Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Product Placement For Negative Branding

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the touch-of-death dept.

Advertising 130

An anonymous reader writes "Product placement to promote your brand just isn't enough any more. These days, apparently, some companies are resorting to anti-product placement in order to get competitors' products in the hands of 'anti-stars.' The key example being Snooki from Jersey Shore, who supposedly is being sent handbags by companies... but the bags being sent are of competitors' handbags as a way to avoid Snooki carrying their own handbag, and thus potentially damaging their brand."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

clever (4, Funny)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514514)

i bet the jersey shore cast never even picks up on it.. i can picture them scratching their greasy waxed up heads going "why did chanel send me a louis vitton bag?"

Re:clever (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514834)

Like the cast is going to give a shit even if they did pick up on it. Mike Sorrentino is poised to make up to $5 million dollars this year alone through product endorsements, his own workout video, and getting $60,000 per episode. The cast is making more money than they ever thought they would in their lifetimes, I'm guessing. Why should they care whether chanel doesn't want them as customers? There are other designer clothing makers who'll take their money, no problem. And really, how is Snooki any more of an idiot than, say, Paris Hilton? Snooki graduated HS, at least. I don't recall hearing about this type of anti-product placement appearing on any of Paris' shows. Is there some sort of, um, bias rearing its ugly head here?

Re:clever (4, Informative)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515000)

You posted AC because you knew that this post would show you have way too much information on this show to have a brain.

Re:clever (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515292)

Fuck that pedo The Prophet Muhammad.

Yeah, because what a man may or may not have done a thousand years ago with one girl is so much more important than what at least the last 2 popes have incontrovertibly condoned being done to thousands of boys by threatening the victims with excommunication if they talked about it.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do [thisislondon.co.uk]

Then there is the Crimen Sollictationis in effect from 1962 to 2001 which guaranteed secrecy for the pedophile priests instead of a trial a court of the law in the country they resided. And the loons talk about a "muslim nation" separate from local laws...

Re:clever (1, Offtopic)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515354)

Good try.
But I do not like those bastards either.
The difference that you seem to be so conveniently missing is this...
Last 200 years the Christians, Catholics, Atheists, Taoists, Mormons and most other religions are not threatening people with Jihad because of cartoons and books.
But you go on missing the point of my signature.
It is not there for those who can't figure it out.

Re:clever (0, Flamebait)

WNight (23683) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515556)

And the loons talk about a "muslim nation" separate from local laws...

Err, yeah. That's what they want. Much like those christians you were just talking about. How can you NOT see this. Loony?

Fuck that pedo The Prophet Muhammad.

Yeah, because what a man may or may not have done a thousand years ago [... popes, etc]

Muhammad, the goat-fucker, isn't the target of this. People who adore him like children adore Santa Claus are the target.

Or perhaps like the Nazis worshiped Hitler.

Re:clever (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515830)

Yeah, because what a man may or may not have done a thousand years ago with one girl is so much more important than what at least the last 2 popes have incontrovertibly condoned being done to thousands of boys by threatening the victims with excommunication if they talked about it.

Erm, he didn't say that. "X is bad" does not imply "therefore Y is not bad".

Then there is the Crimen Sollictationis in effect from 1962 to 2001 which guaranteed secrecy for the pedophile priests instead of a trial a court of the law in the country they resided.

The what who now? *runs off to googlepedia* Hmm. As I see it, that was a church edict now how the church should handle such matters, and didn't exclude legal involvement. All it really says about secrecy is that if you're in the church trial then you can't say anything about it - there's nothing in there saying that if a priest propositions you, you can't make noise about it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of course, given that we're dealing with delusionals here, I see your point that some of those may have willfully misinterpreted it to mean "this will be dealt with by the church and must not be told to the cops."

And the loons talk about a "muslim nation" separate from local laws...

Exactly. The loons. The problem is not the lunatics demanding retarded things. The problem is the dullards who gullibly swallow the loons' rantings whole and take up the cause. That's where we get all this talk of Sharia courts superseding criminal law and similar nonsense.

