Anti-Product Placement For Negative Branding

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Product Placement For Negative Branding

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 8, 2010 @10:12AM from the touch-of-death dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Product placement to promote your brand just isn't enough any more. These days, apparently, some companies are resorting to anti-product placement in order to get competitors' products in the hands of 'anti-stars.' The key example being Snooki from Jersey Shore, who supposedly is being sent handbags by companies... but the bags being sent are of competitors' handbags as a way to avoid Snooki carrying their own handbag, and thus potentially damaging their brand."

130 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

clever by nopainogain · 2010-09-08 10:13 · Score: 4, Funny

i bet the jersey shore cast never even picks up on it.. i can picture them scratching their greasy waxed up heads going "why did chanel send me a louis vitton bag?"
1. Re:clever by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 10:40 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Like the cast is going to give a shit even if they did pick up on it. Mike Sorrentino is poised to make up to $5 million dollars this year alone through product endorsements, his own workout video, and getting $60,000 per episode. The cast is making more money than they ever thought they would in their lifetimes, I'm guessing. Why should they care whether chanel doesn't want them as customers? There are other designer clothing makers who'll take their money, no problem. And really, how is Snooki any more of an idiot than, say, Paris Hilton? Snooki graduated HS, at least. I don't recall hearing about this type of anti-product placement appearing on any of Paris' shows. Is there some sort of, um, bias rearing its ugly head here?
2. Re:clever by Dishevel · 2010-09-08 10:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You posted AC because you knew that this post would show you have way too much information on this show to have a brain.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
3. Re:clever by PPH · 2010-09-08 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Or "Why did 4chan set me up with a 5 digit Slashdot ID?"
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:clever by Jay+Tarbox · 2010-09-08 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?
5. Re:clever by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Holy crap, it's Snookie!
6. Re:clever by Dishevel · 2010-09-08 11:55 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Good try.
  But I do not like those bastards either.
  The difference that you seem to be so conveniently missing is this...
  Last 200 years the Christians, Catholics, Atheists, Taoists, Mormons and most other religions are not threatening people with Jihad because of cartoons and books.
  But you go on missing the point of my signature.
  It is not there for those who can't figure it out.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
7. Re:clever by WNight · 2010-09-08 12:24 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  And the loons talk about a "muslim nation" separate from local laws...
  Err, yeah. That's what they want. Much like those christians you were just talking about. How can you NOT see this. Loony?
  
  Fuck that pedo The Prophet Muhammad.
  Yeah, because what a man may or may not have done a thousand years ago [... popes, etc]
  Muhammad, the goat-fucker, isn't the target of this. People who adore him like children adore Santa Claus are the target.
  Or perhaps like the Nazis worshiped Hitler.
8. Re:clever by causality · 2010-09-08 13:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?
  Some people think it's a valid substitute for actually evaluating the quality of your post. So they might believe you not because your words ring true, but because they think you have some kind of seniority and they're far too easily impressed by that. I don't understand it any better than that but I have seen it happen myself.
  
  It's distantly related to giving undeserved credibility to statements made by a government official in complete ignorance of the fact that when there is power at stake, people have more reasons to lie, not fewer, so their burden of proof should be higher, not lower.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
9. Re:clever by fractoid · 2010-09-08 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because what a man may or may not have done a thousand years ago with one girl is so much more important than what at least the last 2 popes have incontrovertibly condoned being done to thousands of boys by threatening the victims with excommunication if they talked about it.
  Erm, he didn't say that. "X is bad" does not imply "therefore Y is not bad".
  
  Then there is the Crimen Sollictationis in effect from 1962 to 2001 which guaranteed secrecy for the pedophile priests instead of a trial a court of the law in the country they resided.
  The what who now? *runs off to googlepedia* Hmm. As I see it, that was a church edict now how the church should handle such matters, and didn't exclude legal involvement. All it really says about secrecy is that if you're in the church trial then you can't say anything about it - there's nothing in there saying that if a priest propositions you, you can't make noise about it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of course, given that we're dealing with delusionals here, I see your point that some of those may have willfully misinterpreted it to mean "this will be dealt with by the church and must not be told to the cops."
  
  And the loons talk about a "muslim nation" separate from local laws...
  Exactly. The loons. The problem is not the lunatics demanding retarded things. The problem is the dullards who gullibly swallow the loons' rantings whole and take up the cause. That's where we get all this talk of Sharia courts superseding criminal law and similar nonsense.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
10. Re:clever by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2010-09-08 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  You posted AC because you knew that this post would show you have way too much information on this show to have a brain.
  Heh. Yeah. Because nerd/geek taste in TV is so chic.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
11. Re:clever by jdgeorge · 2010-09-08 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?
  Yes. It means that there are thousands of Slashdotters who started contributing pithy bits of wisdom/humor/information before you. And apparently, there are more than a million (really? Holy crap!) who unleashed the full force of their wits after you did.
12. Re:clever by SailorSpork · 2010-09-08 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  For a minute, I thought this was from my Advertising Age newsfeed... I'm utterly mystified why it showed up on my Slashdot newsfeed.
13. Re:clever by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't matter. People who bash reality TV don't understand the terrible beauty that is human suffering. Nasubi really did it the best, that poor man. It's like being witness to some horrible accident. You can't stop looking. You just can't.
14. Re:clever by Strange+Ranger · 2010-09-08 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not so. At the very least, a 5 digit user ID shows that about 12 years ago, the low digit poster was not (let's say) 8 years old or younger. Or if they were that young, they should probably get the +1 because even if they're wrong it's worth thinking about.
  
