This dish is being eaten hot.

July 18, 2006 11:16 AM

Hell hath no fury, etc. etc.
posted by docgonzo (246 comments total)

This is a viral marketing scheme for something, right? It was on Gawker amongst others both yesterday and this morning.
posted by jivadravya at 11:19 AM on July 18, 2006

Gawker link
Defamer link
posted by padraigin at 11:21 AM on July 18, 2006

(I didn't see the DentonEmpire posts... part of the reason for me posting was to see if anyone could sniff out the veracity of the blog. It starts just days before 'Emily' discovers the affair...)
posted by docgonzo at 11:22 AM on July 18, 2006

http://boifromtroy.com/?p=5622
posted by docgonzo at 11:23 AM on July 18, 2006

Yeah, it's highly suspicious. The first posts are about her talking about her sex life with her best friend and how everything is A-OK.
posted by yeti at 11:31 AM on July 18, 2006

I'm 100% convinced this is bullshit. Way too organized and the timing way too convenient. I hate that kind of shit.
posted by nanojath at 11:31 AM on July 18, 2006

(And if I turn out to be wrong, why, I'll eat the Internets)
posted by nanojath at 11:31 AM on July 18, 2006

It's not quite right, is it?
posted by NinjaTadpole at 11:32 AM on July 18, 2006

For sure she is going to catch a lot of shit for doing this, but put yourself in her shoes and try and imagine the kind of abuse she must have endured. That would force her to do something so huge and public.
posted by Flashman at 11:32 AM on July 18, 2006

If it's not fake, she's pretty pathetic.
posted by 2sheets at 11:33 AM on July 18, 2006

There's no way for you to be wrong... billboards on both coasts? Puh-leez. I hate to play into this too, especially when it's so obvoius.
posted by kaytwo at 11:34 AM on July 18, 2006

I'm rather sorry to see Metafilter used for the transmission of that shitty piece of viral marketing... I'm thirsty now, I think I'll be getting myself a refreshing Pepsi Blue©
posted by clevershark at 11:34 AM on July 18, 2006

I smell a rat. A lame, lame rat.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:37 AM on July 18, 2006

There's a comment on the linked Gawker page suggesting it's a Washington Mutual ad for chequing accounts, which I've got to admit would make for a pretty blackly humourous ad campaign.
posted by gompa at 11:39 AM on July 18, 2006

Of course it's bullshit. Check out this, from an early entry:

I guess I never mentioned why I started this blog. I made the stupid mistake of asking Laura, my best friend who knows me better that I do (or my mother, despite what she thinks), about her sex life. She immediately turned the question around on me, saying no one asks about other people’s sex lives unless theirs is faltering. Twenty minutes later, she convinced me I should write this blog as a way to vent frustrations, pass advice and release thought streams. And here I am doing it.

And then it turns out that (SPOILER!) Laura is having an affair with her husband! Who will be played by... Hugh Grant? Or is he getting a little long in the tooth?
posted by languagehat at 11:40 AM on July 18, 2006

I'd always assumed that if I wanted to put a personal message on a billboard, and indeed just pay the normal rate for it, that my message (let's say: War is Failure, or; God Is Imaginary) would be subjected to censorship on the part of the advertising agency.

So, unless this is actually a viral marketing campaign, it would seem that I'm actually incorrect. Or, perhaps this is benign enough of a personal message that the agency was willing to carry it.
posted by odinsdream at 11:41 AM on July 18, 2006

Christ, just read the blog entries. This is clearly a piece of writing-by-committee. I have no doubt it's a marketing ploy.

But we're talking about it!
posted by mr_roboto at 11:42 AM on July 18, 2006

From the Gawker comments:

I am liking the Washington Mutual theory... The billboard on Sunset is the last one you see before reaching a WaMu branch.

His and her checking accounts?

Other than that, what's the angle here? Is there a billboard division with sagging returns that's got templates ready to roll out for other would be publicity whores who are now inspired and happen to have a couple hundred bucks burning a hole in their pocket? I don't get it.
posted by prostyle at 11:45 AM on July 18, 2006

Say, did you hear about that new billboard all the cool kids are talking about today?

Viral Marketing is totally CYBER-AWESOME.
posted by StopMakingSense at 11:47 AM on July 18, 2006

Who are the ad wizards who came up with THAT one?
posted by ColdChef at 11:49 AM on July 18, 2006

One of my hubsters told me about this (once my parents approved the email).
posted by Falconetti at 11:49 AM on July 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

"There are MOTHERFUCKING CARROTS dangling on the end of this MOTHERFUCKING STICK!"
posted by Smart Dalek at 11:50 AM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

If it weren't a campaign, wouldn't she spring for the last name on the billboard?
posted by yerfatma at 11:51 AM on July 18, 2006

Reminds me of a similar campaign I posted about quite a few years ago.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:53 AM on July 18, 2006

Maybe I missed them, or something in my browser is blocking them.. but I didn't see any ads. How can this be a viral marketing deal without the... you know... marketing?
posted by triolus at 11:53 AM on July 18, 2006

Sucks.
posted by boo_radley at 11:56 AM on July 18, 2006

I thought I was a genius for seeing through how fake it was. Looks like everyone saw it too. I wonder what this is for.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:56 AM on July 18, 2006

The marketing will come. There's no way this is real.
posted by gsteff at 11:56 AM on July 18, 2006

No one said it was good viral marketing.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:56 AM on July 18, 2006

Gawker says same bulletin board is up in L.A. too. Now to figure out what is being sold.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:58 AM on July 18, 2006

The blog is pretty entertaining tho.
posted by zia at 11:58 AM on July 18, 2006

It feels phony to me. The trigger line was describing nipples as "hard as erasers" a phrase that screams male writer, porn writer, or both.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:58 AM on July 18, 2006

billboards on both coasts? Puh-leez.

Yeah -- exactly. One billboard in N.Y. (on Houston) and the other in L.A. (on Sunset) -- most definitely coordinated "tease" marketing.
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on July 18, 2006

I'm rather sorry to see Metafilter used for the transmission of that shitty piece of viral marketing...

Oh come on, its not that bad. I mean, at least its interesting, at least its a story. At least you have to put on your thinking cap some. At least it got you talking and made you more engaged with your environment.

You'd rather there be just another anorexic-looking, body-image warping model smoking a smoldering carcinogen known to contain some of the most addictive substances on earth?

Frankly, I'm getting almost as sick of MeFi's "ALL viral advertising is inherently EVIL" attitude as I am of its "EVERYTHING Google does is inherently AWESOME" attitude. I mean, people here act so fucking superior and just way too fucking cool for school, but in the end, Google is one of the world's largest advertising networks and probably delivers more viral ads than anyone else.

I mean, why is it that advertising can't be challenging, story-driven, obscure, and unconventional? Why the very traits that MeFites laud incessantly in film, television, and literature suddenly become the paragon indicators of villainy when used in advertising? Personally, I like media that have a story, make me think, are suspenseful, and are generally more than mere pornography with price quotes.

And PS, as anyone who works in media can tell you, ALL advertising-supported media is viral. The TV program and the newspaper story exist SOLELY as a "carrier" for advertising messages.
posted by ChasFile at 11:59 AM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

So if Google started an esoteric viral marketing campaign... would that induce a singularity/black hole/opening to the 9th dimension?
posted by fet at 12:01 PM on July 18, 2006

Please don't listen to anything docgonzo says re: Billboards; I've found it uniformly uninformative and ignorant.
posted by jon_kill at 12:02 PM on July 18, 2006

Just in case anyone's not entirely convinced, the Gawker post has a picture of a billboard on Houston St. in NYC, and a commenter says:

The same billboard is up in L.A. on Sunset Blvd.

But hey, maybe Emily just wants to make sure he sees it whichever coast he's on!
posted by languagehat at 12:03 PM on July 18, 2006

Funny, I thought it was fake 'cause I thought the picture of the billboard looked doctored. So I'm right and wrong.
posted by OmieWise at 12:03 PM on July 18, 2006

I thought it was real at first, but the further back in her blog I read, the faker it got. It reads like chick lit. All the ends are tucked in so neatly. When she talks about showing a house to a couple who are expectant parents she uses the topic to segue back to her own musings about having a baby.
posted by orange swan at 12:03 PM on July 18, 2006

Actually, it is porn. Softcore text-based porn. But I think I like it.
posted by damclean2 at 12:03 PM on July 18, 2006

Gotta post fast around here or the damn weasels swarm in ahead of you.
posted by languagehat at 12:04 PM on July 18, 2006

Chasfile: No, it is that bad. Because we have to think about it. And because it's worthless. And all viral advertising is inherently evil. And dehumanizing.

All advertising-supported media is not viral as you suggest. Newspapers have advertisements, it's true. They're marked as such, though (remember seeing "this is an advertisement" on the top of the column?), and that's why they're not viral. Viral ads attempt to create some sort of emotional attachment to the thing advertised through deceptive practices. Regular advertising attempt to create the same attachments, but we're in on the story from the get-go: we know that the people eating Country Crock aren't really freaky dairy fetishists and &c. Viral marketing destroys this distinction, and subconciously makes people more wary of making real emotional connections with people and things deserving of them.

Good day, sir.
posted by boo_radley at 12:08 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

ChasFile writes "I mean, why is it that advertising can't be challenging, story-driven, obscure, and unconventional?"

No problem with that, just don't expect Matt to pay for it.

ChasFile writes "ALL advertising-supported media is viral."

