Maid in Manhattan) releasing his latest feature length film... free and online. Another success story involved a relatively unknown indie filmmaker who got his film on Hulu (for free), where it became the most watched thing on Hulu for a while. And, of course, Nina Paley famously released Sita Sings the Blues for free online. The idea that no maker of a feature length film would ever use the internet to release it for free is simply untrue.

And, in many ways, it seems even dumber to remove these short animated films from the internet. As many people have noted, obscurity is a much bigger threat to most content creators than anything else, and one way to guarantee further obscurity is to make sure your work cannot be found or seen easily. Somehow, I doubt that any of these animated short filmmakers are seeing that much money from whatever limited theatrical release Pilcher is able to give them. And yet, by taking their works offline, they may be missing out on building a much bigger and more loyal fanbase, which can help support future projects (Kickstarter, anyone?). The idea that no real filmmaker would promote their films online is something that comes from the viewpoint of an obsolete industry, not someone who is looking out for today's filmmakers' best interests.

Filed Under: animated short feature, internet, marketing, oscars, publicity, short films
Companies: shorts international

Dish Turns CBS' Actions Against It; Touts Its Revoked 'Best In Show' Status With A Damning Footnote

from the CBS-asks-for-more-bullets;-notes-other-foot-'only-lightly-damaged' dept

Dish Network's Hopper DVR has certainly made more than a few broadcasters uncomfortable. One of them, CBS, decided last week that it would rather drag its own brand through the mud (CNET) and lose a reporter than give its current lawsuit target a bit of favorable press. CNET named the Hopper "Best in Show" at CES, only to have CBS unceremoniously strip Dish's DVR of the title, a decision CBS likely now regrets.

The Consumerist reports that Dish is taking a well-deserved swing at CBS, this time on its own website where its touts the Hopper being named Best in Show, along with a very noticeable asterisk.

The wording after the asterisk reads:

*What’s an asterisk doing in our award? CBS will go to any lengths to keep you from enjoying ad-skipping technology – even censoring its own writers and throwing out their decision to name Hopper ‘Best In Show.’ Your vote is the only one that really matters.

Dish is also doing its part to keep print journalism alive, taking out full page ads in several newspapers.
 
So, what did CBS gain from freezing its legal foe out of an award? Absolutely nothing.

The broadcaster was reportedly worried that having one of its subsidiaries give an award to a Hopper DVR would possibly hurt its case in court. However, now that it’s been revealed that the device did indeed win the award — even if will never receive the actual accolade — it has only turned into a public relations boost to Dish and the Hopper.

If people weren't already aware of the product, they certainly are now. And for many of those, technology that time-shifts AND skips ads is right up their alley. In addition, more people are publicly aware of the legal battle, which seems to boil down to the networks' insistence that customers watch every ad. Bad news all around, and CBS needs look no further than the still-smoking gun in its hand to explain all the brand-new holes in its foot.

Filed Under: best in show, cnet, journalism, marketing
Companies: cbs, dish

Nutella Nastygrams Restaurant Promoting Its Product, Opens The Door For Competitors

from the i-drink-your-milkshake dept

It's astounding and depressing how often companies seem to abuse trademark law to pretend it's about complete ownership of a brand, rather than its roots as a consumer protection statute to stop someone from buying a product believing it was made, supported or endorsed by someone else. The latest ridiculous news comes courtesy of the Citizen Media Law Project in Boston, who notes that their local popular-with-the-college-kids "wraps and smoothies" joint, Boloco, has been legal nastygrammed by Nutella. Why? Because of this: their Nutella Milkshake, which they've sold for 14 years: Andrew Sellars from CMLP points out that the legal basis for this is... questionable at best:

Courts have long confronted this unauthorized-but-accurate use of another company's name. In a 1924 Supreme Court case the court considered a New York company that took a French company's cosmetic powder, blended it with a binding agent, and sold it as a compact including both the New York company's and French company's names on the packaging. The Supreme Court allowed the defendant to do this, provided that the defendant include a prominent disclaimer that the district court in the case initially imposed, informing the public that the two companies are not affiliated. Writing for the majority, Justice Holmes observed:

[W]hat new rights does the trade-mark confer? It does not confer a right to prohibit the use of the word or words. It is not a copyright. . . . A trade-mark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's good will against the sale of another's product as his. . . . When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo.