  It's really too bad that might be the only valid Wisdom bonus here. I offer my Karma bonus as evidence.
  
  --
  
  Operator, give me the number for 911!
15. Re:clever by causality · 2010-09-08 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not so. At the very least, a 5 digit user ID shows that about 12 years ago, the low digit poster was not (let's say) 8 years old or younger. Or if they were that young, they should probably get the +1 because even if they're wrong it's worth thinking about. It's really too bad that might be the only valid Wisdom bonus here. I offer my Karma bonus as evidence.
  My UID is nearly twice your own, yet I have the same karma bonus. That greatly weakens or destroys your evidence there.
  
  It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account. The UID alone doesn't give you any indication of this.
  
  Finally, there are people who just refuse to learn. They are set in their ways. They can be wrong for all of those years. They can refuse to listen. They can also have a low UID.
  
  There's just no substitute for actually reading and understanding a post before you dream of determining its merits. I have no idea why anyone would want all of the excuses designed to justify some way around this. It is as it should be.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
16. Re:clever by Pseudonym · 2010-09-08 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  What's "jersey shore"?
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
17. Re:clever by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  humans are humans. You might as well gripe about anyone ever making any generalizations.
18. Re:clever by Ihmhi · 2010-09-08 17:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If we can just get the cast of Jersey Shore to swim around in the gulf for a few hours all of the oil will be absorbed by their hair. No more industrial strength pomade for the boys, and no more seagulls that look like they came out of Tolkien's nightmares! Win/win.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
19. Re:clever by Anne+Thwacks · 2010-09-08 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Its somewhere "West of Java" - probably also west of Javascript, but my Geography is not good without more coffee!
  Why is the box for posting in so damn small? (Opera on Ubuntu?) Looks like someone cant write HTML properly!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
20. Re:clever by troc · 2010-09-08 22:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I dunno, I've never seen the point in being impressed with a 5 digit ID.
  
  --
  Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
21. Re:clever by troc · 2010-09-08 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nope :)
  
  --
  Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
22. Re:clever by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  And: who (or what) the fuck is "Snooki".
  And: who the hell can identify the brand of a handbag with examining it in detail (mind if I go through your purse)?
23. Re:clever by kju · 2010-09-08 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?
  No.
24. Re:clever by nopainogain · 2010-09-09 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  I wish i was a mod today so i could rate your comment FUNNY AS H_LL!
25. Re:clever by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-09 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well I can answer that:
  1. High-fashion handbags are often plastered with a giant brand logo across the side. These logos are so freaking huge, Dell and the car manufacturers look downright conservative in comparison.
  2. When they aren't, women can still tell exactly what they are at a glance, the same way a car nut can identify a car down to the chassis model code just by seeing a glance of it, or tell you what engine is in a car, what condition it's in, and what modifications it probably has just by hearing it.
  Or maybe a more Slashdot-appropriate analogy: The same way a Linux user can identify a Linux distro and its version at a quick glance of a desktop screenshot.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
26. Re:clever by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-09 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Just make sure they swim in the gulf *after* they shower or they'll just be adding to the oil spill.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
27. Re:clever by Coren22 · 2010-09-09 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account.
  That describes me exactly. I started reading Slashdot 10 years ago. I was even graduated high school already by then.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
28. Re:clever by Coren22 · 2010-09-09 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Whenever I open a article from the RSS and see it is idle.slashdot.org I remove the idle. this causes it to rerender the page with the normal code. I have never gotten idle code to work properly, I can't minimize posts after reading, which annoys the hell out of me.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
29. Re:clever by Coren22 · 2010-09-09 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what I was going to say, they probably have enough oil in their hair to rate another gulf oil spill.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
30. Re:clever by thempstead · 2010-09-09 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not in the slightest ...
31. Re:clever by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-09 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account. The UID alone doesn't give you any indication of this.
  I know for a fact that I was reading Slashdot as early as 1998. I don't think I bothered registering until 2002ish when I was working at the PSU computer labs and dreadfully bored during the 12am-8am shifts.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
32. Re:clever by Aighearach · 2010-09-09 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  aka stfu newb
33. Re:clever by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  "X is bad" does not imply "therefore Y is not bad".
  To a liberal it does. Seen all the time here.
34. Re:clever by Strange+Ranger · 2010-09-09 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  My UID is nearly twice your own, yet I have the same karma bonus. That greatly weakens or destroys your evidence there.
  
  No, it perfectly reinforces my point that karma as a bonus is fairly worthless, as opposed to say, something like a bias bonus for a 5 digit user ID.
  