This word viral, I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by Mitheral at 12:08 PM on July 18, 2006

Google is one of the world's largest advertising networks and probably delivers more viral ads than anyone else

I'm not sure why you think the second part follows from the first.

Frankly, I'm getting almost as sick of MeFi's "ALL viral advertising is inherently EVIL" attitude as I am of its "EVERYTHING Google does is inherently AWESOME" attitude.

Viral advertisers are lying to their audience. When traditional advertisers say false things, you at least know that its advertising and to be appropriately skeptical. If it turns out that this is some artistic experiment, I'll be thrilled (though not impressed). But if the purpose of this is indeed to take my money by lying to me, I'll think less of the advertising client, and of those who want to encourage it.
posted by gsteff at 12:10 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

triolus, my guess is that the boards will change soon.

remember the Cartoon Network mystery billboards?
posted by lyam at 12:10 PM on July 18, 2006

Payola, anyone? (Blogola?) How much were Gawker and Defamer were paid to link this?

And, there's no such thing as bad publicity. If people are panning the clumsy marketing, they're still paying attention.
posted by Joe Invisible at 12:12 PM on July 18, 2006

If it's viral, I can't figure out what it's advertising. An online records look-up? One of the linked sites? The Aaron's Affair Stories had a similar writing style, but I just can't tell. Personally, I would say that because of that, and because the link isn't outrageous enough for me to feel like forwarding to people, it's something of a failure as viral marketing (though on the other hand it did merit an FPP from MeFi, so perhaps not).
posted by internet!Hannah at 12:14 PM on July 18, 2006

Viral marketing destroys this distinction, and subconciously makes people more wary of making real emotional connections with people and things deserving of them.

This merits repetition. Similarly, deceptive advertising in general, and viral marketing in particular, get people accustomed to being lied to. This probably is not entirely beneficial to democracy.
posted by gsteff at 12:19 PM on July 18, 2006

ChasFile writes "You'd rather there be just another anorexic-looking, body-image warping model smoking a smoldering carcinogen known to contain some of the most addictive substances on earth?"

So, did you stop beating your wife? See, I can do this strawman thing too! what fun!

Even Fark was able to figure this one out hours ago, so I'm disappointed to see it on MeFi.
posted by clevershark at 12:19 PM on July 18, 2006

OMG it's for Court TV
posted by Flashman at 12:22 PM on July 18, 2006

Uh, source, Flashman?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:24 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Not to interrupt the debate on the ethics of viral marketing and such, but there's more. It's not just the billboard and the other billboard and the blog but there's comments on several sites also.
posted by booksherpa at 12:25 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Anyone else getting a little tired of the viral campaigns and pharma-spammers all blogging on blogspot? Its like skid row man.
posted by dabitch at 12:27 PM on July 18, 2006

Has anyone else moused over her blogroll? Every single link is a Blogspot journal. Is that typical among blogspot/LJ/whatever aggregated blog templates?
posted by Elsa at 12:28 PM on July 18, 2006

Somewhere, at this moment, a creative director is reading this thread and pumping his or her fist into the air.

He or she is emailing this thread to the client, to the head of the agency, and to the PR point man.

The subject line reads: "Check it out -- more buzz!"

Good job MetaFilter.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 12:31 PM on July 18, 2006

the further back in her blog I read, the faker it got. It reads like chick lit.

I'll put my money on it being a tease campaign for an upcoming book 'How Emily Mehta Got Cheated On, Got Wild, and Got Revenge^*' by Kaavya Viswanathan.

* - This book contains no plagiarism and was not written by book packagers, including Alloy/17th Street Productions.
posted by ericb at 12:32 PM on July 18, 2006

Virile marketing makes me hard.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:32 PM on July 18, 2006

As far as virals go - best I ever saw was the Ford 'Evil Ka' episodes. Pidgeon slams, cat decaptiations...

Ah, the good old days...
posted by JB71 at 12:33 PM on July 18, 2006

nanojath: just don't forget - the internet is a series of tubes, so it might be tough to eat.
posted by casconed at 12:34 PM on July 18, 2006

Soon, putting a few weeks prep up won't be enough- you'll have to get an internet presence months, even years in advance. All of a sudden, someone you thought you knew will turn into an advertisment for something.

Note to all PR people: I'm willing to sell MY internet persona for a hefty sum.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:34 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

My first thought about this ad
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:34 PM on July 18, 2006

This is fucking stupid and marketing people are stupid and the only people dumber than marketing people are the people who don't go out of their way to avoid products that are sold to them this way. Christ.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:35 PM on July 18, 2006

docgonzo -- are you a BzzAgent? ;-)
posted by ericb at 12:36 PM on July 18, 2006

Also: note to fucking stupid marketers: if you hired people who weren't fucking stupid, you could do one of these that wasn't so blatantly fucking transparent. But you're fucking stupid.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:36 PM on July 18, 2006

I smell movie, not product.
posted by grubi at 12:37 PM on July 18, 2006

ChasFile writes "I mean, why is it that advertising can't be challenging, story-driven, obscure, and unconventional?"

No problem with that, just don't expect Matt to pay for it.

But advertising for a book or TV program is ok (and I only had to go down half the FP to get those examples, there must be dozens a week)? In a TiVo-dodging advertising age where product placement and sponsorhips tie-ins have reached the point where shows like The Apprentics and movies like The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift are little more very long commercials, drawing some sort of imaginary line like "advertising isn't ok to post about but advertising-supported media is ok to post about" is absurd. Advertising-supported media oftentimes has more traditional "advertising" in it than many dedicated TVC spots. The converse is equally true: oftentimes - as in the case of this ad - advertising has more story and less product emphasis than many "sponsored" media do.

ChasFile writes "ALL advertising-supported media is viral."

This word viral, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Viral media is of course a contested term, and there are lots of spins people put on it. To me its simply means that 1) it is an advertising message embedded in larger piece of more innocuous media and 2) this media is distributed primarily by consumers of that innocuous media. The classic example is the "Get your own free hotmail account here" appended to the bottome of every hotmail message.

Therefore, a TV show designed to get people talking and spreading the message around could be considered viral. Product tie-ins central to that discussion ("did you that episode of Amazing Race where they had to drag race Hummers?") is increasingly common.

I'm not sure why you think the second part follows from the first.

See above. Every ad delivered over Gmail, for instance could be considered viral, though the mechanism it uses is slightly different from the Hotmail approach.

Viral advertisers are lying to their audience. When traditional advertisers say false things, you at least know that its advertising and to be appropriately skeptical. If it turns out that this is some artistic experiment, I'll be thrilled (though not impressed). But if the purpose of this is indeed to take my money by lying to me, I'll think less of the advertising client

That's simply absurd. In that sense, all storytelling is lying. Its ok if this is some kind of 'artistic experiment' but not if its advertising? If its paid for by an ad agency, its EVIL, but if paid for by an writer who's trying to tell a story in a non-triadional way, that's ok (though unimpressive)? And somehow when its done by an advertiser it is called 'lying' but when done by an artist it is called an 'experiment'? And the only way you'll be able to tell the difference for sure is likely to be if some corporation's name is attached at the end of all this.

I mean, that's the kind of un-critical, knee-jerk response that annoys me most about this place. They're telling you a story. That story happens to be paid for by a client. Much like the stories you see on TV are paid for by similar clients. But on TV it is called 'performance' and in non-traditional media it is called 'lying'? Grow up. ALL ad-supported media are merely vessels for the ads they serve. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can sit back and enjoy The Apprentice, than kick back and enjoy the story being told here. And also, grow up and maybe learn to think a bit more critically about the media you consume. These hard and fast advertising EVIL Google AWESOME religion EVIL Wikipedia AWESOME MeFit conventional wisdoms really bug me. People need to question everything more.
posted by ChasFile at 12:37 PM on July 18, 2006

I'm not buying it, ChasFile.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:40 PM on July 18, 2006

Yeah _sirmissalot_ , that CD is probably saying "they bought it hook, line and sinker". Pffft. And Elsa, the linking to other blogspot blogs only is a tellatle sign of "fake blog". Real people know people at blogspot and LJ, etc.
(ps the wikipedia are having a talk about word-of-mouth vs viral and should it be on the same page for all here that have opinions on that.)
posted by dabitch at 12:40 PM on July 18, 2006

Viral advertisers are lying to their audience

As opposed to regular advertisers, who just blow warm truth up my ass because they care...
posted by SweetJesus at 12:40 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Chas, I wouldn't care if it were done well, if it were well hidden or well-written. Hell, I liked the Burger King chicken ads where you could make the chicken do stuff. It was original and funny. But this is the product of retards with worthless degrees, a budget to fritter away, and a boring conceit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:41 PM on July 18, 2006

As opposed to regular advertisers, who just blow warm truth up my ass because they care...


I live for that warm feeling of truth...
posted by fluffycreature at 12:44 PM on July 18, 2006

ChasFile writes "You'd rather there be just another anorexic-looking, body-image warping model smoking a smoldering carcinogen known to contain some of the most addictive substances on earth?"

So, did you stop beating your wife? See, I can do this strawman thing too! what fun!

Oh yeah, the whole "I know every logical fallacy in the book" is really abnoxious, too. What a great shortcut to actually engaging with the issues!

The point is that just about ANY OTHER outdoor ad I walk right by without noticing. The ability to walk down a street oblivious to everything is a skill all New Yorkers learn. But that billboard I stopped at, read it, got interested, had some thoughts, and connected with my environment some. Between that ad and just about any other, I'll take that one, if only for the clean, spare, un-obnoxious visual style it has.

