Slashdot Mirror
Industry Group Sponsors College Course To Create Fake Blog
Scott Jaschik writes "At Hunter College, professors are debating the ethics of a course in which an industry group paid for a class to develop a fake student who would write a fake blog to discourage other students from buying knockoff products. The controversy involves both commercial interference with academic freedom and the ethics of 'guerilla marketing.'"
Cooperate sponsored fraud in order to deter legal purchases of questionable knock-off products.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I love the brag. The Industry Conclusion is correct, though not the way they want it to be.
Conclusion:
The campaign will live beyond the event as the Web sites will remain live, and students will be reminded by the giveaways to Break the Chain of harmful of harmful events that can result from counterfeiting.
They are going to have a hard time living this one down. Fake blogs, with more than 300 myspace friends, including Justin Timberlake! What they have managed to do is indelibly link their brands to fake. Hyped, expensive fake regardless of real quality. How do they expect anyone to trust them again? Their stuff is better why? Because they spend money on BS like this? Because the "real" stuff comes from a sweat shop with a sharper whip? It's hard to imagine a better example of the harm imaginary property does and they festering pile of lies that supports it.
The blog finally admitted that it was fake: http://encounterheidi.blogspot.com/2007/05/here-is-catch-i-am-totally-not-real.html . I love how the students who created this blog chose the ditsy valley girl stereotype to convey their message, and stuck with the persona 'till the bitter end: "Here is the catch- I am totally not real!"...the bolding was me.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
They are attempting to create a counterfeit person to persuade people to dislike counterfeit goods.
Counterfeiting of goods does suck, but this does not seem to be the way to get people on your side...
The industry group in question was the IACC - International anti-Counterfeiting Coallition - their mandate being to fight the production and sale o fraudulent knock off products. They were essentially paying for a class to create a fraudulent student with a fraudulent blog while preventing any sort of critical discussion or analysis in the class.
Ho hum. Just another case of corporate hypocrisy, move along, move along....
As a Hunter student I am outraged that I was not monetarily compensated with part of this graft.
Ubiquitously - A Ubiquity Developer Community
Authenticity and originality are key to the youth demographic and they know it. The problem is that ads have failed at those for a long time. Some ads can still do it through humor and strange premises (like the old spice ads I love so much). Unfortunately, people are smart, and copying another ad campaign's success backfires more often than not.
It's a problem that's crept up on them for the last few years. Frankly, I'm shocked that corporations are struggling to look authentic and original.
You can add patronizing to that list.
If students are so dumb that they need to be told basic smarts by a blog (fake or otherwise) then they should not be in University.
The blog was not sponsored! I met this poor Heidi girl and she was really heartbroken about that counterfeit handbag, so we swapped our sob stories. I got real cool Dell as a birthday present, but then it turned out it had a counterfeit copy of Vista installed. Not only the wallpaper had a slightly different color, but the fonts on the screen were not as crisp and defined as on REAL Vista. Worst of all, I couldn't enjoy any of the Windows Genuine Advantage downloads.
Then I started reading up on that and discovered that software counterfeiting is invariably linked to crime and even terrorism. Wouldn't somebody think of the children! Be a broken link in the chain and stop software piracy! Most importantly, don't undermine american capitalism by using free software that is anyway full of stolen code and patent infringements!
The "fake blog" portion of the story is compelling, but it isn't the whole story. all in all, the actions of the university and the coalition (the IACC) were pretty repugnant. The school engineered the course to teach the industry viewpoint and ensured (via industry observers) that the professor did not deviate from the talking points. when the story initially broke, the school decided that it was an internal matter and didn't merit any outside scrutiny.
The professor in question voiced real ethical problems with the course but was basically told to shut up and teach--because he didn't have tenure that was pretty much his only option. The job market for PhD's without tenure isn't exactly robust.