  I thought it was obvious that I was offering my karma bonus as ironic evidence that mod bonuses are pretty lame.
  
  Of course these are all generalizations, as your list of "exceptions" illustrates.
  
  --
  
  Operator, give me the number for 911!
35. Re:clever by Locke2005 · 2010-09-09 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's a shore (beach) where they have football jerseys. It's also shorthand for 8 people who share half a brain.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
36. Re:clever by Pseudonym · 2010-09-09 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Got it, thanks.
  I worked out that it had to be a beach. I further figured that since it probably wasn't anything to do with islands in the English Channel, it had to be either jumpers or that place where The Sopranos was set.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Don't know who that person is by Rogerborg · 2010-09-08 10:15 · Score: 1

Don't care about this story about an alleged report about an unconfirmed rumour about something that may or may not, possibly, be happening that might or might not involve whomever her, she or it is supposed to be.
Seriously, even "idle" has limits.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
1. Re:Don't know who that person is by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Are you sure? You don't want to get caught like Obama did. He mentioned Snookie in his press correspondents dinner speech but then he said he don't know who Snookie is in his appearance on the view.
  Unless you are living under a rock it is hard to miss Jersey shore. I haven't had cable TV for last few years and I still know who Snookie is.
2. Re:Don't know who that person is by CosmeticLobotamy · 2010-09-08 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  He mentioned Snookie in his press correspondents dinner speech but then he said he don't know who Snookie is in his appearance on the view.
  He also didn't write his speech (that's what writers are for. Doubly so for the jokes). He did write his improvised dialogue on The View (mostly).
3. Re:Don't know who that person is by RightSaidFred99 · 2010-09-08 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  You narrowly avoided being this guy., because at least you're not pretending not to know who pop culture stars are..
4. Re:Don't know who that person is by stonewallred · 2010-09-08 11:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I had to look up who snooki was when her name hit the news outlets a few weeks ago. I don't live under a rock, and I usually date women in the 19-24 year old range who I go to college with. I just don't give a fuck about TV hows, other than Good Eats, and a few NAtional Geographic specials, which I download. Sorry not everyone cares about popular "culture" or instacelebs.
5. Re:Don't know who that person is by stonewallred · 2010-09-08 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  I own a TV. Use it as a 37 inch monitor and to watch movies.
6. Re:Don't know who that person is by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  All I know is she's someone allegedly annoying on a TV show I have no interest in watching (and therefore haven't seen). And that's all I need to know about her.
7. Re:Don't know who that person is by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not American and I have nfi who this wierdo "Snooki" is. From a Google image search, she looks like a wannabe chubby chav..
8. Re:Don't know who that person is by bickerdyke · 2010-09-08 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  I still don't get it... Why are people watching TV shows featuring people that annoy them?
  
  --
  bickerdyke
9. Re:Don't know who that person is by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-09 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  All I know about Snookie is that's she's a character on this Jersey Shore show. And I sometimes watch MTV for The Dudesons and Nitro Circus.
  MTV is great for Stunts, Pranks and Stupidity. They should split all that stuff into another channel called SPSTV. They could add in the "human tetris" gameshows, Scare Tactics and Wipeout. It'd be a channel of nonstop lulz.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
10. Re:Don't know who that person is by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  My wife is of the typical north american mindset, and believes that celebrities from america are automatically known throughout the world. When I told her that only north americans give a fuck about who snooki or any of the celebs featured in her magazines were, she was genuinley shocked and surprised "but it's hollywood". I don't think she realises that hollywood isn't the only place where films are made... I just had to google image search snooki as well, and yeah, she's a fat ugly chav with a triangle shaped boyfriend. Got to love those useless giant arms and tiny spindly legs. I did however also find that some guy punched her in the face at a club once. Good on him.
Unlikely to work by Meshach · 2010-09-08 10:15 · Score: 0

Anyone who is famous enough to have what they wear be a major advertising event is unlikely to use unsolicited items send through the mail.

FAIL!!

--
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
1. Re:Unlikely to work by countSudoku() · 2010-09-08 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they are complete shitheads and cannot get any free swag from ANY company no matter how infamous. Like those Jerky Shore dispshits. Nike will be sending them Adidas just to make sure. I would, to protect my brand. My brand? Nuts & Gum. I'm sending them a whole shitload of Planters Peanuts. Those fucks!
  