Re:clever (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515414)

Actually, I posted as AC to bait right-wing fucktards like yourself into wasting their mod points by upmodding your complete worthless, non-informative, and barely grammatical sentence.

Mission Accomplished!

Re:clever (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516242)

You posted AC because you knew that this post would show you have way too much information on this show to have a brain.

Heh. Yeah. Because nerd/geek taste in TV is so chic.

Re:clever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33516384)

It doesn't matter. People who bash reality TV don't understand the terrible beauty that is human suffering. Nasubi really did it the best, that poor man. It's like being witness to some horrible accident. You can't stop looking. You just can't.

Re:clever (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515126)

Or "Why did 4chan set me up with a 5 digit Slashdot ID?"

Re:clever (1)

Jay Tarbox (48535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515160)

Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?

Re:clever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515290)

Holy crap, it's Snookie!

Re:clever (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515824)

Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?

Some people think it's a valid substitute for actually evaluating the quality of your post. So they might believe you not because your words ring true, but because they think you have some kind of seniority and they're far too easily impressed by that. I don't understand it any better than that but I have seen it happen myself.

It's distantly related to giving undeserved credibility to statements made by a government official in complete ignorance of the fact that when there is power at stake, people have more reasons to lie, not fewer, so their burden of proof should be higher, not lower.

Re:clever (1)

Strange Ranger (454494) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516720)

Not so. At the very least, a 5 digit user ID shows that about 12 years ago, the low digit poster was not (let's say) 8 years old or younger. Or if they were that young, they should probably get the +1 because even if they're wrong it's worth thinking about.

It's really too bad that might be the only valid Wisdom bonus here. I offer my Karma bonus as evidence.

Re:clever (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516880)

Not so. At the very least, a 5 digit user ID shows that about 12 years ago, the low digit poster was not (let's say) 8 years old or younger. Or if they were that young, they should probably get the +1 because even if they're wrong it's worth thinking about. It's really too bad that might be the only valid Wisdom bonus here. I offer my Karma bonus as evidence.

My UID is nearly twice your own, yet I have the same karma bonus. That greatly weakens or destroys your evidence there.

It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account. The UID alone doesn't give you any indication of this.

Finally, there are people who just refuse to learn. They are set in their ways. They can be wrong for all of those years. They can refuse to listen. They can also have a low UID.

There's just no substitute for actually reading and understanding a post before you dream of determining its merits. I have no idea why anyone would want all of the excuses designed to justify some way around this. It is as it should be.

Re:clever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33517300)

humans are humans. You might as well gripe about anyone ever making any generalizations.

Re:clever (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516264)

Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?

Yes. It means that there are thousands of Slashdotters who started contributing pithy bits of wisdom/humor/information before you. And apparently, there are more than a million (really? Holy crap!) who unleashed the full force of their wits after you did.

Re:clever (3, Funny)

troc (3606) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518786)

I dunno, I've never seen the point in being impressed with a 5 digit ID.

Re:clever (1)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516366)

For a minute, I thought this was from my Advertising Age newsfeed... I'm utterly mystified why it showed up on my Slashdot newsfeed.

Re:clever (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517162)

What's "jersey shore"?

Re:clever (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517744)

Its somewhere "West of Java" - probably also west of Javascript, but my Geography is not good without more coffee!

Why is the box for posting in so damn small? (Opera on Ubuntu?) Looks like someone cant write HTML properly!

Re:clever (2, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517348)

If we can just get the cast of Jersey Shore to swim around in the gulf for a few hours all of the oil will be absorbed by their hair. No more industrial strength pomade for the boys, and no more seagulls that look like they came out of Tolkien's nightmares! Win/win.

Don't know who that person is (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514530)

Don't care about this story about an alleged report about an unconfirmed rumour about something that may or may not, possibly, be happening that might or might not involve whomever her, she or it is supposed to be.

Seriously, even "idle" has limits.

Re:Don't know who that person is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514788)

Are you sure? You don't want to get caught like Obama did. He mentioned Snookie in his press correspondents dinner speech but then he said he don't know who Snookie is in his appearance on the view.

