×

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!

Shooting Yourself In the Foot, 21st Century Style

timothy posted about a year ago | from the only-with-long-arms-of-course dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 172

rueger writes "Right now there's an election happening in British Columbia. A desperate government is flooding Facebook with "Sponsored Post" spam (example) extolling the wonderful things that they plan to do if re-elected. There's one problem though. Every one of these posts is followed by hundreds of extremely negative comments added by people who either dislike the party in question, or Facebook spam in general. Desperate moderators are trying to control the 'discussion,' but seem to have no hope of doing so. What was thought to be a cool marketing tool has turned into a public relations disaster. Is this the worst use of social media in an election?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

172 comments

Social media (2, Insightful)

eksith (2776419) | about a year ago | (#43077999)

Still no one gets it.

Re:Social media (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078063)

It's not just about social media, very few even understands simple marketing.
You still see advertisements that try to force themselves onto people, not realizing that this creates a connection with discomfort and the product.

Politics, still they don't get it (4, Interesting)

captainpanic (1173915) | about a year ago | (#43078129)

They still don't get it.

The fact that politicians are allowed to lie in an election is just insane. Politicians present a budget that just is not balanced. If a detergent commercial would include lies of such magnitude, they'd be banned from tv. And the politicians wonder why people do not feel connected to politics.

They still don't get it. Politicians shouldn't be using simple marketing at all. But because one is doing it, they're all doing it. They can only solve it together.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (5, Insightful)

InterGuru (50986) | about a year ago | (#43078201)

We denigrate politicians because they lie, but candidates who tell the truth don't get elected.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078363)

Case in point: Jimmy Carter was naive enough to the nation the truth [wikipedia.org] , and the public was so upset that they threw him out on his ass and put in a senile movie actor who told us things that made us feel good.

If the public wanted politicians who told the truth, they would vote for them.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43079001)

Jimmy Carter was naive enough to the nation the truth,

Did he tell them how much energy the military was wasting on maintaining the global status quo in order to keep the USA on top of global politics and the economy? No? Half a truth is worse than none.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079005)

And if the public deserved such politicians, they would get them.

Every democracy gets the leaders it deserves.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#43079051)

Case in point: Jimmy Carter was naive enough to the nation the truth [wikipedia.org] , and the public was so upset that they threw him out on his ass and put in a senile movie actor who told us things that made us feel good.

If the public wanted politicians who told the truth, they would vote for them.

Hmmm...Many people now think that Regan actually did a pretty good job overall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Regan#Legacy [wikipedia.org]

Truly inspirational leaders, (Winston Churchill springs to mind), manage to combine the ability to give the bad news whilst simultaneously outlining credible plans for fixing things, and giving people hope.

Carter failed on the second count.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0, Flamebait)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#43079331)

Hmmm...Many people now think that Regan actually did a pretty good job overall.

He was still as dumb as a sack full of hammer handles, as I believe they say your side of the pond.

What annoys non-Americans about Regan (and particularly Bush Jr) is not so much how evil they were, but how fucking thick. I mean, I hate Margaret Thatcher, but I wouldn't say she was actually of below normal intelligence.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year ago | (#43079921)

Yeah, we despise them because they were to a large extent the unknowing tools of evil men (and in one case, the tool of his poppa and his golf buddies).

I think this dichotomy is common in politics - you have the attractive front men, who are probably most useful if they *believe* the trickle-down rhetoric. And you have the guys who don't believe a word of it all but find it furthers their interests.

I wonder which group David Cameron is in. I'm fairly certain he can't be that good an actor. A bit like Reagan.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#43080131)

People consistently rate the last few Presidents among the best ever because they've got goldfish memories. For some reason, Reagan has be exalted on the Right for things he never did and never believed in.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080393)

The Onion has a decent take on that:

"Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They've Been Praising Reagan"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080303)

Many people think Reagan did a good job overall because many people are stupid in the extreme. You have to keep in mind that 60% of Americans don't even know if the Earth revolves about the Sun or not, and only 20% can read a bus schedule accurately.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1, Insightful)

PoolOfThought (1492445) | about a year ago | (#43079213)

Give me a break. How your comment is "informative" other than it offering a link is beyond me.

All this speech did was potentially (if not responded to in the short term with vigor) opened the door for the President of the United States to start telling people to tone down their own lives for the good of the collective. Carter already had terrible approval ratings and SOMEHOW this speech actually helped him in the slightest, but, only for a short time. I'm thankful that some "senile movie actor" was around to remind people of what they already knew.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43079375)

Jimmy Carter was thrown out on his ass because he permitted the hostage crisis to last so long - right up through the election. Being a veteran, Jimmy Carter SHOULD HAVE had some idea how to handle that hostage situation. Instead of handling it, or getting the experts to handle it, he put together this special little Kum-By-Yah task force. And, watched that task force fuck itself in the desert.