  --
  This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
2. Re:Unlikely to work by dave562 · 2010-09-08 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  You overlooked the fact that the individual in question might not be famous enough to be given gifts by designers, but is major enough to be photographed / recorded. That is what the article is talking about. Certain brands do not want to be associated with certain types of people who are popular enough to be noticed. Therefore they send them brands other than their own in hopes that the individual will never pick up their brand.
  It makes perfect sense (in so much as advertising ever makes sense). Big money brands like Chanel and Louis Vuitton do not want some well to do shopper in Beverly Hills or New York to look at one of their bags, think about buying it, and then have an association with some trashy chick from Jersey Shore popping into her head.
3. Re:Unlikely to work by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 10:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Anyone who is famous enough to have what they wear be a major advertising event is unlikely to use unsolicited items send through the mail.
  FAIL!!
  You'd be surprised how many serious celebrities go nutzo for free crap. Especially clothes, shoes, jewelry, electronics (cell phones and such.) They take the free stuff and use it, even though they can afford to buy whatever they want.
  Apple figured this out a long time ago. It gives out lots of free crap in hollywood, and boy does it ever get exposure.
4. Re:Unlikely to work by demonlapin · 2010-09-08 11:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Burberry and its near-implosion due to adoption by chav culture is the poster child for this effect.
5. Re:Unlikely to work by funkatron · 2010-09-08 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Burberry were hit especially hard because as soon as it became vaguely popular the market was flooded with much cheaper clothes which looked burberry enough. Having said that, their entire brand was a tartan pattern in slightly distinctive colours, maybe they should have made something less easy to copy.
  
  --
  "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
6. Re:Unlikely to work by mattack2 · 2010-09-08 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Though there was a big spaz a few years ago when it was made clear that they would have to pay taxes on the Oscar gift bags and such.. (I presume they legally had to do so all along, just like people think "no taxes from online purchases" in most states, even though they are legally required to pay "use taxes" equal to the sales tax.)
Playing around with anti-stars can be dangerous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 10:16 · Score: 0

If Snooki ever came in contact with Angelina Jolie, the entire state of California would be annihilated or revitalized if the event happened in New Jersey.
1. Re:Playing around with anti-stars can be dangerous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 10:21 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  As nasty as Snookie is I'd still pay to see her and Jolie have a naked catfight which devolves into angry, then increasingly loving kissing and from there...
2. Re:Playing around with anti-stars can be dangerous by YrWrstNtmr · 2010-09-08 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  As nasty as Snookie is I'd still pay to see her and Jolie have a naked catfight which devolves into angry, then increasingly loving kissing and from there...
  
  Don't do that! I'm getting ready to eat dinner, and I'd like to enjoy it.
  [shudder]
What? by Dyinobal · 2010-09-08 10:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

What the hell is a snooki, and why are we talking about it on slashdot?
1. Re:What? by shoehornjob · 2010-09-08 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is a snooki, and why are we talking about it on slashdot?
  Because this is Idle and it's a slow news day. If your name is snooki there's a real good chance I don't give a shit about you or your handbag.
  
  --
  "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
2. Re:What? by Culture20 · 2010-09-08 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is a snooki,
  
  NSFW
  
  and why are we talking about it on slashdot?
  because it's NSFW
3. Re:What? by couchslug · 2010-09-08 10:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  A "Snooki" is a delightful woman from a documentary about typical New Jersey residents, which should be fascinating to Slashdot readers who can't get enough such news from geek sites like TMZ. I commend the posting of this informative story.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's clearly some kind of amphibian native to the shores of New Jersey, possibly a sea turtle.
5. Re:What? by Red+Flayer · 2010-09-08 10:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A "Snooki" is a delightful woman from a documentary about typical New Jersey residents
  As a NJ native... the cretins on that show are *nothing* like typical NJ residents. They are typical only of a sub-type of seasonal NJ residents (just like the personalities on that show, most of the NJ guidos are from elsewhere).
  
  New Jersey actually has about 6 or 7 culturally distinct regions... and the one region supposedly represented by the show is not like that at all... the BENNYs depicted on that show are despised by shorefolk in New Jersey as a whole.
  
  Now, before I let my butt-hurt get out of hand...
  
  I don't really mind if people think poorly of NJ; it keeps people from overcrowding the good parts of the state. But let's be honest... the cast of "Jersey Shore" is about as indicative of NJers as the cast of "Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock Hotel" is indicative of addicts in general.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
6. Re:What? by YrWrstNtmr · 2010-09-08 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  There are good parts?
  
  (I keed, a large part of my extended family is from there)
  (from there, not still there)
7. Re:What? by LurkerXXX · 2010-09-08 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Good parts? Joisey? What exit?
8. Re:What? by bandwidthcrisis · 2010-09-08 11:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  what the hell is a snooki
  A snooki is a blanket, with sleeves.
9. Re:What? by hedwards · 2010-09-08 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Snooki? Isn't that Chewbacca's cousin?
10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 12:46 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  OK, I needed to know this as well. Here's the context for the anti-branding; Snooki is a young female of airhead demeanor on a reality show called Jersey Shore. Apparently this show has caused a lot of controversy with activist Italian organizations, who called for its banishment and censorship from television. Many original sponsors of the show have since ceased there commercial advertisements, like Dell Computer and Domino's Pizza.
  Here's the reason for this anti-branding silliness:
  