Unless you are living under a rock it is hard to miss Jersey shore. I haven't had cable TV for last few years and I still know who Snookie is.

Re:Don't know who that person is (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514934)

He mentioned Snookie in his press correspondents dinner speech but then he said he don't know who Snookie is in his appearance on the view.

He also didn't write his speech (that's what writers are for. Doubly so for the jokes). He did write his improvised dialogue on The View (mostly).

Re:Don't know who that person is (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514942)

You narrowly avoided being this guy. [theonion.com] , because at least you're not pretending not to know who pop culture stars are..

Re:Don't know who that person is (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515122)

I own a TV. Use it as a 37 inch monitor and to watch movies.

Re:Don't know who that person is (2, Interesting)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515116)

I had to look up who snooki was when her name hit the news outlets a few weeks ago. I don't live under a rock, and I usually date women in the 19-24 year old range who I go to college with. I just don't give a fuck about TV hows, other than Good Eats, and a few NAtional Geographic specials, which I download. Sorry not everyone cares about popular "culture" or instacelebs.

Re:Don't know who that person is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515406)

All I know is she's someone allegedly annoying on a TV show I have no interest in watching (and therefore haven't seen). And that's all I need to know about her.

Re:Don't know who that person is (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518558)

I still don't get it... Why are people watching TV shows featuring people that annoy them?

Re:Don't know who that person is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33517762)

I'm not American and I have nfi who this wierdo "Snooki" is. From a Google image search, she looks like a wannabe chubby chav..

Unlikely to work (0)

Meshach (578918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514538)

Anyone who is famous enough to have what they wear be a major advertising event is unlikely to use unsolicited items send through the mail.

FAIL!!

Re:Unlikely to work (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514768)

Unless they are complete shitheads and cannot get any free swag from ANY company no matter how infamous. Like those Jerky Shore dispshits. Nike will be sending them Adidas just to make sure. I would, to protect my brand. My brand? Nuts & Gum. I'm sending them a whole shitload of Planters Peanuts. Those fucks!

Re:Unlikely to work (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514794)

You overlooked the fact that the individual in question might not be famous enough to be given gifts by designers, but is major enough to be photographed / recorded. That is what the article is talking about. Certain brands do not want to be associated with certain types of people who are popular enough to be noticed. Therefore they send them brands other than their own in hopes that the individual will never pick up their brand.

It makes perfect sense (in so much as advertising ever makes sense). Big money brands like Chanel and Louis Vuitton do not want some well to do shopper in Beverly Hills or New York to look at one of their bags, think about buying it, and then have an association with some trashy chick from Jersey Shore popping into her head.

Re:Unlikely to work (2, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515066)

Burberry and its near-implosion due to adoption by chav culture is the poster child for this effect.

Re:Unlikely to work (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515322)

Burberry were hit especially hard because as soon as it became vaguely popular the market was flooded with much cheaper clothes which looked burberry enough. Having said that, their entire brand was a tartan pattern in slightly distinctive colours, maybe they should have made something less easy to copy.

Re:Unlikely to work (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514910)

Anyone who is famous enough to have what they wear be a major advertising event is unlikely to use unsolicited items send through the mail.

FAIL!!

You'd be surprised how many serious celebrities go nutzo for free crap. Especially clothes, shoes, jewelry, electronics (cell phones and such.) They take the free stuff and use it, even though they can afford to buy whatever they want.

Apple figured this out a long time ago. It gives out lots of free crap in hollywood, and boy does it ever get exposure.

Re:Unlikely to work (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515660)

Though there was a big spaz a few years ago when it was made clear that they would have to pay taxes on the Oscar gift bags and such.. (I presume they legally had to do so all along, just like people think "no taxes from online purchases" in most states, even though they are legally required to pay "use taxes" equal to the sales tax.)

Playing around with anti-stars can be dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514550)

If Snooki ever came in contact with Angelina Jolie, the entire state of California would be annihilated or revitalized if the event happened in New Jersey.