Being a NAVY veteran, Jimmy SHOULD HAVE known that if ANYONE could handle the mission, it would have been the Marines. (That is not to say that the Marines could have successfully completed the mission - that is only saying that IF ANYONE could do it, they could.)

Jimmy Carter made a laughing stock of himself, and the Armed Forces with his Feel-Good-Circle-Jerk task force.

You simply cannot magically wave a wand, and create a task force consisting of squids, jarheads, grunts, and whatever the fuck the Air Force people call themselves, and expect them to accomplish anything more than a cluster fuck.

Zumwalt should have taught his protege something about leadership.

They hostage situation may or may not have cost him the election anyway, but that major fuck-up guaranteed that he couldn't be re-elected.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

stang (90261) | about a year ago | (#43079613)

whatever the fuck the Air Force people call themselves

Zoomies!

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43079707)

They hostage situation may or may not have cost him the election anyway, but that major fuck-up guaranteed that he couldn't be re-elected.

If the hostage situation guaranteed that Carter couldn't be reelected, why didn't the Iraq war guarantee that Bush couldn't be reelected? The Iraq war was a much larger fuck-up by orders of magniuted. The public doesn't care if you fuck up. They care whether or not you swagger when you fuck up.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43079759)

The Iraq war was declared a win, and marketed as such. Quite successfully, I'll add.

Aircraft crashing and burning in the desert with no enemies to blame it on cannot be marketed as a victory, even to retarded high school kids. Forget trying to sell it to high school kids of even average intelligence.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080433)

You simply cannot magically wave a wand, and create a task force consisting of squids, jarheads, grunts, and whatever the fuck the Air Force people call themselves, and expect them to accomplish anything more than a cluster fuck.

well, you could, if those involved weren't so full of themselves, stopped their bullshit competitiveness, and maybe acted professionally.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080021)

The energy crisis was not the main reason Carter lost the election. Record high interest rates + rising inflation was unheard of until then. Don't forget about the Cold War heating up after the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Carter's response to both was generally viewed as anemic.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078583)

Which one do you believe is an honest politician? I'm not saying they don't exist, but if you are referring to corporatist Ron Paul, that's the majority of your problem.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078213)

When polled, the US voting public wants the Federal budget as a whole to go down but wants each individual item to go up. Are you surprised that the representatives they elect can't pass a budget?

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078317)

Mostly because americans as a whole are retarded and cant balance their own checkbooks.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43078777)

very few have a checkbook anymore.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43079415)

That's even worse, if you think about it. Most Americans rely on credit cards, and they just run the damned things up until they are refused. At least with a checkbook, the checks start bouncing as soon as you're overdrawn, not after you're ten thousand or more in debt.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (-1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#43079497)

very few have a checkbook anymore.

Congratulations, it is quite impressive to make a statement that is so accurate and so unhelpful. You must be an actuary.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (4, Funny)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year ago | (#43078927)

> Mostly because americans as a whole are retarded and cant balance their own checkbooks.

Balancing your checkbook is an obsolete skill. Move into the 21st century.

Everyone today knows that you spend by using credit cards. When they get maxed out, you just get new ones.

Problem solved. See how easy that was?

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079839)

Although you were modded 'funny', you should really be modded 'pathetically sad but true'.

Personally, it's a point of pride in myself that I keep my credit card at a zero balance. I've long since paid off any student loans, and at the moment, I'm only a small amount in debt due to a credit line that was used to pay for my wedding. My wife and I have taken to relatively aggressively paying it off and living off next to nothing until then. Probably about 3 months left before that's zeroed out too.

Note: We don't have a house to pay a mortgage on or anything massive like that... apartment living at the moment. However, we've paid off the car at least, and only have that last little bit of wedding fund to go.

Too bad many people simply neither think nor live this way. I honestly couldn't name a single person that I know that has an empty credit card. And it's not like I'm rich... we're basically living paycheque to paycheque like every other middle class or lower person. But I DO at least have an RRSP that's constantly being added to and growing. Far too many just don't think too far into the future.

What would be the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079783)

When the bank screws up & makes all your money magically vanish... all the checkbook pencil scratches in the world won't get it back. The system ALWAYS goes with the banks figures and not yours, so why bother keeping your own figures?

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (3, Informative)

isopropanol (1936936) | about a year ago | (#43078885)

If the parent post is on topic, the poster is referring to the BC provincial budget recently passed. The governing party claims that it is balanced but several economists etc. who have been interviewed in the media say that it achieves being balanced by liquidating provincial assets and predicting unrealistic revenues from natural gas wells that have not been drilled yet.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (4, Interesting)

Meeni (1815694) | about a year ago | (#43078479)

A balanced budget is -not- a sound economic policy. Your budget must have a deficit approximately equal to growth rate. For some retarded reason, this is the way money is created (fed buys treasury bonds, emit money as a result), and available money needs to be commensurate with the size of the economy.