Many courts have adopted this case's approach to this question: you can use the trademark so long as you are not misleading the public into there being an affiliation between you and the company, other than your use of the company's product in your product. For example, a 2004 case from the Southern District of New York allowed a company that makes tuna salad display on the lid of its container – in letters about as large as the company's own brand name – that the salad was "Made with Bumble Bee Tuna," over objections from the famous tuna company.

In response, Boloco has decided to cave and is instead looking for alternatives to Nutella for their shake, even to the point of showing some of the other brands they're considering: In the end, it's difficult to see how any of this helps Nutella. They show themselves to be a bully, pissing off fans, and Boloco goes looking for competitors to promote in their place. As Sellars concludes in his article:

...when I was in Boloco today (field research!) I couldn't help but see the dozens of jars of Nutella in the back, and thinking about the dozen-or-so other locations around Boston with similar stacks of Nutella jars. Those will be replaced by a competitor's product, in a chain that seems to be growing with each passing month. Not to mention the thousands of Bostonians who have heard about this case and will naturally root for the local guy; you get the feeling that this whole experience is going to leave a bitter taste in [Nutella's] mouths.

Perhaps, next time, they'll realize that bullying may be legal, but it's often not a particularly smart business strategy.

Filed Under: cease and desist, marketing, nutella
Companies: boloco, nutella

DailyDirt: Make The Logos Bigger, Better

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Logos can convey all kinds of messages -- and instill a sense of confidence or demonstrate a lack of attention to detail. Some logos are fun. Others are serious. Some company logos don't change very much over a long period of time, but others seem to change with every passing design fad. Some logo re-designs are more successful than others. Here are just a few interesting logo collections of some branding campaigns that you might recognize.

• SB Nation's network of 300 blogs redesigned all their logos for a re-launch -- with just a single designer, Fraser Davidson, in 7 weeks. Designing 300 logos is hard enough, but add in the complication that none of these logos should in any way infringe upon their related sports teams' official trademarks.... [url]
• Imagine some popular corporate logos redesigned for a hipster blog or startup. You don't have to imagine it, there's a Tumblr blog for it. [url]
• The evolution of corporate logos is kinda fascinating. Apple's first logo in 1976 is really different from its current minimalistic logo. [url]
• Some logos have hidden messages in them. The Big Ten collegiate conference logo has a little nod to the fact that there are actually eleven teams in its organization. [url]

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

Filed Under: branding, design, logos, marketing, messaging
Companies: apple, pepsi

Just Because You Don't Like What People Say About You, Doesn't Mean You Get To Sue For Defamation

from the nuisance dept

We've written plenty of times about public interest organization Public Citizen, mainly concerning efforts by its litigation group to protect those who have been sued in bogus lawsuits that would impact the internet's openness. However, every so often Public Citizen itself gets sued. Late last week, it revealed all of the details of a defamation lawsuit filed against it, concerning its letter to the FDA arguing that a certain product -- the LipoTron -- was being illegally marketed and promoted.

One of the organizations mentioned in the letter took exception to the claims in the letter and discussion on the web, and sent a cease-and-desist arguing that the claims were defamatory. In response, Public Citizen sent back a long letter backing up all of its claims (and also noting that they had never named the principal in the company, Mark Durante, so having him claim defamation personally didn't make much sense). This is the point where it makes sense to give up, but Durante's company, Advanced Aesthetic Concepts LP, sued anyway for libel, and asked the court for a temporary restraining order (TRO). When Public Citizen signed up a top local lawyer in Texas, pointed to Texas' new anti-SLAPP law (which would allow them to seek lawyers' fees), and told the lawyer that they were prepared to show up in court to contest the TRO, they were told that the case against them would be dropped.

At the very least, this yet again highlights the value of good anti-SLAPP laws in protecting those who are sued. But, once again we're amazed at how many people seem to think that filing defamation lawsuits in situations like this could possibly bring about a good result. In this case, all it's serving to do is call significantly more attention to the original claims that Public Citizen made in its original letter to the FDA (and then backed up in the legal filings).

Filed Under: defamation, fda, lipotron, marketing, medical devices, nuisance
Companies: advanced aesthetic concepts, public citizen