  One promotion stated that the show was to follow, "eight of the hottest, tannest, craziest Guidos,"[63] while yet another advertisement stated, "[the show] exposes one of the tri-state area's most misunderstood species... the GUIDO. Yes, they really do exist! Our Guidos and Guidettes will move into the ultimate beach house rental and indulge in everything the Seaside Heights, New Jersey scene has to offer."
  References:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snooki
  Personally, I've worked with Italians before, and I can tell you MOST of them live up to their stereotype as being happy campers with a lot of gold jewelry jobs or contacts in the construction industry. From my experience, most young Italians can see the humor in their own stereotypes, but the authoritarian establishment types and the religious types are always the ones who cause a fuss.
11. Re:What? by Lost+Race · 2010-09-08 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Snooki is a recurring character on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" skit. She is a promiscuous Oompa-loompa from New Jersey. We're talking about her to flaunt our conspicuous ignorance of American pop culture.
12. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  A "Snooki" is a delightful woman from a documentary about typical New Jersey residents, which should be fascinating to Slashdot readers who can't get enough such news from geek sites like TMZ. I commend the posting of this informative story.
  are you sure its a woman?
13. Re:What? by Cassander · 2010-09-08 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  She is a promiscuous Oompa-loompa
  You, sir, owe me a new chair! :)
  (OK, not really, but I did actually fall out of it laughing!)
  
  --
  Knowledge != Intelligence
14. Re:What? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-09-08 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's reality TV. It's supposed to be completely against reality.
  
  If it was real reality TV, it'd be eleven people waking up in the morning, going to work, hating their job, coming home, eating dinner, then sitting in front of the television watching reality TV shows. I mean, who'd watch that?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
15. Re:What? by NoZart · 2010-09-08 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Jay and Silent Bob. So there must be good parts.
16. Re:What? by couchslug · 2010-09-09 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't really mind if people think poorly of NJ; it keeps people from overcrowding the good parts of the state. "
  The brutal taxes and restrictive laws help even more, which is why leaving NJ for freer, less expensive areas to live in is commonplace. The property taxes on a home in Jersey would pay a mortgage elsewhere.
  That said, Jersey has some beautiful old towns and semi-rural areas, but you need to be wealthy to live there. Not being wealthy, I GTFO. (BTW the Carolinas look like Jersey did decades ago, and are vastly cheaper to live and retire in.)
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
17. Re:What? by Red+Flayer · 2010-09-09 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  The parts of Joisey that can't be referred to by their exit, since they are not close to the TP or the GSP.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
18. Re:What? by Red+Flayer · 2010-09-09 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  The brutal taxes and restrictive laws help even more
  Well, it's a tradeoff. Sure, the taxes are brutal, but the public education system is among the best, if not the best, in the country. There are other public services that are also very valuable.
  
  Not to say there's not corruption, graft, and other waste in the cesspool of NJ public administration...
  
  It's also important to note that the higher taxes and higher cost of living in NJ is offset some by the higher wages.
  
  That said, Jersey has some beautiful old towns and semi-rural areas, but you need to be wealthy to live there.
  Or live in squalor just next to those nice towns... it's amazing what exists once you get 20 miles from a major highway.
  
  Then there's the easy access to both Philly and Manhattan. It's really nice to be able to get a babysitter and go into the city to see some good jazz at a nice intimate club.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
19. Re:What? by ddrichardson · 2010-09-09 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  See this is the problem with Wikipedia references.
  I haven't seen the show, I'm in the UK, but I know the reason Italian-American interest groups are offended is because of a recent incident where "Snooki" was punched by a man who fits the stereotype they object to.
  The interesting thing is MTV's hypocrisy over dealing with the issue, they blacked out the assault when shown on TV and offered a link to a support line after the show but showed a male being assaulted during another show about teen pregnancy.
  
  --
  A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
20. Re:What? by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-09-09 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  BTW the Carolinas look like Jersey did decades ago, and are vastly cheaper to live and retire in
  Yeah, that's what I tell folks about the part of New Hampshire I live in (we've got mountains, you've got chiggers). Most of my semi-rural NJ schoolmates live in Eastern PA now. Very few can afford to live where we grew up as NYC has finally consumed it.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Please explain by s-whs · 2010-09-08 10:21 · Score: 1

The key example being Snooki from Jersey Shore, who supposedly is being sent handbags by companies... but the bags being sent are of competitors' handbags as a way to avoid Snooki carrying their own handbag, and thus potentially damaging their brand."

Snooki who? Carrying in the sense of having in stock? I suppose if you know what's going on, you know what's meant with the above, but it's gobbledygook to me.

Perhaps it's good thing I normally don't look at idle posts ;-)
1. Re:Please explain by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  >Snooki who?
  "Snooki from Jersey Shore"
  I don't watch that crap either, but it's in the damn text you quoted. You're not impressing anyone.
2. Re:Please explain by Darinbob · 2010-09-09 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  And who is this Louis Vuitton? Is he on some reality show too?
I want to bone snookie by t0qer · 2010-09-08 10:23 · Score: 1, Funny

Sorry i f you disagree, but I think she's cute. I'd love to give her my toqerstick.
1. Re:I want to bone snookie by Locke2005 · 2010-09-08 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  You really need to get out of your mom's basement more often!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:I want to bone snookie by Low+Ranked+Craig · 2010-09-08 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  ugh. She is an ugly little oompa loompa. As someone else put it so eloquently, "I'd rather run a marathon barefooted through broken glass"
  
  --
  I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
3. Re:I want to bone snookie by c6gunner · 2010-09-08 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I had no idea who she was, but after your comment I had to go look.
  Dude.
  She looks like Jabba the Hutt's infant daughter.
Snooki Phone by SpockLogic · 2010-09-08 10:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Apple should send her an Android phone .....