Now the trick is that bonds have an interest rate. Hu ho. Creating money costs money. The second trick is that growth rate is notoriously difficult to predict accurately, in particular because growth rate strongly depends on public spending. Hence it is somewhat easy to "overestimate" the deficit that should be dialed in to result in best economic output (and it could be argued that being conservative would have direr economic results that overspending, by shrinking the economy today instead of creating a potential problem later, maybe never). Anyway, both issues result in permanent deficit increase, even in % of GDP, which is bad, but is somewhat the result of how "the system" works, independently of politicians ideas.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078691)

So in other words you think that economic growth is predicated on a budget deficit in the government, but you have no idea how to compute what that deficit should be or even if it has an appreciable impact on the economy. Sounds like sound economic thinking to me! Sign me up!

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078825)

No, he's saying that expansion of the money supply is necessary (but not sufficient) for economic growth and that the way the Federal Reserve is set up, expansion of the money supply requires a budget deficit (this is not to say that every monetary system requires this, only the Federal Reserve).

Both of these statements are true.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079343)

The Federal Reserve is not restricted to purchasing government debt (and never has been). It has traditionally purchased government debt as a choice of policy. There is no legal obligation in its charter to only purchase government debt. If there was insufficient government debt, the Federal Reserve can purchase whatever assets it pleases. This occurred most recently with the expansion of the quantitative easing programs because the Federal Reserve was hitting its statutory limits on how much of outstanding treasuries of a certain maturity it is allowed to own.

I am not against governments running deficits in certain instances. Arguing that government debt is a condition to grow the money supply is just a convenient excuse to the government generating debt, even if it may not be economically prudent to do so.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079201)

Sorry, this is a bold faced lie (or at least strongly misleading). First, even if you assume that the Fed has to buy treasury bonds (which they don't - think about the most recent QEfinity nonsense with MBS), the money supply doesn't have to grow. Many economists believe that a moderate rate of inflation (1-2%) is beneficial to economic growth (as opposed to slow deflation which would result with a constant money supply with a growing economy - see 1870-1900), but there is very little empirical evidence to support this position - it's taken mostly on (in my opinion, somewhat dubious) theoretical grounds relating to consumer and producer expectations. Further, even if you posited that the money supply must grow and the Fed must buy treasury bonds, there is still a huge surplus in government debt that would last 50+ years before we would run out of treasury bills/notes/bonds to add to the Fed's balance sheet.

You can make arguments as to why sovereigns should run deficits. The need to run deficits to grow the money supply is not one of them.

(Yes, IAAPHDE - I Am A PhD Economist)

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1, Troll)

udachny (2454394) | about a year ago | (#43079243)

Balanced budget is the only sound economic policy. Central gov't is a LUXURY item, it's unnecessary for a society to exist by the way, society can run without any central gov't and have local gov't instead (if any, whatever the form it may be).

Central gov't is a spending item on the overall balance sheet of a country. It's the country that spends too much that has constant deficits, government deficits, trade deficits. USA has 50 Billion USD/month (around that) trade deficits. Lately they went down a bit, because USA reduced its fuel consumption and it's exporting some of its oil. That's how bad things are in USA, it's no longer using the oil, it exports it, like a raw material/energy exporter.

Well, that's the only thing that USA has left that it can actually trade with - raw energy, raw materials, probably food items. What else can it sell? Nuclear warheads? Aircraft carriers? Well, eventually, when the dollar is done and the bonds are toilet paper, they may even SELL THEIR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Why not? They could be used for metal or as barges maybe.

USA used to be a net importer before 19th century, it was a debtor nation and over the first 124 years of existence it became a net exporter and the largest CREDITOR nation in the world. It did it without any gov't, it did it without any gov't debt.

The debt was mostly private and it was repaid as the industry built up and made profits.

Americans will learn eventually that there is no difference between a pre-industrial economy and a post-industrial one, the major difference will be more difficult access to natural resources, because the easy ones were mined long ago, and so the American economy will be in a much more difficult position in the future century than it was 2 centuries ago from that perspective.

The REAL money is NOT created by gov't. Money is what market makes, not what gov't says it is, and market chooses money that is not easy for politicians to fake. Gold is money, paper is not. Gold has to be mined, the metal has real intrinsic value in it, people's effort goes into it, it's not very easy to increase the supply.

Paper, OTOH (and any electronic equivalent) is nothing at all, but a number printed in inc on a dirty sheet.

Real money does not come from fractional reserve lending, unless all of the banking participants (creditors, depositors) are aware of the fact that most of their money is in the hands of debtors, who may lose it. This means that REAL MONEY CAN BE LOST, there is a risk associated with lending.

