Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft may Sanction the 'Switcher' PR-Rep
Nerull sent in a snippit from The Age saying "Microsoft may consider sanctions against a public relations consultant who tried to pass herself off as someone who had switched from the Apple Mac to Windows XP in a high-profile US advertising campaign, chief executive Steve Ballmer said today." Here is Monday's
Slashdot Story that this follows up to. Lots of amusing little quotes about
what it means to be trustworthy.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5838
Well, the one with the "seventh grade" kid has been pulled too.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Not to be argumentative, but the use of stock photos does not, in and of itself, mean the whole ad is a sham- although this ad clearly was a sham.
At my first job, with a company of 7 people, we assumed that when the ad agency did our web site they would be taking pictures of us- especially because the founders considered themselves quite good-looking. But the ad agency used stock photos- they said they ALWAYS used stock photos, and seemed surprised that we thought we'd be photographed. They may have used the stock photo because the day they decided to do it, the PR rep had spilled coffee on herself, or for any number of other minor reasons. It's SOP for an ad company.
I just think the issue of stock photos is really tangential and unrelated to the larger issue- that the *ad itself* was false, or at best misleading.
Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Right, because everyone knows that people in advertising are the soul of discretion and honesty. Wait, what the fuck?
Microsoft doesn't pay random low-level people to lie. They hire whole ad agencies to do campaigns for them. So, maybe it was someone from Microsoft who came up with the idea for a "reverse switched" campaign (nevermind the absurdity of the concept - how many Mac users convert to die-hard Windows freaks?). What probably happened was that MS said, "great, get some testimonials and make it happen!" and the poor shmuck stuck with the job sat there for a little while until she realized that there weren't any such testimonials to be had. So she made one up.
Microsoft has done plenty of ad campaigns in the past, but their deceptions have all been about matters of substance - stuff like "the GPL will take over your software." Lying about something like this isn't just dumb - it may actually be too far beneath their notice to be worth pinning on them.
USNews & World Report reported this past summer that the Apple switch ads are questionable. They tried to interview the actual people in the ads, but apparently they are all under NDA.
They were allowed to interview two of them, but only with an Apple representative present. Sounds like they were trying to interview someone living in Iraq?
Furthermore, all of the Apple switchers were paid for their involvement. Who wouldn't switch if they were given a free Powerbook + expenses? Then it also turns out that many of the "switchers" have employment connections with Apple, or work for magazines which receive large amounts of Apple advertising, etc.
It's just kind of interesting. Microsoft's advertising tactics have never been as unethical as what Apple has been doing with the switch campaign, and yet who bears the brunt of the attacks here?
So did Microsoft impose sanctions on themselves when it was found out that during the Microsoft trial letters from a "grassroots campaign" sent to politicians were found to be fake? Was Bill or Steve castigated?
Puhleeese Steve, do you think anybody believes the crap rolling out of your mouth by the bucketfull?
Uh, hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as "truth in advertising" -- it's all as gray as it gets. Do you really think that your waitress will come over and lick your hair if you use Maxim haircoloring? C'mon.
/. IGN, Amazon to give positive reviews to movies, games, gear and other products? They call that particular form of spin "grassroots" or "planting a seed".
;-)
No easter bunny or Santa Claus, either.
And the Lone Gunmen are dead (while I'm busy ripping apart your consumer conditioning).
[even further offtopic: is LGD an acceptable acronym now?]
Seriously, though -- perception is reality.
In advertising & pr we're paid to sell our clients' shit. Shit being: image, brand or product. No more, no less. We're making the perception for the consumer. The consumer turns that perception into their own reality.
Did you know that ad and marketing people cruise discussion boards including
In bars, you'll have teams of women out together ordering and being vocal about some new drink that they love. Ever wonder how Red Bull & vodka came about?
In the media you see segments about...oh, I don't know... duct tape being a cure for warts. I got $20 that that's a packaged advertorial and the study was paid for by the manufacturer. You see prepackaged advertorial on CNN and your local news all the time.
As a matter of fact, copy and paste has made PR drones' lives much easier since most reporters and editors don't even bother editing press releases passed off as news.
These are just a few examples. But they're everywhere. And every publicly voiced opinion about anything (down to politics) is suspect.
In any job, sooner or later you're going to have to cut a corner that doesn't sit too well with you because of management or client pressure. As geeks/programmers, we should all know that far too well.
Your job in advertising is to sell. Period. If a widget sucks, you can't say that outright and expect sales, can you?
So the answer to the burning question is that yes, at first, there are sleepless nights. Then you get desensitied to the whole mess and realize that you're being paid for a service: to make the client happy, and to give them positive ROI. Later, you burn out on the whole mess and can't stand to watch TV or read an ad in the paper without getting hyper cynical.
For the record, that's the stage I'm in now (can you tell?) -- I've since left agency work and started my own business -- although I'll illustrate or code something freelance for agencies from time to time because I've got that connection.
There is a *lot* of burnout and churn in agency work for precisely those reasons -- not to mention the fact that if the client pays for and approves a job, then gets caught for using marketing tactics -- chances are very likely that the agency will be publicly humiliated -- for doing the job that's expected of them.
On the other hand, the term "hell client" gets new meaning when the client singles out an *employee* at the firm and publicly humiliates (sanctions? WTF? LMAO and all that) them for doing their job.
To answer your other question, I'm not catholic. As a matter of fact, I don't know many catholics in the advertising business. Perhaps you're on to something with the whole guilt thing?
It's closer to "Ah, the new campaign is ready. 18 hours straight of sleep, then I'm gonna drink myself into a coma and sleep another 18 before I have to start the next job and not sleep for ANOTHER week until it's done."
Salud,
--dr00gy