Compare, for instance, to this, which is much more typical in NYC.

But oh, yeah, please continue to correct my grammar. I do need to learn, somehow.
posted by ChasFile at 12:45 PM on July 18, 2006

Yeah, viral marketing is ubiquitous, but so is "normal" marketing. I know many/most MeFites are media savvy enough to understand when they're being marketed to. I also have seen (starting with myself) that many MeFites occasionally appreciate a clever ad, even if they have no intention of ever buying what's being marketed. So, how is discussing a viral ad worse than discussing...I dunno, this?
posted by everichon at 12:46 PM on July 18, 2006

I'm not buying it, ChasFile.

Yeah, me neither, but it was worth a shot!

:)
posted by ChasFile at 12:51 PM on July 18, 2006

It's amazing how fast a discussion can turn into masturbatory one-upmanship. Yikes.
posted by verb at 12:52 PM on July 18, 2006

I'd say that this is insulting to the intelligence of their target customer, but people in this very thread fell for it, so I'm guessing it might be money well spent.
posted by jonson at 12:55 PM on July 18, 2006

Its ok if this is some kind of 'artistic experiment' but not if its advertising? If its paid for by an ad agency, its EVIL, but if paid for by an writer who's trying to tell a story in a non-triadional way, that's ok (though unimpressive)? And somehow when its done by an advertiser it is called 'lying' but when done by an artist it is called an 'experiment'? And the only way you'll be able to tell the difference for sure is likely to be if some corporation's name is attached at the end of all this.

Intent matters. We punish attempted crimes in addition to successful ones; this can be justified both ethically and practically. If a viral marketing campaign is really indistinguishable from some artistic experiment, that's fortunate... it makes it less likely that anyone made a bad decision based on false information. But it doesn't change the fact that the ad agency was trying to lie to the viewers.

And to preemptively respond to annoyance at the argument that ads make people make bad decisions: on average, they have to, if you believe that advertising is effective.
posted by gsteff at 12:56 PM on July 18, 2006

ChasFile writes "But oh, yeah, please continue to correct my grammar."

I'm not too sure what the fuck you're talking about there, but whatever. Do you work for an advertising agency by any chance?
posted by clevershark at 12:58 PM on July 18, 2006

*organ music*
posted by jonmc at 1:00 PM on July 18, 2006

I smell movie, not product.

Like there's a difference.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:00 PM on July 18, 2006

Look, here's my basic point. There is an online game tied into Lost called The Lost Experience. This is an incredibly popular and also very fun game. However, certain elements of the game involve advertising. Occasionally, players are exposed to Jeep or Sprite messaging, though this happens MUCH less frequently than it does during - for instance - the TV show. Jeep and Sprite sponsor the game, and so there is some advertising for them in it, but primarily the game is about entertaining users - again much like the show.

So why is it that the TV show is ok, posting about and discussing it is ok, but posting about the game is not? Why is posting about a "real" ad-supported fictional blog considered ok, but posting about one where the brand tie-in happens in a more sophisticated, seemless, and yes, Google fans, relevant way like this not ok? Where is that line? It just seems incredibly facile and arbitrary to me.
posted by ChasFile at 1:01 PM on July 18, 2006

MetaFilter: Just blow warm truth up my ass.
posted by loquacious at 1:03 PM on July 18, 2006

The subject line reads: "Check it out -- more buzz!"
Good job MetaFilter.

Hey kids, it's fun to project baseless condescension! You might even find it more enjoyable when directed indiscriminately at 30K users. Try it out for yourself, you'll be sure to feel smug and self satisfied in no time!

It's amazing how fast a discussion can turn into masturbatory one-upmanship.

Yes, you would think so... because you're such an idiot and you can't see through this transparent ploy! Jesus christ, verb! What the fuck is wrong with MetaFilter?

See, wasn't that fucking awesome?
posted by prostyle at 1:03 PM on July 18, 2006

Good christ you people are uptight. Go enjoy a nice Frappuccino™ and shut the fuck up.
posted by xmutex at 1:05 PM on July 18, 2006

...as anyone who works in media can tell you, ALL advertising-supported media is viral. The TV program and the newspaper story exist SOLELY as a "carrier" for advertising messages.

No.
posted by flashboy at 1:09 PM on July 18, 2006

No one said it was good viral marketing.

What is good viral marketing like?
posted by jca at 1:09 PM on July 18, 2006

If you can sit back and enjoy The Apprentice, than kick back and enjoy the story being told here

I suspect that, if I could sit back and enjoy The Apprentice, I'd be tickled just pink by viral advertising.

I don't like viral advertising because it is trying to trick me. All advertising is trying to trick me into liking a product or service, but viral advertising is trying to trick me about the very fact that it is advertising.

Early attempts like this one are transparent enough, and we can all see through them. I suspect that, in five years, our advertising-detectors are going to be hard pressed to filter the reality from the ad.

I think that that's a bad thing. I don't want my reality paid for by WaMu.
posted by gurple at 1:10 PM on July 18, 2006

At least it's more entertaining than Sprite's blatantly stupid "sublymonal advertising" campaign. Obey? What a rip.
posted by kdar at 1:12 PM on July 18, 2006

I think you all haven't thought about the parallax effect and the angle of the rabbit. Of course it could have outrun the viral marketing.

Especially while vibrating.
posted by namespan at 1:13 PM on July 18, 2006

Is there a difference between Gawker and Defamer?
posted by xmutex at 1:16 PM on July 18, 2006

Gawker is New York, Defamer is LA.

Isn't the font the billboards are using the Burger King packaging font? And I almost thought this was the buildup or backstory for My Super Ex-Girlfriend, but the names are different.
posted by booksandlibretti at 1:20 PM on July 18, 2006

There is no place to post a comment on the blog. That's what gave this away as a hoax. That and zero local news coverage. Picture is badly photo-shopped, also.
posted by wfc123 at 1:20 PM on July 18, 2006

New entry up for today- sometimes Emily talks like she's in New York City, but now she keeps talking about "the house" and landscapers. Can't figure out where she's supposed to be.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:22 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

So why is it that the TV show is ok, posting about and discussing it is ok, but posting about the game is not? Why is posting about a "real" ad-supported fictional blog considered ok, but posting about one where the brand tie-in happens in a more sophisticated, seemless, and yes, Google fans, relevant way like this not ok?

Well, just going off that description, and just speaking for myself, the game doesn't sound like viral marketing. Even other examples like the online game created around the movie AI and the ilovebees nonsense never really attempted to mislead the viewers. None of the participants in that Lost game think that the characters on Lost are real, or that the game is anything but a game. I wouldn't call that viral marketing, and I don't think its deceiving the viewers in the way that this site is.
posted by gsteff at 1:24 PM on July 18, 2006

That's simply absurd. In that sense, all storytelling is lying. Its ok if this is some kind of 'artistic experiment' but not if its advertising?

In some very tortured sense, all storytelling is lying, but, well, most storytelling doesn't claim to be real. When someone writes shitty fiction and passes it off as truth, it generally annoys people, whether or not it's advertising. Remember A Million Little Pieces? Remember Kaycee Nicole? This billboard is the same sort of thing, only much smaller and less successful.

Now, it's fair enough to point out that not all viral marketing is deceptive the way this is, but, well, this is. It's not that big a deal, there are certainly bigger problems in the world. But when someone lies to me, and wastes my time with a bad story, to try and convince me to give them money, I'm not really going to thank them for it.
posted by moss at 1:25 PM on July 18, 2006

xmutex, nope, I don't read either of them.

The billboard is kind of funny even if it is viral marketing. Kind of funny, for a few minutes and then its just mean and vindictive. Which is kind of how the whole world is these days.

If its viral marketing, I want the product. But someone will. Mean is the new sexy, I guess.
posted by fenriq at 1:26 PM on July 18, 2006

It's obviously an advert for Dial-a-Song.

--What do you think--what do you make out of that billboard?
--I don't know, Gloria, I just--
--Some kind of singing. They sound like all kinds of people, right?
--Yeah.
--And then it says Another child is born in India every time you call this number, right?
--Yeah, right.
--Does that make any sense to you?
--No, it doesn't make no sense to me.
posted by yeti at 1:28 PM on July 18, 2006

jca"What is good viral marketing like?"

I had fun with The Big ad, the subservient chicken, that spot the band names thing from Virgin, and right now these Amnesty ads doing the whole transparancy thing are mucho popular around the world, which is "viral" even though they were probably only intended to be posters. disclosure: my site but not my post,
posted by dabitch at 1:29 PM on July 18, 2006

All of this talk about Viral Advertising has reminded me of the book I just finished (Vernor Vinge's "Rainbows End" -- Available at Amazon here).

In it, Vernor talks about a technology (primarily used in war) called YGBM, which stands for "You Gotta Believe Me". It's used at the very beginning of the novel to advertise some product to folks during a sports event, and they suddenly go out and buy said product.
posted by thanotopsis at 1:29 PM on July 18, 2006

well, I actually probably would call the Lost game viral marketing. But like moss says, I don't really object to it, because its not really deceptive like this is
posted by gsteff at 1:31 PM on July 18, 2006

why is it that the TV show is ok

Because when I download it the commercials are already stripped out.

Seriously, the major difference is that these "campaigns" start off as blatant deception. At least with Lost we started with a stupid fictional TV show, then they added pseudo-reality tie-ins to addle the simple-minded.