That's not at all what gov't is facing when it issues more and more fake debt promises and more and more fake credit is created out of thin air by the Fed, to buy that fake debt, to keep interest rates down. But they can only keep the interest rates down as long as they take in all of the new debt and only until the currently held bonds start rolling over.

The real question becomes: with all the short term paper that is held by the foreigners and various public interests, will it be the very NEXT roll over or the one after that, which will collapse the US dollar and thus the bond, will push the interest rates way up and cause a massive recession (that USA actually needs to clear its debts and restart the economy)?

Which one?

I think whatever happens next depends on whether the creditors are willing to wait just one more roll over or if they are inpatient. So 2-3 years, no more than 5 is when the entire thing goes down.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080181)

Having a deficit equal to growth rate in order to "create money", while I'm sure is accurate enough, is still about the most retarded thing a government could do.

Y'know what else "creates money". NOT FUCKING SPENDING MORE THAN YOU'RE TAKING IN! Oh, no, wait... that's not called "creating money". "Creating money" is just a nice way of saying "Printing more money". Not spending it is called "saving money", which is what the governments in Canada and the USA should be doing aggressively.

Honestly, for like... the next decade, the budget should not only be "balanced", but leaning HEAVILY in favour of receiving more money than it's spending. Like say... we only spend 80% of what's received or something.

That's called getting rid of the goddamn debt that's existed forever.

But what's that? Having some debt is a good thing? Y'know why they say that? BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER IN EXISTENCE EXPERIENCED ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, SO THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT NOT BEING IN DEBT WOULD DO! You can speculate, and guess, and say what it looks like it'd be on paper... but guess what, the real world doesn't work like it does on paper. But mostly, I'm sure it's just to make society feel better about having a country that's in a permenant state of being indebted to everyone else.

[/rant]

Seriously North America, get your heads out of your asses. Debt is a bad thing. That's just common fucking sense. If you wanted to do business with someone, would it be someone who's accounting book is in the black, or someone so horrendously in debt that there's absolutely no chance they will ever use anything other than a red pen in that book?

Personally, I kinda wish that those we owe our debts to would man up and say 'pay us... in OUR currency... immediately, or we cut off ALL ties with you until you pay it all back.' It'd throw the country into absolute chaos, but then maybe, just maybe, the governments would realize "oh shit, I guess this permenant spiral into debt ISN'T sustainable" and actually fucking fix things. I already know where I'd be living off the land once society collapses over here. That, or I'd be sensible and bail over to a country that isn't run by fucking idiots (or at least run by less idiotic idiots).

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43078875)

If a detergent commercial would include lies of such magnitude, they'd be banned from tv.

Um... have you ever seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jkwQV_5Kb0 [youtube.com]
That stuff literally eats holes in your close. And that dude was on so much blow while he was doing these commercials he had a heart attack and died. TV = Lies

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year ago | (#43079949)

Yeah, I proved that to my own satisfaction when I was a kid. I painted the stitching on one of our deckchairs with a solution of biological detergent, operating on the hypothesis that if this stuff eats biological material, then it would rot the stitches. My grandfather fell through that chair the next day.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079177)

APL lied with it's voice assistant commercials on a global scale. Do you hear of a lawsuit on a wide scale?

You actually think commercials on TV are accurate?

Silly human.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about a year ago | (#43079455)

"The fact that politicians are allowed to lie in an election is just insane."

The alternative is that a government, consisting of or substantially under the control of politicians, is tasked with policing an election, determining what is the truth and what is a lie, and sanctioning those who are deemed liars. Clearly there's no way there could possibly be a massive conflict of interest here.

In fact, government policing of "elections" to weed out "lies" spread by competing political parties has worked for decades in a variety of utterly corrupt totalitarian dictatorships.

Re:Politics, still they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080241)

Lying is not illegal in advertisements, not in the US anyway.

Re:Social media (4, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | about a year ago | (#43078099)

Perhaps they should have consulted with a Social Media Expert. Preferably one well versed in SEO and targeted ad compaigns. Those guys are great.

clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078001)

the people running the show thought "let's market on facebook yeah!"

and then they hired some fucktard that ruined their campaign.

one of the reasons politicians screw up so much is because they are dirty and cannot trust anyone, so they find people they trust to do things they are unqualified for.

Re:clueless (3, Interesting)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year ago | (#43078081)

the people running the show thought "let's market on facebook yeah!"

and then they hired some fucktard that ruined their campaign.

Actually I think the idea is dumb. Political ideas are very divided, you're either for these guys or the oposing party. Since people are more likely to relate negative opinions than positive ones, you can only expect negative public comments to outnumber positive ones - there's no way this could come across as a positive endorsement.

Re:clueless (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43078903)

This is in Canada.

There's more than one "opposing party".

Re:clueless (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#43079625)

Barring the independents and van Dongen's 6 months as a Conservative, I don't believe your legislature has had more than one opposing party since 2001.