Ducks.
Options for athletes / D-listers by MDMurphy · 2010-09-08 10:45 · Score: 1

Maybe this trend will mean more revenue options for athletes and D-list actors who are off beating their spouses and driving their cars into trees.
The can now be rewarded for their behavior by being paid to not wear Nike or not drive a Mercedes.
1. Re:Options for athletes / D-listers by JasterBobaMereel · 2010-09-08 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Now we have Anti-Product placement ....
  Next Anti-Crime : Whitemail - Threatening to tell about the Mafia Boss's donations to charity unless they pay ...
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
When Competition Becomes Opposition by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · 2010-09-08 10:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Never, it seems, is there a lack of anti-capitalist rhetoric on slashdot - but perhaps it is more proper to say there is never a lack of pro-capitalist rhetoric: pro-capitalist ideals being assumed as pro-competitive.
There is something wrong when competition turns into opposition. When an entity actively obstructs the progress of another, not through a product of better fit, but through the slandering or image-tarnishing of a competitors product.
To be fair (someone has to be), evolution has shown that, as a concept, offensive advertisement works. I therefore leave it to you, the reader, to decide if there really is anything wrong with (philosophically speaking) being a skunk.

--
Read my Very Short "Stories"
1. Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition by PPH · 2010-09-08 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  That's the story of corporate America. From Ballmer dissing open source to incumbent telecoms lobbying to keep competitors off the airwaves. Politicians too numerous to list.
  Its devolving into a bitchy little cat fight. What ever happened to doing your best and standing on your own reputation? Answer: Most of your market doesn't have such high moral principles. So let's sling the mud. The few people we lose with our tactics will be more than made up with the riff-raff that buy it. Particularly if you can get a third party to do the dirty work (Swift Boat, Snookie, etc.).
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition by selven · 2010-09-08 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  In an ideal free market, people compete by making the best possible product, not by attacking each other. When a company attacks another company, however, that's a type of competition which does not benefit, and in fact harms, the consumer. Thus, any kind of offensive tactics (this includes negative advertisement, "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off", hitting competitors with lawsuits, etc) violate basic free market principles and should be scorned for this reason.
3. Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition by Dhalka226 · 2010-09-08 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  When a company attacks another company, however, that's a type of competition which does not benefit, and in fact harms, the consumer.
  If we're talking about lawsuits, I'd tend to agree, though most of those lawsuits are about IP which I think is what really stands against free market principles; not the lawsuits per se. Lawsuits for false advertising or fraud or libel are, I think, perfectly legitimate.
  Whether the rest is anti-free-market really depends on whether or not me seeing some idiot on an idiotic TV show using a particular handbag given to her by a competitor can be seen as coercion. I suppose it can be, but I would consider that to be a highly trivialized version of the word. They aren't telling you what to believe; they're giving you a situation ("ZOMG SNOOKI USES THESE HANDBAGS!") because they think you already believe something about that. If consumers being stupid is anti-free-market then I would call that an indictment of the entire philosophy.
  You'd also be right in the case of "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off," but I've never actually seen that, nor would I have any idea how they can implement it.
4. Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Go away and re-write your ideas so they end up coherent.
5. Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2010-09-08 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Thus, any kind of offensive tactics (this includes negative advertisement, "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off", hitting competitors with lawsuits, etc) violate basic free market principles and should be scorned for this reason.
  Once you start saying what can and cannot be used as a criterion, how is it still a free market? If I get a visceral pleasure from hurting Brand B by buying Brand A, Brand A is providing me more value.
  Would it be better for society if I didn't have that desire to screw Brand B, yes. But Brand A and I are both benefiting, presumably by more than it cost to implant the idea that I hate Brand B in my head. So isn't that what a free market should reward/encourage?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
6. Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition by selven · 2010-09-08 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  We're already deciding what can and cannot be used as a criterion. For example, Brand A cannot send soldiers to trash Brand B's factory. If you do not accept that, then you have an anarchy not a free market. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be a criterion, I made a very clear rule: making your product better = good, making others' product worse = bad. Your argument about hurting Brand B being the product falls apart (unless you happen to advocate anarchy) once you realize that sending soldiers against Brand B's factory is identical to sending lawyers against them or using dirty advertising tactics against them.
7. Re:When Competition Becomes Opposition by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2010-09-13 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  We're already deciding what can and cannot be used as a criterion. For example, Brand A cannot send soldiers to trash Brand B's factory.
  That's not a criterion a customer can use... that's just using violence to raise B's costs. And applying violence to a consumer is commonly called "robbery." The question is how can you eliminate a criterion from a customer's consideration and still be considered a free market? Not that a free market is the best thing in the world... regulation to deal with racism for instance is desirable.
  