Never mind that this was basically taxpayer subsidized indoctrination.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I would love to know if the students also had to pay for the class, just like they do for any other class. Also did the students get a full outline of the class before they signed up for it, like most other classes offer?
Sounds to me like this is a case of double dipping. The school gets the corporation to pay for the class, and then they turn around and get the students to pay for the class as well. I'm sure every University and College would love to be paid double for each class they teach. Sounds like this is more about the greed of the school, than it is about actual teaching.
Also where is the state on this? I don't know about their state but the state of Missouri has Sunshine laws. Basically if you take state or government money, then everything has to be open and clearly detailed about what you do with the money and everything associated with it. You can't have secret board meetings, or secretly spend the money on anything. Everything in the school has to be open and transparent, even school groups that receive money from the school, since they get it from the government.
Sounds like a *HUGE* violation of the "Sunshine laws" to say that this whole review, etc. is an internal school matter. It certainly would not be the case in Missouri.
Once they work out how to fake authenticity, they'll crack the youth demographic wide open.
Why not? I mean, there are interesting courses to take but for most students at large universities the course description doesn't really provide a very good guide as to the nature of the course and the expectations. I'm not interested in filler courses completely--they tend to make me not want to show up and to ride on prior knowledge but I will take them for a few reasons:
1. Prereq's: I don't want to take into to biology in order to take a zoology course. I don't want to take (this is probably a better example) Psych 101 in order to take a course on the pathology of brain disorders and the functions of the brain on a chemical level. I know that for some of these courses I can have the prerequisites waived by the instructor, but I don't want to have to go through that with every class.
2. Unknown intended course audience: Is that course on Intermediate Finance aimed at econ majors? Business majors? Is it a requirement to graduate from any particular school? Those will impact how the class is taught and to what level of detail and that is pretty important to me.
3. Non-zero cost of searching: It is actually pretty hard to spend time and sit in on classes at the beginning of the semester to get a feel for how they will meet your needs. I can't look at 20 classes outside of my major in order to see which books are required, what level of involvement is expected and what I will learn. That is just simple too many add/drop forms to work through and too many scheduling problems to work out.
I don't mean to say that students take filler courses that they hate (but this is often the case), but I do mean to say that arbitrary breadth requirements by universities lead to large numbers of students taking Astronomy 100 and so forth.
slashdot?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
No, I'm New Here
Birdy, birdy, in the sky
Dropped some whitewash in my eye
I'm a big kid, I won't cry
I'm just glad elephants can't fly.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Oh come on now, let's be serious. Any youth who is original is picked on by the rest of the herd. Anyone who displays product labels prominently as a means of self expression is not being unique, no matter how "authentic" all the other youth claim it to be. The youth demographic is all about peer pressure and fitting in with a group, even for the statistical outliers (goths, emos, hippies, punks, and other counter-culture). The current trend in peer pressure is based a lot upon brand names and having the correct ("authentic") brand names and displaying the brand names to show that you're fitting in, but it's not really that different from the past.
are you serious? Do you really think the fundamental problem cited in the article is the existence of the blog? While I conceed the point that students in more hard science fields see corporate sponsorship more regularly, the issue here was that the IACC was obviously dictating course content as well as monitoring the professor for compliance. On top of that, students were forced to do unpaid marketing work for the IACC and not allowed to explore in class the possibility that such a demand might not be right.
I mean please tell me that you read the article (or even some of the comments explaining it) and you came up with "academic research" and "experimenting with a fake blog". Because if you did, I've got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.
I think you two are defining two different "youth" groups. You're probably thinking of high-schoolers or college kids. Your parent post is probably thinking of people in their early to mid twenties. From a marketing standpoint, the 18-25 age group is more desirable, or so I'm told.
You two probably have different personal experiences with "youth demographics" as well.
Personally, I'm 23. I have a full time job, pay for school on the side, and pay my own mortgage. While I think some commercials are funny (Chuck Norris Old Spice comes to mind), I almost never buy that product. Most of my friends feel the same way.