Re:clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080427)

That's irrelevant. Same as with the USA, they will all promise whatever the fuck they can to get elected, taking their sides on the obligatory wedge issues that have no real bearing on the country as a whole, but split people up against eachother, and then do the same goddamn things all the other parties would do in regards to issues that actually matter. Instead of voting for asshole A or B, we're stuck voting for assole A, B, or C. Personally, I always vote Green party (asshole D). Not because I expect them to fix anything, but just to see someone new fail us horribly for once. Like looking at different scenery while still residing in hell.

Re:clueless (1)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about a year ago | (#43078203)

one of the reasons politicians screw up so much is because they are dirty and cannot trust anyone, so they find people they trust to do things they are unqualified for.

Wrong. Bureaucrats tender for proposals and hire the lowest bidder, that is why they don't get it and most likely never will.

If you can't do.. teach.. if you can't teach... run for office.

Re:clueless (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43078359)

You seem to have your stereotypes mixed up: campaign operatives, PR flacks, Ad agencies, and similar(while undoubtedly twisted abhumans who subsist on a diet of hatred and the flesh of innocents) are Not sinecured civil-service jobsworths(neither are a lot of real-world bureaucrats; but many of them at least have that option).

The ones attached directly to a given party or candidate rise and fall with the fortunes of their client, and the freelance ones only get re-hired if they appear to get results.

Some of the actual politicians are a few bulbs short of a christmas tree(though they usually have to have some sort of compensating virtues, like charisma or a smiling family for photo ops); but candidate marketing is a flavor of advertising, which is something that we take very seriously indeed.

Re:clueless (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year ago | (#43078955)

> If you can't do.. teach.. if you can't teach... run for office.

If you can't do . . . teach.
If you can't teach . . . administrate.
If you can't administrate . . . run for office.

FTFY (1)

Nialin (570647) | about a year ago | (#43079871)

If you can't do.. teach.. if you can't teach... run for office.

If you can't do . . . teach.
If you can't teach . . . administrate.
If you can't administrate . . . run for office.

FFS, I've always hated this shit. Be reasonable:

If you can do . . . teach.
If you can't teach . . . do.

Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078009)

Nothing better than seeing peoples pathetic attempts to "own" or "steer" the conversation backfire.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079665)

You will eat your Pravda, and you will like it!

Guggle (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078025)

I hate guggle. Theyz luzaz.

Waitrose (upscale supermarket in UK) Twitter (2, Interesting)

cmdawson (725509) | about a year ago | (#43078061)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205975/Waitrose-Twitter-backlash-I-shop-Waitrose--I-dont-like-surrounded-poor-people.html [dailymail.co.uk] 'I shop at Waitrose because... I don't like being surrounded by poor people': Internet jokers hijack 'posh people's supermarket' Twitter stunt Supermarket asks Twitter why people go there using the hashtag #WaitroseReasons but got some answers it will not have liked Majority of people who replied concentrated on its posh reputation and only a minority gave serious answers 'I shop at Waitrose because Clarrisa’s pony just WILL NOT eat ASDA Value straw,' one said Another said: 'I shop at Waitrose because the toilet paper is made from 24ct gold thread' Waitrose's PR team tweeted back that they enjoyed 'most of them'

Re:Waitrose (upscale supermarket in UK) Twitter (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#43079197)

I think the thing many firms do not undertand about social media is it is much harder to be in control of the message. So while Facebook and Twitter try to convince advertisers that they provide a useful service worth lots of money, without a very clear understanding of the channel it will backfire. MacDonald's seems to be particularly inept.

We have also seen thins again with Ann Romney going about blaming the media for all her problems. It is not so much the media as it that average people know have the opportunity to respond to silly statements.

Re:Waitrose (upscale supermarket in UK) Twitter (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#43079691)

What retard modded this as flamebait? It is a perfectly on-topic example of the sheer fucking stupidity of most social media "hey guys let's take this viral!" marketing bollocks. The only surprise is the relative good humour of the gamed company, but then again they can afford to.

And some more examples (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | about a year ago | (#43080443)

Further down the same article, they offer these gems:

Waitrose may have had an uncomfortable few days following a PR campaign online that went sour but it is not the first big player to be burned in this way.
Many other businesses have tried to whip up interest on Twitter only for it to blow up in their faces, while others initiatives have just been plain poorly judged or in bad taste.
In 2009 the Daily Telegraph wanted to show how techno-savvy it was by allowing tweets about the Budget to appear on its website automatically using a Twitterfall.
If someone used the hashtag #budget it would pop up on telegraph.co.uk but it was quickly hijacked by those who used it to make jokes at the paper's expense (pictured right [dailymail.co.uk] )
Some choice comments included: 'Even the Indie is better than this drivel'.
McDonalds also wanted to boost its profile online by using the hashtag #McDStories to ask people to regale stories of their hard-working staff - but it didn't go at all to plan.
Tweeters came straight back with their horror stories at restaurants, claiming they were given food poisoning, and that one burger contained a finger nail.
Search engine giant Bing also courted controversy when it pledged to donate to charity following a devastating Japanese earthquake in a stunt they believed would also boost their profile online.
Their staff tweeted: 'How you can #SupportJapan - For every retweet, @bing will give $1 to Japan quake victims, up to $100k'.
But instead all it got was a barrage of abuse from people convinced it was in poor taste.
Only this year coffee giant Starbucks put its foot in it on Twitter.
They were forced to issue an apology after it managed to upset people in Ireland.
It 'erroneously posted' a tweet which encouraged followers on there to 'show us what makes you proud to be British' - and outraged replies followed.
And sometimes companies get it completely and utterly wrong.
Condom giant Durex decided to run a PR campaign with the hashtag #DurexJoke.
In utterly disastrous fashion it decided to start the ball rolling with this joke to its South African followers - 'Why did God give men penises? So they'd have at least one way to shut a woman up. #DurexJoke'.
It went very badly for them from there.

----

(A bit Off-Topic, but every time I copied some text from there, it automatically appended

at the end. I wonder what technical trickery they are doing ;p)

"Worst" or "Best"? (5, Interesting)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about a year ago | (#43078075)

Depends on your point of view - as a publicity stunt, it is an epic fail. It should have also been expected. Keeping open discussions on the internet is inherently problematic, even if you are posting the most non-controversial of statements. Start a discussion on how cancer is bad for humans, and there will be someone posting about how good it is for population control.

On the other hand, if some of the top government officials can be bothered to read the criticism, they might actually learn something. While democracy is great and all that, once people get into office they might as well be governing from the moon. It's easy for you to refuse to allocate funds to fix my roads if you don't use them on a daily basis.

The internet has made it easy to offer feedback and that should (in theory) help people govern better. While it is true that we could always "write/call" our congressman, it isn't really practical when you get to higher levels of government (e.g. do my tax dollars go to fund a war or education).

Re:"Worst" or "Best"? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43078401)

On the minus side, it has become readily apparent that the internet's SNR has some... room for improvement. It's also pretty easy for moderately competent jokers to combine trolling skills with sock-puppetry, poll stuffing, etc, etc.

Even on parts of the internet where controlling the discourse is worth essentially nothing, some nutjob is probably wasting his life winning the edit war or posting about how he earns $68/hour working from home. If there were a location where politicians were actually listening(and, implicitly, money and power were available for allocation), you'd need explosives to cut your way through the astroturf...

keyword: desperate (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078131)

If the advertiser is truly desperate, it may have been worth the gamble.

Here, I interpret "desperate" as "likely to lose." They may have realized that the normal route (kissing babies, buying TV ads) wasn't going to work.

If you're going to lose, gambling big makes sense. The downside is losing (and you were losing anyway). The upside is winning (and it is huge).

I always wondered if this is why immigrant Americans seem to start so many businesses...they have little to lose while us native born folks with equal skills have decent jobs and houses and see no reason to risk all that. (I'm biased, I still prefer arguing with my son over homework to driving a fancy car).

Re: keyword: desperate (3, Interesting)

cyborch (524661) | about a year ago | (#43079425)

Really? You are making this about immigrants? I am here on a H1B visa and if I lose my job then I will get deported within 24 hours. I will lose my house. I will lose my car. I will lose everything I worked for after I came to the states. You can start a business and fail and all you get is a bad credit score. If I start a business and fail I lose everything!

Why would anyone be surprised (5, Insightful)

MikeLip (797771) | about a year ago | (#43078149)

It's just an indication that the sheer ignorance on the part of government of the use of the internet in general and social media in particular is world-wide. Hell, the people who dreamed up the idea probably think spam is a good mass marketing tool. Politicians are the same everywhere - disconnected and with a blind sense of entitlement.

Sounds like a PLAN misuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078191)

And this type of behaviour is why I am afraid of the new PLAN emergency alert system text service the government is instituting here in the USA.
You can't opt out or block this service for 'critical' government updates.
I expect the current officials misusing the service in the same way.

fb fail tv / campaign rally fail (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#43078197)

I don't see how this is anywhere near as much of a failure as when Reagan showed his complete lack of understanding of Springsteen's Born in the USA, or when Paul Ryan did the same with We're not gonna take it, or Michele Bachmann with American Girl or Sarah Palin with Barracuda.

The real tragedy is that one of the four were elected.

Re:fb fail tv / campaign rally fail (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43078433)

Well, the major difference is that, in the cases you mention, the politicians fucked up in the same direction as the electorate, and thus(from a pandering perspective) didn't fuck up at all...