The War of the Worlds radio show is a good example of why disinfotainment is a bad idea.
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:31 PM on July 18, 2006

At least it's more entertaining than Sprite's blatantly stupid "sublymonal advertising" campaign. Obey? What a rip.

Hrm, those 'sublymonal' ads always make me think of They Live. Especially since the aliens were using subliminal messages, and all.

Art inspiring art inspiring marketing?
posted by defenestration at 1:32 PM on July 18, 2006

All of this talk about Viral Advertising has reminded me of the book I just finished

I originally parsed that as "... the book I just completed writing, which you should buy".
posted by gurple at 1:32 PM on July 18, 2006

What, no MeTa?
posted by LarryC at 1:35 PM on July 18, 2006

On how transparent this is:

I don't think they care. If we're talking about the shitty job they did, we're still talking. I have a love/hate relationship with viral marketing. I think it's interesting in a way, compared to other methods of advertising, but I also agree that its deceptive nature is rather shitty.
posted by defenestration at 1:35 PM on July 18, 2006

Man, I’d like to eat a hot dish. That’d be sweet.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:37 PM on July 18, 2006

This Emily, it vibrates?
posted by oaf at 1:37 PM on July 18, 2006

If we're talking about the shitty job they did, we're still talking.

Mmmm, well, we're still talking about viral marketing, anyway. Personally, the more I talk about viral marketing, the more contempt I have for companies that engage in it. That might not be their goal.

You know what would be a great viral ad, if you wanted to target someone like me? Create a viral ad that convinces me that it's a viral ad produced by your competitor, and lets me feel all clever for "figuring" that out.
posted by gurple at 1:39 PM on July 18, 2006

Oh, and I’m going to hit the streets tomorrow to personally tell the world about the dirty, sneaky immoral, unfaithful, poorly-endowed slimeball!

Can people in New York and LA please get a photo of Emily being in two places at once?
posted by kdar at 1:39 PM on July 18, 2006

If Emily really does "hit the streets" anywhere near my office, I'll try to go find her during lunch.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:42 PM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

There seems to be a group of advertisers - if you click on the links in her blogroll - they all mention websites, go to the websites and there are pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitials, all kinds of big money ads (like the cybershot floaters that won't go away) the types of advertisers that normally don't go near blogs. They're schilling for cheating hook-up sites and background check sites...

It's viral - they are a group of fake bloggers, and they're promising ad impressions to an agency.

I so hate this. Using a failed marriage as a trojan horse. Sucks for those of us who really benefitted from the web during some dark times. Thanks marketers, those days are soon to be over.

Check out all the schilling on the blogroll sites, pretty clear on the aaron's affair stories one - I won't dignify it with html.
posted by mad_little_monkey at 1:45 PM on July 18, 2006

What is good viral marketing like?

It results in you buying the product without ever noticing the campaign that sold it to you. Increased sales, with no bad press (and yes, there most certainly is such a thing as bad publicity, especially with "lifestyle" products).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:46 PM on July 18, 2006

111 comments. WE HATE TEH VIRAL MARKETING K THX.
posted by ninjew at 1:47 PM on July 18, 2006

Do you work for an advertising agency by any chance?

Yeah, I can't think of any other reason for anyone to be so defensive about viral marketing (of all fucking things to defend). Chas, I'll be examining your posts re-e-eal closely from now on.
posted by languagehat at 1:50 PM on July 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

booksherpa: it's not just the billboard and the other billboard and the blog but there's comments on several sites also.

OK, this, to me, is the big cincher. I was almost ready to buy it as real, but the cookie-cutter forum postings are about as real as Pamela Anderson's boobs.

Although I have to say that the sites booksherpa links to are pretty small... whoever executed this campagn did a pretty convincing job. Viewed individually, those posts would definitely look like any other forum posting.

BS: did ou find those yourself or is there someone else deconstructing this on a blog?
posted by GuyZero at 1:51 PM on July 18, 2006

Gawker has the current best theory. Namely, the billboard is viral marketing for a Court TV show called Parco P.I. The text on the blog and the billboard are also similar to a description of the July 26th premiere episode of Parco. However, Court TV's website for Parco seems to say the season starts August 15th. Something tells me somebody in marketing got caught procrastinating and had to improvise something viral after missing some deadline. It certainly explains why the billboard appeared in both NY and LA.
posted by jonp72 at 1:52 PM on July 18, 2006

Chasfile, when you write "That's simply absurd. In that sense, all storytelling is lying." you're simply wrong. I could point to dozens of stories about factual events, sure, but let's extend to you the benefit of the doubt and say that "all fiction is lying". If I tell a story to my son at night, however, the purpose is not to convey truth. The point might be to make his mind restive or to instill virtue through allegory, but it is not to convey truth. We don't decry Aesop because it's immediately apparent that there was never a fox who couldn't eat the grapes. There's a lesson in the story that overshadows the absurd lie of the story.

What is there in advertising that could overshadow its lie?

Let me answer your questions in brief:

• Its ok if this is some kind of 'artistic experiment' ...
  • Yes
• but not if its advertising?
  • Yes, it's bad if it's advertising.
• If its paid for by an ad agency, its EVIL...
  • Yes
• but if paid for by an writer who's trying to tell a story in a non-triadional way, that's ok...
  • Yes again
• (though unimpressive)?
  • Impressive in one sense("gosh, that must have taken a lot of money"), but not another ("gosh, what a thing to remember")
• And somehow when its done by an advertiser it is called 'lying'
  • Yes.
• but when done by an artist it is called an 'experiment'?
  • Yes, although the success of the experiment has yet to be determined.

I guess tacit and undivulged lying for profit is bad, is what I'm getting at. How does that sound? That way, you can distribute things non-traditionally (virally) but if they're clearly marked as advertising, you get a pass.
posted by boo_radley at 1:54 PM on July 18, 2006

"..." makes the baby_____ cry.
posted by Jeremy at 1:54 PM on July 18, 2006

Parco PI, you say?

Court TV?

The television channel Court TV and the show Parco PI?

Do I have this correct?
posted by xmutex at 1:54 PM on July 18, 2006

My suspicion is that it's for a chick-lit novel or something like that. Alternatively, the only product mentioned is Preparation H... you never know.
posted by greycap at 1:54 PM on July 18, 2006

I thought viral marketing was something that took on a life of its own and mutated - sort of like a virus.

It's my understanding that Lazy Sunday was viral marketing for Saturday Night Live because it got picked up and passed around - well, at least until NBC put a stop to all that
posted by mmrtnt at 1:55 PM on July 18, 2006

If the Gawker tip about it being a Court TV thing is to be believed, here are two possibilities out of their new programs for Fall:

'Til Death Do Us Part, hosted by John Waters (yep, that John Waters), is CourtTV's " first original scripted series dramatizes the events of a true crime"

Divorce Story is described as "When a marriage goes sour and a bitter legal battle is inevitable, some couples use binding arbitration to avoid a prolonged feud. In each episode of Divorce Story, Court TV follows two couples as they go through the arbitration process, resolving their conflicts once and for all. The series is produced by Craig Piligian, creator of Dirty Jobs."
posted by macadamiaranch at 1:55 PM on July 18, 2006

Dammit. I thought it might be that Parco thing too. But I was so captivated by the John Waters thing I was diverted. Stupid sexy Waters.
posted by macadamiaranch at 1:58 PM on July 18, 2006

This is just bad. A good viral marketing campaign should be able to trick smart people into believing it's real.

And what's the deal with her brother hiring the PI? Why is her brother interested in her husband's sexual fidelity? Ick.
posted by peep at 1:58 PM on July 18, 2006

Fark's up on us by 68 comments!

Hurry, Mefites, post like the wind!
posted by sourwookie at 1:59 PM on July 18, 2006

Alternatively, the only product mentioned is Preparation H... you never know.

And Nutella.

This was patently written by a man, btw. No woman talks about her body that way ("nipples as hard as erasers") and the added comments about feeling jealous of other women's bodies are the kind of stuff that men think that women would write about. If that makes sense. Whatever-- this all screamed fake within about two minutes, and just as I was congratulating myself on my subtlety, and coming here to tell the world, it turns out I'm waaaay too late. Nevermind.

Whatever they're selling, I'm not interested.
posted by jokeefe at 2:03 PM on July 18, 2006

GuyZero: Found 'em myself via Googling for "thatgirlemily". There appears to be a vegan out there also going by "thatgirlemily" but it's not the same person.
posted by booksherpa at 2:05 PM on July 18, 2006

my 2cents of predictions-

the billboards are real.

the story is fake.

we won't find out what it is for another 14 days.

I dunno. the courtTV sounds plausable. Nothing in the blog posts makes me feel sympathetic towards either emily or steve. They both sound like douches. And yet, i'm compelled to see this story thru to the end. why? I dunno. I hate myself for that. I only clicked on this FPP because it had so many comments. Maybe it IS a test of viral buzz.... looks like it's working...

Also- "this dish is being eaten hot" - is that a reference to the old Klingon proverb?
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 2:11 PM on July 18, 2006

It really isn't fair to say that all advertising is lying. I really like the old-fashion Sears and Roebuck's style of advertising--"All-Weather Goat Harness, $14.95. Guarenteed to last four years, won't break." They are advertising the fact that they are selling a product, and letting you know why they think you might be interested in buying it. If you're looking for a goat harness that you can use during inclement weather, well then you might want to take at look at Sears.