Re:Playing around with anti-stars can be dangerous (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514614)

As nasty as Snookie is I'd still pay to see her and Jolie have a naked catfight which devolves into angry, then increasingly loving kissing and from there...

Re:Playing around with anti-stars can be dangerous (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515106)

As nasty as Snookie is I'd still pay to see her and Jolie have a naked catfight which devolves into angry, then increasingly loving kissing and from there...

Don't do that! I'm getting ready to eat dinner, and I'd like to enjoy it.
[shudder]

What? (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514594)

What the hell is a snooki, and why are we talking about it on slashdot?

Re:What? (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514750)

What the hell is a snooki, and why are we talking about it on slashdot?

Because this is Idle and it's a slow news day. If your name is snooki there's a real good chance I don't give a shit about you or your handbag.

Re:What? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514760)

What the hell is a snooki,

NSFW

and why are we talking about it on slashdot?

because it's NSFW

Re:What? (5, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514836)

A "Snooki" is a delightful woman from a documentary about typical New Jersey residents, which should be fascinating to Slashdot readers who can't get enough such news from geek sites like TMZ. I commend the posting of this informative story.

Re:What? (4, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514930)

A "Snooki" is a delightful woman from a documentary about typical New Jersey residents

As a NJ native... the cretins on that show are *nothing* like typical NJ residents. They are typical only of a sub-type of seasonal NJ residents (just like the personalities on that show, most of the NJ guidos are from elsewhere).

New Jersey actually has about 6 or 7 culturally distinct regions... and the one region supposedly represented by the show is not like that at all... the BENNYs depicted on that show are despised by shorefolk in New Jersey as a whole.

Now, before I let my butt-hurt get out of hand...

I don't really mind if people think poorly of NJ; it keeps people from overcrowding the good parts of the state. But let's be honest... the cast of "Jersey Shore" is about as indicative of NJers as the cast of "Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock Hotel" is indicative of addicts in general.

Re:What? (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515128)

There are good parts?

(I keed, a large part of my extended family is from there)
(from there, not still there)

Re:What? (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515230)

Good parts? Joisey? What exit?

Re:What? (1)

NoZart (961808) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518370)

Jay and Silent Bob. So there must be good parts.

Re:What? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518074)

It's reality TV. It's supposed to be completely against reality.

If it was real reality TV, it'd be eleven people waking up in the morning, going to work, hating their job, coming home, eating dinner, then sitting in front of the television watching reality TV shows. I mean, who'd watch that?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33517350)

A "Snooki" is a delightful woman from a documentary about typical New Jersey residents, which should be fascinating to Slashdot readers who can't get enough such news from geek sites like TMZ. I commend the posting of this informative story.

are you sure its a woman?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514924)

It's clearly some kind of amphibian native to the shores of New Jersey, possibly a sea turtle.

Re:What? (2, Funny)

bandwidthcrisis (1768760) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515256)

what the hell is a snooki

A snooki is a blanket, with sleeves.

Re:What? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515324)

Snooki? Isn't that Chewbacca's cousin?

Re:What? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515696)

OK, I needed to know this as well. Here's the context for the anti-branding; Snooki is a young female of airhead demeanor on a reality show called Jersey Shore. Apparently this show has caused a lot of controversy with activist Italian organizations, who called for its banishment and censorship from television. Many original sponsors of the show have since ceased there commercial advertisements, like Dell Computer and Domino's Pizza.

Here's the reason for this anti-branding silliness:

One promotion stated that the show was to follow, "eight of the hottest, tannest, craziest Guidos,"[63] while yet another advertisement stated, "[the show] exposes one of the tri-state area's most misunderstood species... the GUIDO. Yes, they really do exist! Our Guidos and Guidettes will move into the ultimate beach house rental and indulge in everything the Seaside Heights, New Jersey scene has to offer."

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snooki [wikipedia.org]

Personally, I've worked with Italians before, and I can tell you MOST of them live up to their stereotype as being happy campers with a lot of gold jewelry jobs or contacts in the construction industry. From my experience, most young Italians can see the humor in their own stereotypes, but the authoritarian establishment types and the religious types are always the ones who cause a fuss.