Re:fb fail tv / campaign rally fail (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about a year ago | (#43078551)

Just to be fair, you can include Clinton with Won't Get Fooled Again. I'm pretty sure they all pick a song based on one key phrase without ever understanding the bigger message. Really all they are looking to do though is fire up their base for a little while.

Not surprising ... (3, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43078215)

When Facebook started injecting "sponsored content" into the news feed, I started getting quite annoyed and letting the owners of that content know in my comments to their link.

As much as Facebook wants to sell ads, if the people whose ads are there are getting angry comments, they might figure out that people don't want it.

When you start injecting ads into things people can comment on, you might quickly discover the people those ads are being sent to don't give a crap about you and your product. These ads are intrusive enough that people notice them and don't like them.

Re:Not surprising ... (3, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43078569)

Suggested pages etc all get flagged as spam from my end. If I can't flag it, I will leave a nasty comment behind.

There's a reason I adblock. Shove your product/service/whatever right up your ass sideways.

Re:Not surprising ... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43079135)

I read this post, and I immediately thought of this blatant slashvertisement [slashdot.org] It has 15 comments as of now, which considering it's a day old is significant. Further, only one of those comments is about the article; The rest is spam, or calling Dice out on this behaviour.

Are you paying attention, Dice? We don't want it.

Opposing forces (3, Insightful)

QilessQi (2044624) | about a year ago | (#43078229)

Advertising -- especially political advertising -- is about controlling the message.

Social media is about allowing the message to be debated.

If you want the market penetration of social media, fine. But unless you can disable commenting, you have to take the bad with the good.

Re:Opposing forces (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43078533)

Advertising -- especially political advertising -- is about controlling the message.

Social media is about allowing the message to be debated.

If you want the market penetration of social media, fine. But unless you can disable commenting, you have to take the bad with the good.

I wouldn't be so optimistic. The Chinese, for instance, have been doing considerable R&D on the problem of 'guiding' the conversation without pissing people off by banning the medium entirely. Here in the Land of the Free, we have fine people like HB Gary Federal working on 'Persona management software' for more efficient sock-puppetry.

I'd assume that, with a little more polish, Facebook will soon offer not only Sponsored posts; but(for a small additional fee) 'curation' of responses to sponsored content. Positive responses will receive greater visibility, negative comments will be made less visible or culled.

Re:Opposing forces (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43079023)

The Chinese, for instance, have been doing considerable R&D on the problem of 'guiding' the conversation without pissing people off by banning the medium entirely.

But they do that in all forms of media. If you write a poem which criticizes the government and your neighbor reads it and reports you, they'll haul you off for that if they need more kidneys that day. We have already established here on slashdot that adding "...on the internet" doesn't automatically change stuff. The Chinese people are used to being pushed around in all other areas of their lives, so pushing them around on the internet seems only natural.

I Wish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078243)

I wish the U.S. President and U.S. Congress would use the same tactics so they and everybody else would see how much they are all hated.

Re:I Wish (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43078607)

I wish the U.S. President and U.S. Congress would use the same tactics so they and everybody else would see how much they are all hated.

The problem: There's a world of difference between not knowing what people think of you, and not giving a rat's ass.

We shoot ourselves in the foot every day (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078249)

We let two corrupt groups of people both offer up a corrupt person to be our representative, and we get to pick which one we hate the least.

Opposite side of the country (4, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#43078309)

The BC government has done such a horrible PR job that I don't like them from the opposite side of the country. I detest the government here yet I can make a bigger list of reasons to hate the outgoing BC government starting with the Chinese miners.

This just confirms a pet theory that government needs to be wide open to the people. The internet is helping yet the BC government has thought that they could do what they want and somehow retain power by creating their own reality. This is becoming harder and harder to do but backroom deals still abound in most governments. Quite simply governments should not be able to hide almost any information. When I mention this to government people they say No No No that would prevent us from doing what needs to be done; to which I reply it would prevent you from doing what people don't want you doing.

Re:Opposite side of the country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078601)

I live in BC and this is the first I've heard about this Facebook bruhaha.

On the other hand, BC tends to have an election cycle of:
a) Elect competent government
b) Throw out the leader after a scandal, re-elect government
c) Throw out the government after PR/scandal

No party has lasted three consecutive election cycles, and while I have nothing against Christy Clark, I had nothing against the previous NDP's Ujil Dosanjh either when they were thrown out and left with only 2 seats in 2001.

I'm predicting this for 2013-2015:
- BC Liberals are thrown out and left with 2-13 seats
- NDP is elected, raises taxes on everyone, especially businesses, increases the size of the government, forces everyone to be unionized (again)
- All the remaining businesses in BC that are mobile ditch the province (many have moved to Quebec due to better "tax incentive" bribes)
- BC's, gaming, film and software development businesses leave first
- Followed by non-unionized manufacturing to avoid being union-friendly government forcing them to unionize or get no government contracts.