Even today some advertising is like this. Many car ads are insanely annoying, but they basically say, "We have the new Buick Blicket! This is why you might want to buy it! This is how much it costs!" I'm more-or-less OK with that.

What I don't like are ads that claim to sell one thing ("You will get respect and admiration because you look beautiful and sophisticated") but actually sell another thing ("Buy our cigarettes"). If I were King, I'd outlaw that shit.

It's true, that would involve outlawing the Folger's LSD commericals, too, and that's a real shame. Then again, if I were King there would be plenty of money going around for that anyway.

Penultimate though: Where does I Love Bees fit in? Good advertising or bad advertising? 'Cuase I think that's really cool...

Final thought: Do you think that the viral in question could simply be an advertisement for billboards?
posted by Squid Voltaire at 2:11 PM on July 18, 2006

You have no idea how disappointed I am that this thread isn't about the Clipse...
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 2:12 PM on July 18, 2006

has anyone mentioned the giving-away-the-wine part of the story, the part where the writing veers into a real first-draft stab at the affluent in crisis? that was my this-is-bullshit moment.
posted by ambulance blues at 2:13 PM on July 18, 2006

I was considering posting this, as I saw it on Gawker and found out bout the blog as well in their comments. I just wanted opinions on what it could ba an ad for. Then I figured I'd be ridiculed and accused of playing into the advertiser's hands.

The weird thing about viral advertising now is it doesn't even try to sound realistic. And really, why should they? People will talk about it anyway.

I'm just not buying the Washington Mutual thing, or the movie premise (Why woulld the point of the ad be for a bank if it was about abuse of an account? Get separate accounts in case you cheat on youfr wife? Why would they give away the plot of a movie in a series of blog posts?) I also want to see the west coast version of the blog, it has to be out there if they are going for the slightest realism and they plastered a billboard on Sunset.
posted by piratebowling at 2:14 PM on July 18, 2006

See above. Every ad delivered over Gmail, for instance could be considered viral, though the mechanism it uses is slightly different from the Hotmail approach.

George W. Bush could be considered Jesus, depending on your perspective. What does that prove? Nothing.
posted by delmoi at 2:14 PM on July 18, 2006

SweetJesus writes "As opposed to regular advertisers, who just blow warm truth up my ass because they care..."

Wait, you get warm truth? Why am I only getting cold truth. I demand my WARM truth!

gsteff writes "Intent matters. We punish attempted crimes in addition to successful ones; this can be justified both ethically and practically."

Sideshow Bob: Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?
posted by Mitheral at 2:17 PM on July 18, 2006

All-Weather Goat Harness, $14.95. Guarenteed to last four years, won't break.

Does that come with Eraser Nipples?
posted by thanotopsis at 2:20 PM on July 18, 2006

The giving away the wine part is also more than likely copied from a famous UK story about a woman scorned (except in Sarah Moon's case it was actually true). I was just waiting for the part where Emily cut up his suits.
posted by greycap at 2:23 PM on July 18, 2006

Chasfile, you have a funny idea of what it means to connect with your environment. It's an ideological thing: A separation of real feeling from manipulation. Are you telling us that we should enjoy being manipulated? If it were sufficient to take this story as entertainment, that would be fine. But we can't, because we want to maintain that separation. And really, the less miscible the better.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 2:25 PM on July 18, 2006

oh & what boo_radley said. thanks boo.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 2:28 PM on July 18, 2006

This is obviously all about Pilates.
posted by hellphish at 2:34 PM on July 18, 2006

MetaFilter: more than mere pornography with price quotes
posted by shoesfullofdust at 2:43 PM on July 18, 2006

The War of the Worlds radio show is a good example of why disinfotainment is a bad idea.

No, it's a bad example. They announced it was fake at the beginning, people tuning in midshow got confused.

But anyhow. I don't think viral advertising is per se bad. I don't even think deceiving people about your intention to advertise is necessarily bad.

What is bad is advertising agencies doing stuff like this, where you know it's fake in 5 seconds because IT'S SO LAME. The central conceit is potentially interesting, but the execution is cringeworthy. Emily's narrative voice sounds like it came in a sealed plastic wrapper. The billboard runs through every cliche in the book (oooh, look, she insulted his willy - we can cross that off the checklist). And the whole joint bank accounts thing? So what?!? How profoundly uninteresting can you be and still get paid? Well, now we have 14 days worth of finding out. Hoorah!

One place I worked for (not the bit I was involved with, I hasten to add) once tried to release a viral video - a shaggy dog story affair that went on and on and then ended with a mildly risque punchline. Could have been good, but the actor they got couldn't sell the final joke and thus it was just a waste of time, albeit with high production values and a hefty price tag. This campaign is the same - all the production in the world can't save you if you can't tell a convincing narrative in the first place, and these folks can't. The most insulting thing is them assuming they can because "Hey, we're highly paid advertisers."
posted by Sparx at 2:46 PM on July 18, 2006

Advertising is supposed to make you aware of or remind you of a product or service, not trick you into buying it. People can't be tricked into buying something. It is possible to create a need in somebody where they didn't previously know they had the need, but it's not a trick. It's not underhanded. It's not sneaky.

So for instance, I don't bake. Since I don't bake, I don't need baking soda. Along comes the advertiser. Did you know that baking soda can also make a stinky refrigerator smell good? No, I didn't know that, and I hadn't really thought about it, but now that you mention it, my fridge does kind of smell. I'll take a box. Was I tricked? No, but a need a didn't previously realize I had was highlighted by an advertisement which provided a solution. In retrospect, I'm glad for the ad.

Viral Marketing is supposed to be entertaining. It's so entertaining, that people do the work of spreading the message for the advertiser. It is certainly not supposed to trick you into buying something that you didn't even know was being advertised. The idea that you would want to be saved from something entertaining because the person who created it had a dual agenda of entertaining you while at the same time making you aware of their product is kind of sad. I wouldn't want to live in the world you live in. It seems pretty bleak to me. I want more entertainment in my life. I'm not very concerned if it carries an ad message at the same time. Better that than an ad message that interrupts me and simply tries to be as intrusive as possible.

Advertising is not all powerful, and you aren't all that much smarter than everybody else on the planet, which is something I think you'd have to believe was true if really believe that you can see through the scary evil advertisers when the rest of the planet can't which I take as the default assumption of anybody complaining about the evil marketers out there.
posted by willnot at 2:55 PM on July 18, 2006 [4 favorites]

It was believable up until the part where she talks about his "custom made" wine racks. Yeah right. Then there's this abomination:

You see, everyone, my husband of seven years has been putting his small, little tool into another woman’s toolbox. Not mine. My best friend’s, to be precise. Not only have they been trading reproductive juices, they’ve been doing it right under my nose. Can you say: adultery!

No but I can say "shitty writing." Ewwwww, fucking, EWWWWW!!!!!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:56 PM on July 18, 2006

Preparation H and Nutella - together at last!

Yeah, there’s a difference between lying and bullshitting. If I share with my buddies how chicks we’re all over me last night while I beat the hell out of this motorcycle gang, I’m a bullshitter. If I sell them oregano and tell them it’s weed, I’m a liar. Although money can be substituted with equal parts harm. If no harm is done, you’re just full of B.S.

Advertisers - while not always liars, enflame desire as a matter of course. An evil act in itself, but forgivable if it’s just the usual sort of B.S. - unlike viral marketing.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:58 PM on July 18, 2006

/I’ll take truth over entertainment when it comes to my reality picture any time.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:00 PM on July 18, 2006

Are you telling us that we should enjoy being manipulated?

Viral marketing works precisely because most people want to be manipulated. This grasping for the truth and objectivity is an Enlightenment fallacy; most people are interested in narratives that are socially real (i.e. popular) rather than factually real. It's why entertainment is always a growth industry (except when it's not!) and there's no reason corporations shouldn't attempt to tap into this.

The spread of advertising to all places, all times, all crooks and crannies is happening not because Big Evil Corporations Are Intent on Destroying Culture, it's happening because people like advertisements. Advertising is bigger than Jesus, it's the basic substrate that permeates the world. Americans are born and raised on it, they need it and they can never have too much of it. This is probably fake, but it's still fake in a purely ironic manner. Now that personal relationships, the last refuge, have begun taking on the shape of advertising (see blogs, myspace--the internet), we'll have arrived at a point where moral arguments against viral ads are transparently false. Corporations have license to intrude into people's most personal places and nobody will mind in the least.
posted by nixerman at 3:00 PM on July 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

Oh yeah, the whole "I know every logical fallacy in the book" is really abnoxious, too.

Worth repeating. It's soooo "Internet."
posted by cribcage at 3:02 PM on July 18, 2006

It's crap, plain and simple. Some ad exec's silly viral advertising campaign.

What's worse? The fools who collaborated on this abortive bit o' imagination thought you'd believe it. Even if you don't believe it, they figured you'd discuss it for days on end, waiting breathlessly for the next cliffhanger post.

Suckers.
posted by FormlessOne at 3:02 PM on July 18, 2006

I don't mind viral advertising. I just find this lame in general.

Meh meh meh and meh.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:03 PM on July 18, 2006

"Emily" commented on ForkintheRoad on July 13th in response to the blogpost about the author getting hit by a car. She wrote:

Glad to know you're alright. I just recently started reading your blog. And I just recently found out about my husband's affair. I almost wish a car would just hit me. Well, I know that's a little dramatic but I need something to make me forget about my world crashing in front of me.

http://thatgirlemily.blogspot.com/

Fork in the Road responded with a post and Emily commented again.