  not arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be a criterion, I made a very clear rule: making your product better = good, making others' product worse = bad
  Well, if I can make my product better by making your product worse, where does that fall. For instance, suppose you have the choice of hot dog A and hot dog B, no difference in quality or price. So 50% of the time you buy A, and 50% you buy B (depending on which is closer to you when you want a hot dog). Now suppose I tell you brand A saves puppies with 1/2 its profits... nothing about brand B. You now get the benefit of hot dogs and saving puppies, so you have a preference for brand A. Clearly, you now have more value for your dollar.
  Now, suppose I add that psychic benefit some other way, by saying that brand B devotes 1/2 their profits to killing puppies. You get a psychic benefit out of hurting them. You still are happier in that case, even though you're getting the same physical product. Brand A wins. Customer wins. Brand B loses.
  
  once you realize that sending soldiers against Brand B's factory is identical to sending lawyers against them or using dirty advertising tactics against them.
  But they aren't. In the case of advertising, you are changing how much Brand B and Brand A are worth. You are literally raising the total utility of hot dog purchases. This result means that society is now richer.
  using a lawyer is a way of redressing wrongs, and thus correcting an injustice through the legal system. This is a net loss on society (better if the wrong never occurred), but still worthwhile to act as a correction method. I have no clue why you're in love with the concept that violence has any place in a discussion over market regulation... violence is tightly regulated under all economic models.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
I call bullshit by Locke2005 · 2010-09-08 10:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

First rule of PR: There is no such thing as bad publicity. No PR hack worth his MBA would deliberately generate publicity for a competitor's product.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
1. Re:I call bullshit by ADRA · 2010-09-08 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Video games get truly negative impact press every time they're decried for their violence, sexuality, etc.. If a school shooting agitator played game X prominently then you can be darn sure that the patents would be screaming from the roof tops for a ban, and knowing places like Walmart, the games would get pulled for no other reason than to appease the mob.
  
  --
  Bye!
2. Re:I call bullshit by Locke2005 · 2010-09-08 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Did the public outcry about Grand Theft Auto drive total sales down or up? I rest my case.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
3. Re:I call bullshit by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2010-09-08 12:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  First rule of PR: There is no such thing as bad publicity. No PR hack worth his MBA would deliberately generate publicity for a competitor's product.
  It's a popular cliche, but I have no faith that's true.
  One sniff of child molestation charges or overt racism has ended many a celebrity's career. Not always mind you, but often enough. It really depends on how far and how bad. Mel Gibson and Gary Glitter being popular examples.
4. Re:I call bullshit by 1u3hr · 2010-09-08 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  If you RTFA, it's a blog quoting a blog, and that says it's a "rumors".
  And it makes no sense. Anyone who hates the show won't be watching it, so they won't get the "anti-message". If there's any truth in it at all, which I doubt, maybe some companies got third parties to send their stuff so they could remain aloof, say they don't endorse the show , but still cultivate the market. But no one would ever deliberately use "anti-product placement". It would be ineffective, and risks blowback.
25 years ago, 1985 is back... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 11:01 · Score: 0

All the athletes in my high school practiced a bad rep as a way to get gifts from those unknown...
Old, old, old by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 11:41 · Score: 0

Remember the original Robocop? Good guys all drove Ford Tauruses, then a brand new model. The bad guys lusted after a "6000SUX" which was a Pontiac 6000 with tons of ugly added to it.
Ha! I told my wife by hellop2 · 2010-09-08 11:54 · Score: 1

there had to be a catch to all these free "Goocci" brand handbags we get in the mail.

--
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
despicable but strangely encouraging by poly_pusher · 2010-09-08 12:48 · Score: 1

My first reaction was of disgust. This is totally unethical.

However, if it works, it would give me a little more confidence in the people who actually watch and follow this drivel... Just a little...
In all honesty by AnAdventurer · 2010-09-08 12:48 · Score: 1

I have no idea who Snokie is nor have I ever heard of Jersey Shore. I do like the idea of "negative product placement", however I don't think it works. HEY COMPANIES try your negative add campaign on me!

--
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
This is nothing new by jd2112 · 2010-09-08 13:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Transformers: Autobots are mostly GM products, Decepticons that aren't military hardware tend to be Ford or Audi
24: Jack Bauer and his buddies drive around in Fords, the terrorists tend to prefer GM products or imports.

