Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung is Suing Its Brand Ambassador For Using an iPhone in Public (appleinsider.com)

Posted by msmash on from the well-that's-unfortunate dept.

Samsung is suing its Russian brand ambassador for using an iPhone X, demanding as much as $1.6m in compensation, media reports submitted by readers said Wednesday. From a report: Russian brand ambassador for Samsung, Ksenia Sobchak, is reportedly being sued by the South Korean smartphone producer, for allegedly being caught in public using an iPhone X instead of handsets she was supposed to be promoting. Ksenia Sobchak was hired by Samsung to market its smartphones in the country, with the Russian TV presenter, journalist, and politician contracted to use the smartphones in public. Under the terms of similar agreements between companies and influential people, they are not typically allowed to be seen using competing products in public, a rule that Sobchak broke.

According to The Mirror, Sobchak was spotted using an iPhone X during a television interview, with the personality attempting to hide the Apple smartphone under a piece of paper while the cameras were on. Sobchak is also said to have used the iPhone X during social events in Moscow and other TV appearances, again against the contract's rules.

88 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Before anyone gets all outraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Note that PLENTY of manufactures do this.... If you're the brand ambassador, you're expected to promote your brand..

    1. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Sure... but ordinarily I'd expect that the consequence would be dismissal, if they found out, not actually getting *sued* over it.

      Unless she had received any salary or payments in advance, in which case I could see it.

      Otherwise, however... Samsung shouldn't really be able to do more than fire her ass for not promoting the company as expected.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    2. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's make this as simple as possible. It's wrong to just fire someone over the phone they use. Think about what I said.

    3. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Not if your job is to use a specific brand of phone. Context matters.

    4. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Of course, but the consequence of breaking a hiring contract only means that the person doesn't have a job anymore.... they can't go and (successfully) sue somebody because the person doesn't perform as expected unless the company has paid the person in advance for those services.

      Breaking a hiring contract doesn't otherwise cause any actual financial harm to the company that they did not inflict on themselves by hiring her in the first place.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    5. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by hawguy · · Score: 3

      Let's make this as simple as possible. It's wrong to just fire someone over the phone they use. Think about what I said.

      Unless, of course, you were hired to promote a specific brand of phone.

      Note though that she wasn't just fired, she was fired and sued for damages for breaking her contract.

    6. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure... but ordinarily I'd expect that the consequence would be dismissal, if they found out, not actually getting *sued* over it.

      Unless she had received any salary or payments in advance, in which case I could see it.

      Otherwise, however... Samsung shouldn't really be able to do more than fire her ass for not promoting the company as expected.

      Why would you assume that? They hired and promoted her as a brand ambassador -- their damages exceed just the loss of publicity from her not using the phone in public, but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.

    7. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's wrong to just fire someone over the phone they use. Think about what I said.

      Done. I thought about it, and realized that what you said was stupid.

      The guy had one job: pretend that he likes a particular product. He failed.

    8. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by dkone · · Score: 1

      Just got done thinking about what you said and came to the conclusion you are stupid for completely ignoring relevant facts. Are you in training to become a Slashdot mod?

    9. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Why would you assume that? They hired and promoted her as a brand ambassador -- their damages exceed just the loss of publicity from her not using the phone in public, but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.

      They are no less at fault for causing any damage to their own brand for hiring her in the first place. Unless they had offered her payment for her services in advance, even if as a hiring bonus (which typically requires a minimum number of months of tenure, and the duration is spelled out within the hiring contract), then the company has no remotely plausible claim to monetary damages that they did not put upon themselves by taking the risk in hiring her.

      ...but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.

      That's a fair comment, see, but this is something that they brought upon themselves by making a fuss about it where nobody would have paid attention otherwise (q.v. Streisand Effect)

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    10. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the video in the story, she literally says "I'm not allowed to do this, because of a contract".

      She knew full well what she was doing.

    11. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by renegade600 · · Score: 2

      I tend to agree, they should have dismissed her quietly. By suing, they are actually announcing to the world their own ambassador prefers apple phones over samsungs.

    12. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      In the West, maybe.

      In Russia, this lady is one of the head figures of the political opposition. This would have been news regardless.

    13. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Sure... but ordinarily I'd expect that the consequence would be dismissal, if they found out, not actually getting *sued* over it.

      Unless she had received any salary or payments in advance, in which case I could see it.

      Otherwise, however... Samsung shouldn't really be able to do more than fire her ass for not promoting the company as expected.

      Why would you assume that? They hired and promoted her as a brand ambassador -- their damages exceed just the loss of publicity from her not using the phone in public, but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.

      Right and Samsung is making all that damage go away by suing her, thus drawing even more attention to what happened .... oh, never mind.

    14. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Why would you assume that? They hired and promoted her as a brand ambassador -- their damages exceed just the loss of publicity from her not using the phone in public, but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.

      They are no less at fault for causing any damage to their own brand for hiring her in the first place. Unless they had offered her payment for her services in advance, even if as a hiring bonus (which typically requires a minimum number of months of tenure, and the duration is spelled out within the hiring contract), then the company has no remotely plausible claim to monetary damages that they did not put upon themselves by taking the risk in hiring her.