The first link I found to the blog was here, dated July 1st, saying "When your wife write’s this on a billboard you have to wonder what the next move is going to be." But Emily doesn't know about the Affair until the 12th. That's odd, eh?
posted by yeti at 3:06 PM on July 18, 2006

that last link is invalid, yeti.
posted by boo_radley at 3:10 PM on July 18, 2006

Check out all the schilling on the blogroll sites...
posted by mmrtnt at 3:11 PM on July 18, 2006

Okay, everyone involved should be crucified and burned to death for spamming their shit ad on Fork in the Road.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:12 PM on July 18, 2006

Hmm Here it is. Although I suppose it could be post-dated.
posted by yeti at 3:16 PM on July 18, 2006

See Emily Play

/miss you, Syd
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:20 PM on July 18, 2006

Also- "this dish is being eaten hot" - is that a reference to the old Klingon proverb?

TechnoLustLuddite

ahem
posted by mmrtnt at 3:23 PM on July 18, 2006

If this imaginary dish were, in fact, being eaten hot on a regular basis, perhaps the imaginary marital difficulties would never have ensued.
posted by gurple at 3:27 PM on July 18, 2006

Sigh, when do the Adblock Sunglasses become available again?
posted by Staggering Jack at 3:32 PM on July 18, 2006

MMrtNt, I believe that TechnoLust was referring to the Klingon saying

bortaS bIr jablu'DI', reH QaQqu' nay

Not that I knew that without Google, mind you. I only wish I was that cool...
posted by Squid Voltaire at 3:36 PM on July 18, 2006

Hmm Here it is. Although I suppose it could be post-dated.

Yeah. It looks like he creates a new post on the 1st of each month to collect links and edits it as the month goes on.
posted by cillit bang at 3:39 PM on July 18, 2006

“most people are interested in narratives that are socially real (i.e. popular) rather than factually real”

That explains Geraldo Rivera.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:48 PM on July 18, 2006

Preparation H and Nutella - together at last!

Hey, you got Preparation H^® in my Nutella^®!
posted by ericb at 3:50 PM on July 18, 2006

The next billboard is clearly going to say "This Disaster Could Have Been Averted If He Had Just Asked How on AskMetafilter.com"
posted by miniape at 4:06 PM on July 18, 2006

Also- "this dish is being eaten hot" - is that a reference to the old Klingon proverb?

ahem-"Pierre Ambroise Francois Choderios de LaClos (1741-1803)."

wow. i didn't know that. i've been deceived by hollywood! Now, that raises the question of whether or not it's true that "shakespeare sounds best in the original klingon tongue".....

Ok- new prediction:
Emily's blog is 100% true.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 4:14 PM on July 18, 2006

To my mind, the disadvantages involved with viral marketing is that, even if it is more effective at generating "buzz," that's not enough. Unless it also generates more revenues through increased sales, all the buzz in the world isn't going to placate corporate stockholders interested in the financial bottom line.

I have always thought that viral marketing was designed to affect more sophisticated consumers, that would otherwise not be influenced by standard advertising. Taking this website as an example of viral marketing, and taking MF as an example of the targeted group of sophisticated consumers, it would appear that viral marketing fails for the reasons outlined above.

Sure, there's a ton of "buzz" surrounding their lame ploy, but no one on here is out to about to charge into the world of retail stores and buy whatever product turns out to be associated with the billboards. I think that's often the case with viral marketing; just because it can get sophisticated consumers to talk about the promotion, that doesn't necessary translate into being able to inspire sophisticated consumers to purchase the promoted product.

So, in short, keep at it guys. Let some tool in an expensive suit in a corporate office somewhere pump his fist in the air, triumphant over "buzz." The thrill won't last long, because anyone who will actually change their purchasing decisions based on this bullshit would have been taken in by standard advertising anyway.

On a totally different note, I'm a bit disturbed that "revenge on a man by a woman" is seen an acceptable marketing premise. I somehow doubt the reception to this little marketing ploy would be as warm were the sex roles reversed.
posted by Law Talkin' Guy at 4:27 PM on July 18, 2006

You want buzz, mix some Preparation H with your Nutella.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:33 PM on July 18, 2006

Whomever is writing this uses "lay" when they should use "lie" entirely too often. If it's a team of writers, somebody should have caught this. This reads like The Devil Wears Prada or The Nanny Diaries. You know; women who use a lot of brand names and bitch about the small stuff. If this is marketing, I'm still mystified as to the product.
posted by Wylie Kyoto at 4:36 PM on July 18, 2006

I've got news for y'all: Metafilter is just one giant viral ad for Matt's book.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:54 PM on July 18, 2006

There's a rather long Fark thread about it. The scuttlebutt is that it's a viral marketing campaign for a Court TV show. Someone had an "unofficial confirmation" about it.

It's not surprising. After all, blogs are hip still.. right? Other users note that the "emily" claims to live near New York and put up the billboard near "Steven's" place of employment, but others have spotted an identical billboard in Los Angeles. And the company noted on the billboard has been noted to be involved in other "guerilla marketing" campaigns.

So yeah, the whole thing is probably just a huge attempt at gaining 'internet hype.'
posted by drstein at 5:23 PM on July 18, 2006

billboard 1
billboard 2
posted by sergeant sandwich at 5:26 PM on July 18, 2006

Viral is the new hot thing in advertising. Anti-marketing used to be it. And before that...

What happens in advertising is someone does something new. And the agencies say it's a fad and crap all over it. And then it's successful. And then the agencies try to come up with some other reason it was successful. Then they say, yeah it works as a promotion, but it denigrates the brand. Then they try to do it themselves and fail disasterously. Then they hire the guys who did the first cool thing, or knew those guys, but they put so many rules and limitations on those people that it completely fails. Then they say, "Look, we told you [Trend X] wouldn't last." Then they continue to trot it out to clients as examples of the latest thinking. Then someone at another agency goes, "Why is everyone doing Trend X. You know what would be cool? Y." And it gets attention because it's different. And then the cycle repeats itself.

If it sounds like tired chick lit cliches trying too hard, then it's certainly advertising. And I say that in the most affectionate way possible because I taught advertising copywriting for years ;)

Then again, a media-soaked suburban bim with too many episodes of "desperate housewives" echoing in her head could sound like an imitation of a human being more than a human, so there's a remote chance we're all wrong.
posted by Gucky at 5:35 PM on July 18, 2006

nixerman writes "Viral marketing works precisely because most people want to be manipulated."

It's hard to realize how true that is until you've heard people tell you an obvious urban legend in a way that convinces you that they're not lying, even though they obviously are. It's not necessarily because they're good liars, but I've come to thinking that some of them somehow convinced themselves that it really did happen to someone they know. Stories I've had told me include the "Eddie Murphy/Hit the floor, lady" one, the "Welcome to the world of AIDS" one (older lady visits the Islands, meets a wonderful young man and has a tryst with him, and at the end he gives her a gift but tells her not to open it before she gets home), and the "camera and the toothbrush" one.
posted by clevershark at 5:36 PM on July 18, 2006

ericb writes "Hey, you got Preparation H^® in my Nutella^®!"

I wonder if this would make one's tongue shrink.
posted by clevershark at 5:37 PM on July 18, 2006

I got an itch of a suspicion reading the linked post, but as soon as I went backward and read some earlier posts I became certain it was bogus. What's interesting to me is that almost all of us realized that it was fake. And yet a lot of us didn't expect everyone else to catch it. It's as if it's both well-done and badly-done at the same time.

A lot of the writing was a little too precious, but that by itself wasn't conclusive to me because I know one or two women that actually do write like that—they're smart, but they're trying too hard for a clever turn of phrase all the time along with a bitchy affectation. Or something. Anyway, the writing is bad, but then I've known a few real people that write badly like this.

What really convinced me was how perfectly everything tied together. The blog is started, there's foreshadowing, then the revelation, then the clever billboard stunt with 14 more in 14 days to follow. Along with the melodramatic story elements: it's the best friend and other stuff. That's an unimaginative story, not real life.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:39 PM on July 18, 2006

Damnit. Parco PI sounded like a halfway interesting show, but now I'm so mad about the viral marketing crap I can't watch it.

Oh well. I'm sure there's a Mythbusters marathon at the same time or something.
posted by dw at 5:42 PM on July 18, 2006

I got an itch of a suspicion reading the linked post

EB -- what you need is some Preparation H^® mixed in with your Nutella^®. Spread liberally (or, if you're conservative, "generously") on the affected area. That should take care of the itch!
posted by ericb at 5:49 PM on July 18, 2006

The scuttlebutt is that it's a viral marketing campaign for a Court TV show.

Wouldn't surprise me since Court TV was one of the first companies to start Ashleeturfing forums on the web. (Meanwhile Court TV has a strictly enforced "no advertising in posts" policy on their own forum.)
posted by jca at 6:00 PM on July 18, 2006

Court TV will probably blame it all on the advertising company (apparently "cityoutdoor", according to the photos) and claim they had no idea (right).
posted by clevershark at 6:25 PM on July 18, 2006

Well, I guess this cements it. That video of Steven and Laura looks as fake as the blog itself does. Ugh. I feel icky now.
posted by SassHat at 6:38 PM on July 18, 2006

Hey, if this goes over 200 comments are we still not participating in the marketing scheme?
posted by ninjew at 7:07 PM on July 18, 2006

Why is the blog design so painful? All that sickening little-girl pink. Ugh. Must be some sort of deeply etched gender identity thing, but as a guy I simply don't wanna even *look* at anything that colour, which makes it a pretty stupid choice for advertising, unless the target demographic is female.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:14 PM on July 18, 2006

Hey, if this goes over 200 comments are we still not participating in the marketing scheme?