I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more examples if I wanted to.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
1. Re:This is nothing new by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-09 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Same in the latest James Bond IIRC: James drives Fords (even an old Bronco at one point), bad guys drive GMs or Land Rovers (again, IIRC...feel free to correct me).
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:This is nothing new by Dragoness+Eclectic · 2010-09-09 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Knowing Transformers fans, this means that Ford, Audi and GM all got product placement? Because Trans-fans think ALL giant robots and their vehicle modes are cool. They don't discriminate by faction, in my experience.
  The real divide is between jet geeks and car geeks. ;-)
  
  --
  ---dragoness
Did they by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 13:18 · Score: 0

inoculate the handbags first so hey won't catch a disease from Snooki?
A La Carte Cable by ScottCooperDotNet · 2010-09-08 13:19 · Score: 1

This is another reason why I won't get cable until I can select each channel individually. Otherwise I am guaranteed to paying for Sumner Redstone's MTV Networks (including Jersey Shore), The Golf Channel, and other stuff that I don't watch. Why should I pay Disney's ESPN 4 bucks a month when I really don't care what they have to say? It's not enough for me to see commercials when I'm watching, but to pay monthly too?
1. Re:A La Carte Cable by N1AK · 2010-09-08 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Be careful what you wish for. Do you think the people watching MTV or the golf channel are interested in watching SciFi or other channels that might interest you? I'd bet money that geek tv on cable is effectively subsidised by viewers who have no interest in it. Sure you wouldn't be paying for MTV, but you'd be paying more for the channels you do want to make up for the people who stopped paying for that!
This goes back a long way by kevinatilusa · 2010-09-08 14:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Over a century ago Edison was making sure Alternating Current was used in the Electric Chair, in order to make it seem more dangerous and associate it in people's minds with electrocution.
1. Re:This goes back a long way by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-09-08 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently it took over a minute to finally kill the guy, much like Eduard Delacroix in The Green Mile. Fairly sickening. It would be interesting to know how the results would have been if the next "electricide" was DC. If it was faster, then surely the safety issues are with DC, not AC.
  
  Just goes to show that political spin isn't a new concept.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
2. Re:This goes back a long way by greed · 2010-09-09 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  You may find "electrocute" is from "electro-" and "execute".
  That people now use it to mean a non-fatal shock is right up there with people using "literally" to mean "not literally". Or "bimonthly" meaning either twice a month ("semimonthly") or every two months ("bimonthly", archaic)....
Speaking of Android Phones by symbolset · 2010-09-08 14:45 · Score: 1

Why do you think Microsoft paid Verizon to have their Bing app irreversibly integrated into all Verizon's Androids? Was it because they want Bing on the Androids, or because they want to do everything they can to slow down the Androids until they can launch their WP7? The more miserable they can make the Android experience, the better off they are. An integrated universal search app that can't be deactivated, removed or retargeted is just the kind of app you would want to be running to make the entire phone suck.
The curious thing is that Verizon agreed to it. That must have been a HUGE check. I hope Sprint's not dumb enough to fall for this one.
Yes, this is about negative branding.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Hmmmm by Dexter+Herbivore · 2010-09-08 14:51 · Score: 1

Ok, so let me get this straight... if I get publicised as being an asshole, I can get free stuff? Reality TV, here I come!
1. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-08 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  I've been an asshole for 30+ years and it hasn't gotten me anything ... except retired 20 years earlier than all my friends.
  Guess I can afford to buy my own things after all.
Zuned by Tablizer · 2010-09-08 16:06 · Score: 1

That explains why I got a free Zune.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Denial of service. by bezenek · 2010-09-08 17:03 · Score: 1

Where is her dumpster?

--
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
Here in Germany, they even do it with own brands by maweki · 2010-09-08 20:26 · Score: 1

Recently here in Germany, the Volswagen-Group had a problem with its Skoda-Brand. Its image was too good eating off Volkswagen-Market Share. So they now try to demote it a little bit so it becomes more attractive to those who would otherwise buy some Asian-brand cars in the lower sector.
In their ideal world, target audiences of Skoda and VW would not overlap.
I can't help wondering by Chrisq · 2010-09-08 20:30 · Score: 1

I can't help wondering if Steve Ballmer gets inundated by suppliers of office chairs.
uh, Seriously, who is Snooki - and why is this on by IntenseTech · 2010-09-08 22:09 · Score: 1

Seriously, who is Snooki - and why is this on Slashdot?
How about political campaign robo-calls? by Mad-Bassist · 2010-09-08 22:23 · Score: 1

I tend not to vote for anyone that campaigns using telemarketing techniques, and have wondered if the more obnoxious ones are really coming from their opponents.
It would seem to be underhanded but effective!

--
"The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
Sounds dangerous by bickerdyke · 2010-09-08 22:31 · Score: 1

This might backfire!
Wouldn't be the first time to have some stupid anti-celeb turn into a (B-)Celeb and actually start a fashion trend.

--
bickerdyke
Or more recently... by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-09 01:57 · Score: 1

Transformers 1 (A GM ad with bitchin' Michael Bay action scenes), good robot was a (GM) Chevy Camaro, bad robot was a Ford Mustang, the Camaro's competition.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I noticed this.... by Muad'Dave · 2010-09-10 05:50 · Score: 1

... in an insurance ad the other day. They were saying something to the effect of "so-and-so got $OUR_INSURANCE, and when a leaky roof destroyed their Swedish Foam mattress, we sent them a check and now they have the Sleep Number bed. So-and-so's sleep number is 25."
Blatant negative branding.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.