Web 2.0 effect busted

July 6, 2007 1:39 PM

Fearless experimenters viral marketers Web 2.0 Effect get pwned.
posted by doublesix (13 comments total)

Pwned all the way to the bank...
posted by delmoi at 1:47 PM on July 6, 2007

Interesting. Didn't someone try to post that crap here a few weeks ago?
posted by horsemuth at 1:47 PM on July 6, 2007

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand before I read this FPP, I'd never heard of the company in question. Now I have. If, over time, I remember the name but forget the context, the marketers have won.
posted by davejay at 1:51 PM on July 6, 2007

Pouring from the empty into the void.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:54 PM on July 6, 2007

Where did I put that outrage? I know I had it around here a second ago...
posted by Skorgu at 2:05 PM on July 6, 2007

Eh. I've seen better busting done right here by MeFites. No concrete proof? Some circumstantial hunches and coincidences? I mean, really:

You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to notice that there are simply too many problems with the experiment, among other coincidences and revelations, that lead us to believe that it wasn’t legitimate. While we couldn’t find any direct link between Virante and Burton Hosting, the implication gathered from all of this evidence is clear:

"...that I rilly rilly wanted this to be a big dramatic exposé but it sort of missed the mark and fizzled out."
posted by pineapple at 2:13 PM on July 6, 2007

I don't get how viral marketing is a bad thing, it lives and dies on its own merits, which is worthier than the millions and millions that are spent producing and broadcasting TVCs.

Not the best example to make my point in though, as this marketing is misleading, and is against the law in New Zealand. I doubt our commerce commission has the teeth to do anything about it though.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 2:21 PM on July 6, 2007

My favorite bit is the viral carrier himself storming into the Digg and Reddit forums to set everyone straight. Should we send him a link to Metafilter?
posted by EatTheWeak at 4:23 PM on July 6, 2007

The poster, "doublesix", joined 6 months ago and this is the first post with only one comment.
posted by DU at 5:03 PM on July 6, 2007

This has about zero effect on me.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:16 PM on July 6, 2007

The poster, "doublesix", joined 6 months ago and this is the first post with only one comment.

I was a bit suspicious as well, but his comments on metafilter tend to be more content laden than the linkspammer's typical comments of "lol, thanks for posting this ;)" type, so without further info (profile is empty) it's hard to say if this is bannination worthy.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:02 PM on July 6, 2007

Thanks, doublesix, excellent post.

Whether it's "totally true" or not, right or wrong, it's fun to know what's going on in the web marketing rat race. I suppose it's already a "law" (but I can't find it): every system will be gamed.

The whole "viral marketing" business is about reproducing on the web the traditional advertising system: control the message, broadcast it, make them like it. Trust by branding.

But the web allows identity and memory, so relationship becomes the model and trust through relationships, the highest value. Suddenly, broadcasting brands doesn't work so well anymore. So, is it possible to fake this new value system?

A lot of people and industries depend on experts in faking trust the old fashion way: through branding. So it's natural for them to try their expertise on the web. It's fun and comforting to see the web producing snopes and wikipedia and corys and this kind of investigative reporting. There is sharpness in the system.

On preview: of course DU may be right Haha.
posted by bru at 6:05 PM on July 6, 2007

Thank you "Burhanistan" for the ringing endorsement. Sadly, we can't all be as prolific as you "DU".

PS if you need really great webhosting, check these guys out.
posted by doublesix at 9:39 PM on July 6, 2007