Yah totally. Because the old adage about "any publicity" doesn't apply if there is *irony* and *snark* involved. That makes it totally different. Duh!
posted by freebird at 7:15 PM on July 18, 2006

Viral is the new hot thing in advertising.

If by "hot new" you mean a decade old. People were throwing the viral marketing phrase around at the marketing-related company I worked at during the dotbomb.
posted by melt away at 7:27 PM on July 18, 2006

Yah, that video that the "P.I" filmed is as plastic as my momma's prosthesis.
posted by liquorice at 7:35 PM on July 18, 2006

Comment spamming really pisses me off. The fact that it appears to have been done as part of a viral marketing campaign rather than as upfront spam makes it even worse. If it is for some TV show, they have sucessfully convinced me to never watch it, but I imagine the intended audience will probably think the whole campaign is just dandy.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 7:48 PM on July 18, 2006

Viral marketing has jumped the shark.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:58 PM on July 18, 2006

Sorry, this kind of shit turns my brains to mush. I spent ten seconds looking at the FPP, ten seconds skimming the posts, and thirty seconds writing this. Fuck the Internet, if this is what it's come to.
posted by kozad at 8:05 PM on July 18, 2006

And, BTW, I have no idea what this is about, so please ignore me.
posted by kozad at 8:06 PM on July 18, 2006

* erects giant billboards on both coasts, that just say I'M IGNORING KOZAD *

* waits for royalties to start rolling merrily, merrily along *
posted by yhbc at 8:15 PM on July 18, 2006

Ethereal Bligh: " The blog is started, there's foreshadowing, then the revelation, then the clever billboard stunt with 14 more in 14 days to follow. "

And she watched the video 14 times today according to the newest post. What's with the 14?
posted by macadamiaranch at 8:22 PM on July 18, 2006

So online caroline did this better, and without a product, in 1999 and it was *still* shit. This is just appalling.
posted by bonaldi at 8:24 PM on July 18, 2006

I rather have viral marketing than seeing this stupid shit on TV all the time.

"HEAD ON! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! HEAD ON! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! HEAD ON! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!"
posted by daninnj at 9:22 PM on July 18, 2006

So why is it that the TV show is ok, posting about and discussing it is ok, but posting about the game is not?

There was a post about the Lost game, some people thought it was interesting, some people hated it.

The difference between the Lost game and this is Lost fans were playing the game willingly, while this sort of thing is far more subtle.

If anything, my biggest problem with this sort of thing is that it encourages cynicism and detachment, to virtues already in overabundance.
posted by drezdn at 9:23 PM on July 18, 2006

Well, the Indian government in its infinite wisdom has decided to block blogspot, so I can't see this fine piece of viral marketing.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 9:48 PM on July 18, 2006

willnot's post is fantastic, and flagged as such.

I hope you write advertising texts for a living, or at least work at an agency. Maybe there is hope yet.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:52 PM on July 18, 2006

oh shit, you had to bring on that headon commercial. I make sure to change the channel when it says "brought to you by headon!"
posted by bob sarabia at 9:55 PM on July 18, 2006

bring on up
posted by bob sarabia at 9:56 PM on July 18, 2006

I'm not sure if I should be relieved or annoyed that this crock of shit is apparently viral marketing for a show that I'm sure doesn't show on Australian TV.

Does this cause the marketing to be like water off a duck's back for me, since I couldn't consume their product if I tried, or is it like being beaten up for no reason?

Whichever one it is, I can console myself that I cannot fall into the trap that many others here seem to have stumbled into. That is, the presumption that I am somehow media savvy enough to be able to see through advertising, and therefore to be immune to it. The advertisers' little secret is that pretty much *everybody* considers themselves to be that savvy, and they probably are overall, but advertising still works nevertheless.

Telling yourself smugly that you are somehow above it (unlike all those other idiots) only lowers your defences & makes you more susceptible to being influenced.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:27 PM on July 18, 2006

Re: the Video. Pretty sure it's fake -- indeed, so patently fake that my guess is you're supposed to think it's fake, which makes the whole "deceptive viral marketing" argument moot. To wit: The guy's cheating on his wife and he (1) tongue-kisses and holds hands with his gal-pal on his way to their nooner, sauntering down what looks like West 12th St. in the Village? Then he (2) sits at an outdoor (!) table and canoodles with said hussy over Chardonnays (note the strategically placed Tiffany box!). And then there's (3) more hand-holding and that "gee whiz, this looks like a hotel" gaze up at the hotel awning. Either "Steven" is the worst cheater ever... or he's an actor.

Note the Avid blur on the hotel nameplate, and that the cameraperson/"PI" conveniently cuts around the name on the hotel awning, so there's no copyright issue. (Wouldn't a real PI leave it in, so "Emily" could check out the scene of the crime?)

Also note the use of a top-secret "crotch-cam" on the al fresco dining shot. Gotta get me one of those.
posted by turducken at 10:57 PM on July 18, 2006

200 comments!

I lurv you Emily!!!
posted by oncogenesis at 11:44 PM on July 18, 2006

UbuRoivas I'm not sure if I should be relieved or annoyed that this crock of shit is apparently viral marketing for a show that I'm sure doesn't show on Australian TV. - I give you David Tench.
posted by tellurian at 12:32 AM on July 19, 2006

Actually, maybe this is just another level of being smug and snobby - feel free to deconstruct this post if necessary - but the reason I hate advertising so much is because I'm not totally immune to it, and neither is anyone else, and I hate the way it changes us...it makes me sad. I don't blame anyone for making it, though. Nobody's perfect.

The HeadOn ad cracks me up, though...something about the energy level and pacing...the way it stands out from tv content and other commercials. I just love it. Maybe because it makes people hate it (and maybe other commercials more). I don't know what HeadOn does and won't be buying it, though.

If anyone's interested, turducken's location comment was dead on.
posted by pinespree at 12:42 AM on July 19, 2006

(yes, i realize that they made the HeadOn ad stand out from everything else so we would notice and consume...and now I'm tiny, sad, and alone)
posted by pinespree at 12:46 AM on July 19, 2006

Final thought: Do you think that the viral in question could simply be an advertisement for billboards?
posted by Squid Voltaire at 11:11 PM

Oh no, that would be so crap. Like the Danish campaign stenen.nu (therock.now) where posters showed people proudly displaying some big rock next to their Danish designer furniture. Exclaiming things like "easy to clean" and "I bought two". Snore! Dead obvious.


posted by dabitch at 1:19 AM on July 19, 2006

Laura is pretty hot. At least Steven has good taste in who he cheats with.
posted by antifuse at 1:45 AM on July 19, 2006

Ok, ok -- I admit it. Emily is my sister, and this was all an artistic experiment. And guess what? With about 100 times more comments than this thing deserved, our infiltration tactics have clearly worked.

Here's the deal, guys: In the future, the line between advertising and entertainment media is going to be gone. Gone. Hell, we're practically there already: MTV's The Hills, the upcoming Mark Burnett produced reality show/promotional contest Gold Rush, the "everyone can be a marketer!" social networking site/viral advertising SDK Tagworld, and on and on. I guess I'm just playing alittle devil's advocate and trying to get people at least to realize that, if not accept it.

Its not going away, no matter how hard you scream at the wind. Its capitalism. Everyone is selling you something; anyone who tells you anything different is selling you something else. You're trying to lay down all these rules and insist upon these distinctions that simply don't apply any more. Identifying a "pure" entertainment media product as seperate from the "pure" advertising spot is nearly as impossible as it is pointless. To insist that everything you see, read, or do fall neatly into one category or another is to not only deny the true state of media but to deny the true state of mature capitalism.

So I was hoping that by inspiring a little debate and discussion we might approach the issues a bit more intelligently than Viral = Lies, Lies = Advertising, Advertising = Evil. I hope I did.
posted by ChasFile at 1:55 AM on July 19, 2006

Viral marketing tastes like chicken.
posted by liquorice at 1:59 AM on July 19, 2006

Ethereal Bligh said 'What's interesting to me is that almost all of us realized that it was fake. And yet a lot of us didn't expect everyone else to catch it.'

I imagine that's deliberate - thickos are drawn in hook, line and sinker, us savvy folk are allowed to see through the advertising tactics, and therefore subconsciously associate the project with warm feelings of intellectual superiority, in order to counteract their anti-viral moral stance.
posted by jack_mo at 2:40 AM on July 19, 2006

"Ovaltine? A crummy commercial? Son of a bitch!"
posted by evil holiday magic at 3:35 AM on July 19, 2006

ChasFile writes "Ok, ok -- I admit it. Emily is my sister, and this was all an artistic experiment."