Re:What? (1)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516628)

Snooki is a recurring character on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" skit. She is a promiscuous Oompa-loompa from New Jersey. We're talking about her to flaunt our conspicuous ignorance of American pop culture [theonion.com] .

Re:What? (1)

Cassander (251642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517996)

She is a promiscuous Oompa-loompa

You, sir, owe me a new chair! :)

(OK, not really, but I did actually fall out of it laughing!)

Please explain (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514608)

The key example being Snooki from Jersey Shore, who supposedly is being sent handbags by companies... but the bags being sent are of competitors' handbags as a way to avoid Snooki carrying their own handbag, and thus potentially damaging their brand."

Snooki who? Carrying in the sense of having in stock? I suppose if you know what's going on, you know what's meant with the above, but it's gobbledygook to me.

Perhaps it's good thing I normally don't look at idle posts ;-)

Re:Please explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33514780)

>Snooki who?
"Snooki from Jersey Shore"

I don't watch that crap either, but it's in the damn text you quoted. You're not impressing anyone. [theonion.com]

I want to bone snookie (1, Funny)

t0qer (230538) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514640)

Sorry i f you disagree, but I think she's cute. I'd love to give her my toqerstick.

Re:I want to bone snookie (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514948)

You really need to get out of your mom's basement more often!

Re:I want to bone snookie (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515172)

ugh. She is an ugly little oompa loompa. As someone else put it so eloquently, "I'd rather run a marathon barefooted through broken glass"

Re:I want to bone snookie (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515650)

I had no idea who she was, but after your comment I had to go look.

Dude.

She looks like Jabba the Hutt's infant daughter.

Snooki Phone (2, Funny)

SpockLogic (1256972) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514758)

Apple should send her an Android phone .....


Ducks.

Speaking of Android Phones (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516506)

Why do you think Microsoft paid Verizon to have their Bing app irreversibly integrated into all Verizon's Androids? Was it because they want Bing on the Androids, or because they want to do everything they can to slow down the Androids until they can launch their WP7? The more miserable they can make the Android experience, the better off they are. An integrated universal search app that can't be deactivated, removed or retargeted is just the kind of app you would want to be running to make the entire phone suck.

The curious thing is that Verizon agreed to it. That must have been a HUGE check. I hope Sprint's not dumb enough to fall for this one.

Yes, this is about negative branding.

Options for athletes / D-listers (1)

MDMurphy (208495) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514872)

Maybe this trend will mean more revenue options for athletes and D-list actors who are off beating their spouses and driving their cars into trees.

The can now be rewarded for their behavior by being paid to not wear Nike or not drive a Mercedes.

Re:Options for athletes / D-listers (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518106)

Now we have Anti-Product placement ....

Next Anti-Crime : Whitemail - Threatening to tell about the Mafia Boss's donations to charity unless they pay ...

When Competition Becomes Opposition (4, Interesting)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514882)

Never, it seems, is there a lack of anti-capitalist rhetoric on slashdot - but perhaps it is more proper to say there is never a lack of pro-capitalist rhetoric: pro-capitalist ideals being assumed as pro-competitive.

There is something wrong when competition turns into opposition. When an entity actively obstructs the progress of another, not through a product of better fit, but through the slandering or image-tarnishing of a competitors product.

To be fair (someone has to be), evolution has shown that, as a concept, offensive advertisement works. I therefore leave it to you, the reader, to decide if there really is anything wrong with (philosophically speaking) being a skunk.

Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515238)

That's the story of corporate America. From Ballmer dissing open source to incumbent telecoms lobbying to keep competitors off the airwaves. Politicians too numerous to list.

Its devolving into a bitchy little cat fight. What ever happened to doing your best and standing on your own reputation? Answer: Most of your market doesn't have such high moral principles. So let's sling the mud. The few people we lose with our tactics will be more than made up with the riff-raff that buy it. Particularly if you can get a third party to do the dirty work (Swift Boat, Snookie, etc.).

Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515544)

In an ideal free market, people compete by making the best possible product, not by attacking each other. When a company attacks another company, however, that's a type of competition which does not benefit, and in fact harms, the consumer. Thus, any kind of offensive tactics (this includes negative advertisement, "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off", hitting competitors with lawsuits, etc) violate basic free market principles and should be scorned for this reason.

Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515754)

When a company attacks another company, however, that's a type of competition which does not benefit, and in fact harms, the consumer.

If we're talking about lawsuits, I'd tend to agree, though most of those lawsuits are about IP which I think is what really stands against free market principles; not the lawsuits per se. Lawsuits for false advertising or fraud or libel are, I think, perfectly legitimate.

Whether the rest is anti-free-market really depends on whether or not me seeing some idiot on an idiotic TV show using a particular handbag given to her by a competitor can be seen as coercion. I suppose it can be, but I would consider that to be a highly trivialized version of the word. They aren't telling you what to believe; they're giving you a situation ("ZOMG SNOOKI USES THESE HANDBAGS!") because they think you already believe something about that. If consumers being stupid is anti-free-market then I would call that an indictment of the entire philosophy.

You'd also be right in the case of "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off," but I've never actually seen that, nor would I have any idea how they can implement it.

Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517240)

Thus, any kind of offensive tactics (this includes negative advertisement, "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off", hitting competitors with lawsuits, etc) violate basic free market principles and should be scorned for this reason.

Once you start saying what can and cannot be used as a criterion, how is it still a free market? If I get a visceral pleasure from hurting Brand B by buying Brand A, Brand A is providing me more value.

Would it be better for society if I didn't have that desire to screw Brand B, yes. But Brand A and I are both benefiting, presumably by more than it cost to implant the idea that I hate Brand B in my head. So isn't that what a free market should reward/encourage?

Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518438)

We're already deciding what can and cannot be used as a criterion. For example, Brand A cannot send soldiers to trash Brand B's factory. If you do not accept that, then you have an anarchy not a free market. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be a criterion, I made a very clear rule: making your product better = good, making others' product worse = bad. Your argument about hurting Brand B being the product falls apart (unless you happen to advocate anarchy) once you realize that sending soldiers against Brand B's factory is identical to sending lawyers against them or using dirty advertising tactics against them.

Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33517088)

Go away and re-write your ideas so they end up coherent.

I call bullshit (1, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33514990)

First rule of PR: There is no such thing as bad publicity. No PR hack worth his MBA would deliberately generate publicity for a competitor's product.

Re:I call bullshit (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515048)

Video games get truly negative impact press every time they're decried for their violence, sexuality, etc.. If a school shooting agitator played game X prominently then you can be darn sure that the patents would be screaming from the roof tops for a ban, and knowing places like Walmart, the games would get pulled for no other reason than to appease the mob.

Re:I call bullshit (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515166)

Did the public outcry about Grand Theft Auto drive total sales down or up? I rest my case.

Re:I call bullshit (2, Informative)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515662)

First rule of PR: There is no such thing as bad publicity. No PR hack worth his MBA would deliberately generate publicity for a competitor's product.

It's a popular cliche, but I have no faith that's true.

One sniff of child molestation charges or overt racism has ended many a celebrity's career. Not always mind you, but often enough. It really depends on how far and how bad. Mel Gibson and Gary Glitter being popular examples.

Re:I call bullshit (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518170)

If you RTFA, it's a blog quoting a blog, and that says it's a "rumors".

And it makes no sense. Anyone who hates the show won't be watching it, so they won't get the "anti-message". If there's any truth in it at all, which I doubt, maybe some companies got third parties to send their stuff so they could remain aloof, say they don't endorse the show , but still cultivate the market. But no one would ever deliberately use "anti-product placement". It would be ineffective, and risks blowback.

25 years ago, 1985 is back... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515014)

All the athletes in my high school practiced a bad rep as a way to get gifts from those unknown...