As it was, last election cycle, many businesses started leaving, but this cycle, the Liberals are certainly guaranteed to fail. By how much, no idea. I'm volunteering to count votes, cause honestly I don't care who wins.

Re:Opposite side of the country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079905)

While I agree with your position on "governments must be transparent" and "responsible to the people", I think that there is another correlated condition "the people must be responsible for the greater good and the need to govern".

In the US, I watch in dumbfounded horror as people demand services, but refuse to want to pay for them. A common statement is "Not with my tax dollars you don't" or "Let's cut services to those people..." or "my streets are fine, so there's no need for a hike in transportation funding, it's just a big waste" or "it's those [lazy | minority | drug-affected | immigrant | uneducated | foreign | unwed mothers | elderly | freeloaders | criminals | your favorite 'it's not me' category here] that is the cause of our financial drain -- let's cut them off".

If we can recognize that helping the most poor, disenfranchised and disadvantaged members of our society will ultimately benefit everyone and that we're all responsible for our neighbors, then maybe we can have a rational discussion about the services that are needed in our society and how we're going to pay for them. Unfortunately, what I see any online forum about government policy are mostly hateful rants that vilify and denigrate any policy that doesn't directly benefit the person doing the posting (or is often the case, that they've been convinced doesn't benefit them). If we can say "this is important because it helps others that need help" rather than "this is a waste of money because it doesn't help me" then I think that we can actually start to leverage the potential democratic benefits that the internet can bring to democratic governance. Just saying "No" is not a contribution towards governance.

To Facebook We Go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078413)

Nice trick trying to get me to click on a FB link. Instead of posting a screenshot of the ad, you link directly to one. I'm sure there's lots of data mining going on behind that link.

Neutral POV? (1)

Luthair (847766) | about a year ago | (#43078477)

I don't think that slamming the party is really relevant for talking about the flaws in social media advertising. (Nor really is loaded terminology used to describe it.)

What really sucks (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078481)

Is that American style "politics of hate" have taken root here in Canada, over the last decade or so.

Arrragggh! Pee pee doo doo he is a bad president I am mad I have no job blargh a blag a fucking bloo.

nice to be reminded (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43078617)

One of the faults with our typical election is that it's a minority of individuals who remember all the promises made and broken in the last term in office. This is why the same idiots can get elected time after time. Now the idiots have opened the gates for that minority to remind the forgetful majority exactly how they've been abused in the last few years

Usenet was great too, before AOL (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43078727)

Usenet between 1989 and 1998 was gold. Despite flame wars in places like soc.men and soc.women, or soc.culture.indian / soc.culture.pakistan in general the quality of discussions were good. Quality of information unbiased or the bias of the poster was obvious. The "travel agents survey" of soc.culture.indian was gold to the PIGS. (Poor Indian Grad Students). When commercial ISPs were being discussed, many usenet users predicted the death of usenet. They were prescient. Usenet died under the weight of spam and shills.

Early internet had so many review sites that gave relatively unbiased information while the established players like PC Mag was seen to be basically shills. Eventually those review sites died or became shills or got lost in the noise of shill sites. Reviews in Circuit City, Best Buy, Costco etc all started out decent and died due to shills. Amazon seems to be fighting a losing battle with the shills.

Essentially the basic rule is this: If costs nothing to post a review or a message, expect to be overwhelmed by spam and shills. It is simply vendors adapting to the new medium. No way good samaritans would be able to keep up with the volume churned out by the vested interests and they will be lost in the noise. Bold prediction: Same fate will befall wikipedia, eventually.

Re:Usenet was great too, before AOL (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43079035)

usenet is still there and I get more mileage out of it than ever. I actually get useful answers to questions I ask by replying to stuff I see in google groups.

Can't control the message (4, Insightful)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about a year ago | (#43079293)

This is the dangerous side to social media. Because you can't control the message, things can spin wildly out of control particularly if the numbers aren't extremely in your favor to begin with. If you're a small company with a small customer base, one negative comment, justified or not, can destroy you. A negative comment can quickly go viral and they you're completely borked. You have no legal recourse to punish the liars and set the record straight. If you have an enormous positive following, that works to your advantage because they will defend you when someone brings up a negative even if it is true.

mod Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079359)

that sorded, AAl major 5urveys

Election tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43079603)

They should make a voting machine app in facebook.

Information from a Resident (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43080375)

The party in government is basically selling off everything owned by the government to either private corporations or semi-independant authorities, (authorities which apparently aren't covered by freedom of information legislation), doesn't understand that it was private debt that created the financial crisis, not public, that it wasn't anything in Canada that created the financial crisis, etc. Despite calling themselves Liberal, they are basically Conservatives, (the actual BC Conversatives just have those too conservative to consider joining a party labeled Liberal).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...