So, I was right. You were defending this thing too much to be uninvolved. The viral was unconvincing, and so were you.
posted by clevershark at 4:43 AM on July 19, 2006

tellurian: this David "Gabbo" Tench...do you think he is actually James Boag? Either way, I doubt my hour or so of tellyviewing per week is in any danger of being increased.

jack_mo: I repeat my earlier assertion that pretty much everybody thinks they are savvy & above advertising, but the thing is that it still works somehow. I recall my professor in Theories of Mass Media kicking off the first lecture with Leonard Cohen's "everybody knows" and admonishing us students not to think that we were somehow going to be endowed with a privileged insight into how the media work...everybody knows that advertising funds programs; everybody knows that programs target demographics; everybody knows infotainment when they see it; everybody knows advertising when they see it; everybody knows enough to consider themselves above the whole deal; and everybody knows the major brands in their local economy.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:57 AM on July 19, 2006

Juliet Schor, whose books about the way we live are quite good, makes the point in The Overspent American that the amount of money you spend on things can be correlated to the amount of TV you watch. But when researchers drill down a little bit more, it appears that what gets people to buy more is the normalized lifestyles they see characters having on TV, rather than the ads themselves.
posted by OmieWise at 5:21 AM on July 19, 2006

So -- we don't get blogspot here in China. What is this thing all about that warrants 200+ posts?
posted by NewBornHippy at 5:52 AM on July 19, 2006

willnot: “So for instance, I don't bake. Since I don't bake, I don't need baking soda. Along comes the advertiser. Did you know that baking soda can also make a stinky refrigerator smell good? No, I didn't know that, and I hadn't really thought about it, but now that you mention it, my fridge does kind of smell. I'll take a box. Was I tricked? No, but a need a didn't previously realize I had was highlighted by an advertisement which provided a solution. In retrospect, I'm glad for the ad.”

Perhaps a poor example?
posted by skryche at 5:53 AM on July 19, 2006

No, it's a fine example. The fact that baking soda is not as effective as activated charcoal does not affect the main point, which is that willnot learned something useful from an ad.
posted by languagehat at 6:26 AM on July 19, 2006

Goatse billboards.
posted by flabdablet at 6:39 AM on July 19, 2006

Damnit. Parco PI sounded like a halfway interesting show

Dude, no.
posted by clunkyrobot at 7:12 AM on July 19, 2006

"And she watched the video 14 times today according to the newest post. What's with the 14?"

24 was too many hours for today's TV audience to pay attention, so now Jack Bauer will save the world in ten fewer.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:49 AM on July 19, 2006

You've actually been double duped Chasfile, for our cynicism is actually viral marketing for Detachment brand cologne, brought to you by the makers of Axe body spray.

SMELL THE SMUG!
posted by drezdn at 8:01 AM on July 19, 2006

pinespree: The Hotel Riverview is next door to the Jane St. Theater, which was where "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" was born. When I lived in the neighborhood, the hotel was full of transvestite crack whores. Awesome location for a (faux) affair.
posted by turducken at 8:20 AM on July 19, 2006

ChasFile writes "Ok, ok -- I admit it. Emily is my sister, and this was all an artistic experiment."

Lies may be reality but this is still a lie. Go away.
posted by mek at 8:23 AM on July 19, 2006

Word.
posted by flabdablet at 8:39 AM on July 19, 2006

This thread has been brought to you by the letters "P," "W," "N," "E," and "D."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:44 AM on July 19, 2006

That video just nails it - it's like a compendium of every "we're having an affair" indicator ever filmed by Hollywood: the "she wants to hold hands but he doesn't" scene, the "hand on her back while he looks around to make sure no one has seen them go into the hotel" scene, the "let's nuzzle in the restaurant booth" scene (that PI sure had a good table to get such a perfect shot). It's amazing how both Steven and Laura act just like people who have affairs in the movies!
posted by hsoltz at 9:40 AM on July 19, 2006

This is not a good campaign. You know what is a good campaign? The I pooted billboards. Now that is a good campaign!
posted by etoile at 10:22 AM on July 19, 2006

Screw you Metafilter. I can fuck with you any way and at any time that I please.
posted by ChasFile at 3:55 AM CST on July 19

I'm not lying; I'm storytelling.
posted by dreamsign at 10:55 AM on July 19, 2006

So I was hoping that by inspiring a little debate and discussion we might approach the issues a bit more intelligently than Viral = Lies, Lies = Advertising, Advertising = Evil.

Look, the thing is, the chain of reasoning just isn't that long! It's not "this is viral marketing, and viral marketing is full of evil lies, so I hate this". Some viral marketing is actually pretty honest about what it is. It's not a lie because it's viral marketing. It's a lie because it's NOT TRUE! It claims to be one thing, but is in fact something else! It's getting your attention by pretending to be a real story, but is in fact just an ad! How hard is this to understand?
posted by moss at 12:40 PM on July 19, 2006

And it's a damned uninteresting story, too.
posted by FormlessOne at 12:41 PM on July 19, 2006

Axe body spray

"If you have to Axe, you'll never know"
posted by Sparx at 1:55 PM on July 19, 2006

Alright sure... after the first couple entries I realize I was duped. But you know what... I don't care. It's a good story and I might actually stay tuned to see what happens. What will Emily do next? Send Steve-O's golf clubs to the Yupiaq
posted by bleucube at 2:01 PM on July 19, 2006

I believe 99% that it's a marketing campaign, but I'm still interested to follow it, especially to see the reaction & backlash once the product is revealed.

Here's the latest from her blog...

Before I forget, I’ve received a ton of emails (sorry, too many to respond to) and really want to say thanks for all your support! It really keeps me going!

e-mails? Yeah, right...let's see 'em. To what address are people e-mailing 'Emily?'

posted by Emily @ 4:20 PM

Proof that it's a campaign for Graffix bongs.
posted by msacheson at 2:11 PM on July 19, 2006

To what address are people e-mailing 'Emily?'
msacheson, this is the email address in the profile - [e-mail]
posted by tellurian at 4:39 PM on July 19, 2006

Read to the bottom hoping some mefi-gumshoe would answer what this tripe was.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 4:46 PM on July 19, 2006

As an alternative point of view, I don't think the problem so much is with advertising. There are products that I will recommend at the drop of a hat when appropriate. I think the problem comes from identify fraud and sock pupetting for the purpose of selling a product.

Many people who seriously consider CMC as a medium through which people can build communities are becoming increasingly skeptical as to the value of permitting this kind of behavior.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:16 PM on July 19, 2006

I thought by now, not only would one of the clever Mefites have discerned who was behind this drek, but would have phone numbers to the agency behind it.

I dunno. The whole thing reads very false to me. The language style and usage is that of choreographed production. (Not necessarily a good one, mind you.) But it's too stilted. The writers aren't good enough to make their "bad writing" believable as normal journal dialogue, it's just poorly written pretender verse.

And the video...good lord. Completely unbelievable. The restaurant camera angle, the blurring, or absolute lack of branding anywhere, including the name of the "hotel".

From a viral standpoint, I think this one had a large initial contamination, but will taper off into nothing very fast...because it's just not done very well.
posted by dejah420 at 7:48 PM on July 19, 2006

And the video...good lord. Completely unbelievable. The restaurant camera angle, the blurring, or absolute lack of branding anywhere, including the name of the "hotel".

To say nothing of the "acting." That pair couldn't get a soap opera gig.
posted by cribcage at 8:21 PM on July 19, 2006

moss writes "It's not a lie because it's viral marketing. It's a lie because it's NOT TRUE! It claims to be one thing, but is in fact something else!"

See also: Jon Stewart paraphrasing G. Gordon Liddy: "Because of Mark Felt's unethical behavior, I went to jail for crimes... I committed!"
posted by Mitheral at 7:35 AM on July 20, 2006

One of the papers (the NY Post, I believe) reported that CourtTV is now taking credit for this whole thing.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:50 AM on July 20, 2006 [1 favorite]

the NY Post, I believe

Yup...

VIRAL, BUT NOT INFECTIOUS

"The latest in viral marketing is brought to you by Court TV, spokespeople for the network confirmed yesterday, in what industry experts call a 'shill marketing' move, whereby the people - that's right, dumb ol' you and me - are duped into believing a gigantic billboard in Midtown is for real."

posted by ericb at 9:23 AM on July 20, 2006

Emily's current post is up. All about baseball. So CLEARLY written by a man pretending to be a woman who knows nothing about baseball. Give me a break.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:05 AM on July 20, 2006 [1 favorite]

Public hath no fury, even when deceived -- "The bad news for viral marketers is that sometimes they can be found out too quickly."
posted by ericb at 12:56 PM on July 24, 2006

Not true. They can never be found out too quickly.

They're rather like syphilis in that regard.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:10 PM on July 24, 2006

"Emily is really an amalgam of all of us who have been cheated on," said Marc Juris, general manager for programming and marketing at Court TV. "Clearly, this really resonated with people."

Juris was still marveling, "It's like a flash investigation took place, and within 24 hours, we were busted."

I am offended, as both cheater and cheatee, that Juris pretends to think that a souless marketdroid such as himself could possibly understand real human beings. It didn't resonate with anyone except people dumber than him - not too many, I'd imagine.

And you were found out in less than 24 hours because you're a astoundingly untalented hack. Jesus Christ, why would anyone hire this retard?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:16 PM on July 24, 2006

The dude lives in a reality distortion field, that's why he can't tell that his attempt at viral marketing sucked donkey balls 'til they bled.

His success must be predicated on clients becoming enveloped in that same distortion field.

I wonder if they wonder why they're left with a salty taste in their mouth after meeting him?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:58 AM on July 25, 2006

Is goooood pie!
posted by flabdablet at 7:36 PM on July 25, 2006

taken last night near times square, new york city.
posted by Stynxno at 1:26 PM on July 29, 2006