Old, old, old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515254)

Remember the original Robocop? Good guys all drove Ford Tauruses, then a brand new model. The bad guys lusted after a "6000SUX" which was a Pontiac 6000 with tons of ugly added to it.

Ha! I told my wife (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515350)

there had to be a catch to all these free "Goocci" brand handbags we get in the mail.

despicable but strangely encouraging (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515704)

My first reaction was of disgust. This is totally unethical.

However, if it works, it would give me a little more confidence in the people who actually watch and follow this drivel... Just a little...

In all honesty (1)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515708)

I have no idea who Snokie is nor have I ever heard of Jersey Shore. I do like the idea of "negative product placement", however I don't think it works. HEY COMPANIES try your negative add campaign on me!

This is nothing new (2, Informative)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515816)

Transformers: Autobots are mostly GM products, Decepticons that aren't military hardware tend to be Ford or Audi
24: Jack Bauer and his buddies drive around in Fords, the terrorists tend to prefer GM products or imports.

I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more examples if I wanted to.

Did they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33515892)

inoculate the handbags first so hey won't catch a disease from Snooki?

A La Carte Cable (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | more than 4 years ago | (#33515910)

This is another reason why I won't get cable until I can select each channel individually. Otherwise I am guaranteed to paying for Sumner Redstone's MTV Networks (including Jersey Shore), The Golf Channel, and other stuff that I don't watch. Why should I pay Disney's ESPN 4 bucks a month [wikipedia.org] when I really don't care what they have to say? It's not enough for me to see commercials when I'm watching, but to pay monthly too?

Re:A La Carte Cable (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518208)

Be careful what you wish for. Do you think the people watching MTV or the golf channel are interested in watching SciFi or other channels that might interest you? I'd bet money that geek tv on cable is effectively subsidised by viewers who have no interest in it. Sure you wouldn't be paying for MTV, but you'd be paying more for the channels you do want to make up for the people who stopped paying for that!

This goes back a long way (4, Informative)

kevinatilusa (620125) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516296)

Over a century ago Edison was making sure Alternating Current was used in the Electric Chair [snopes.com] , in order to make it seem more dangerous and associate it in people's minds with electrocution.

Re:This goes back a long way (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518134)

Apparently it took over a minute to finally kill the guy, much like Eduard Delacroix in The Green Mile. Fairly sickening. It would be interesting to know how the results would have been if the next "electricide" was DC. If it was faster, then surely the safety issues are with DC, not AC.

Just goes to show that political spin isn't a new concept.

Hmmmm (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#33516548)

Ok, so let me get this straight... if I get publicised as being an asshole, I can get free stuff? Reality TV, here I come!

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33516824)

I've been an asshole for 30+ years and it hasn't gotten me anything ... except retired 20 years earlier than all my friends.

Guess I can afford to buy my own things after all.

Zuned (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517006)

That explains why I got a free Zune.

Denial of service. (1)

bezenek (958723) | more than 4 years ago | (#33517284)

Where is her dumpster?

Here in Germany, they even do it with own brands (1)

maweki (999634) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518158)

Recently here in Germany, the Volswagen-Group had a problem with its Skoda-Brand. Its image was too good eating off Volkswagen-Market Share. So they now try to demote it a little bit so it becomes more attractive to those who would otherwise buy some Asian-brand cars in the lower sector.
In their ideal world, target audiences of Skoda and VW would not overlap.

I can't help wondering (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518188)

I can't help wondering if Steve Ballmer gets inundated by suppliers of office chairs.

uh, Seriously, who is Snooki - and why is this on (1)

IntenseTech (860852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518664)

Seriously, who is Snooki - and why is this on Slashdot?

How about political campaign robo-calls? (1)

Mad-Bassist (944409) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518724)

I tend not to vote for anyone that campaigns using telemarketing techniques, and have wondered if the more obnoxious ones are really coming from their opponents.

It would seem to be underhanded but effective!

Sounds dangerous (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#33518760)

This might backfire!

Wouldn't be the first time to have some stupid anti-celeb turn into a (B-)Celeb and actually start a fashion trend.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?