      But if they mitigated that risk by spelling out damages in the contract, then they are justified in enforcing the terms of the contract. She's a public figure so she can't claim "but I didn't understand the contract", she has the experience and resources to understand what she's signing.

      I don't know Russian law or the terms of the contract, so I'll defer to those that know both -- the Samsung legal team that is suing her must feel they have some sort of case.

      ...but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.

      That's a fair comment, see, but this is something that they brought upon themselves by making a fuss about it where nobody would have paid attention otherwise (q.v. Streisand Effect)

      How can you know that? She's a public figure in Russia, and all it takes is some viral blog posting to take off, and Samsung has a full blown PR nightmare on their hands - probably worse than this lawsuit which will likely be forgotten in a few days, though the next person that signs a "Brand Ambassador" contract will be reminded.

    15. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, but the consequence of breaking a hiring contract only means that the person doesn't have a job anymore.... they can't go and (successfully) sue somebody because the person doesn't perform as expected unless the company has paid the person in advance for those services.

      Depending on how the contract was written, they very likely can successfully sue.

      When you hire someone to advertise your brand, you are purchasing their popularity. If you pay me to use your product, and I fail to do so, that's violation of contract. If you pay me to use your product, and I not only don't, but I use your competitor's product, I'm not merely failing to promote the brand I've been paid to do so, I am promoting the competition.

      Has Samsung suffered damage? Well, they paid someone to promote their brand, and they not only didn't, they used an iPhone instead. What does that say about their product? It means that Samsung's product is so inferior to iPhones that even the people who are paid to use it won't.

      She was paid to use her popularity to promote Samsung. Instead, she used it to promote their competition over Samsung. I'd say that they've got an argument that they've suffered damage of reputation.

    16. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by TXJD · · Score: 1

      A lawsuit is a perfectly acceptable remedy in this case, it's a civil matter (e.g. contract).

    17. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If all she did was not promote, they'd have just fired her. What she did was humiliate them in the public eye by choosing a competitor over them.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    18. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I would argue that they did that more to themselves by several orders of magnitude by trying to start a lawsuit about this instead of just firing her and being done with it. This is classic Streisand Effect.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    19. Re: Before anyone gets all outraged by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      How much do your products suck when even the people you pay to use them avoid using them?

    20. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's just more proof that iPhone users are complete idiots.

    21. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by gravewax · · Score: 1

      being hired to promote is very different to a standard employment contract, she didn't just "not do her job", she actively promoted the competitors products. In a real sense she isn't hired as a person but rather contracted as a company and that company has breached the terms of the contract in a damaging way. Seems completely reasonable to seek redress for those damages.

    22. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Let's be far more accurate she is one of the players in the lame opposition, who was more interest in using politics to push her reality TV career in the west but she sucks, got her ass handed to her in debates by real serious politicians because she was playing reality TV star to get American or EU media contracts and failed bigly. Samsung suing because they found out she was a reality TV idiot and sucked as a spokeperson. No manufacturer in the right mind would sue their spokesperson for using a competiting product because yeah, it makes them look really, really bad ie we paid that person to use Samsung and it sucked so hard they were forced to use Apple to get things done, the optics are stupendously damaging.

      So the optics of a person they paid to use Samsung and they found it so bad they preferred to use Apple, is less damaging than having a reality TV idiot associated with your product. The media whore is a media whore and nothing more than that, Russia politics was just a game for the fool to get into US reality TV. Samsung were idiots to employ it in the first place and so, big show of dumping it, with an excuse about using Apple products.

      She basically is just an narcissistic idiot with family ties to Russian politics and sought to exploit that for profit and got her ass handed to her. Samsung invested with her because of her political relatives but it was a big mistake as is damaging their brand, hence the very public dismissal.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Considering her pedigree, pretending that one is done to promote the other rather than a symbiotic relationship between the two where both promote each other is silly. She also isn't the kind of opposition West wants in any way. She's a part of Russian old elite who at the very base level don't like West for what it did to Russia in the 1990s, so if she got into the federal levels of political power in Russia, foreign policy toward West would be unlikely to change. So she's the kind of opposition West doesn't like to promote, other ones being the communist party, the social democratic party party people and LDPR who's most anti-Western of them all. Basically all the big opposition parties in Russia. None of them are pro-West in any meaningful sense, and none really disagree with current government on keystones foreign policy in significant ways that would benefit the West.

      Which is why Western propaganda promotes people like Navalny, that struggle to hold any meaningful support while holding views that are generally significantly damaging to Russia itself in some way that West approves of. And his support is usually mostly among idealistic and naive youth. Who grow out of that phase at 30 at the latest. This is completely consistent with West's interests in weakening Russia, and is simply a geopolitical game the way it was played since the Cold War. Nothing new, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.

      And is completely in line with Russia's recent efforts to promote left and right extremes across many major Western countries, which is a mirror image of these actions.

    24. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by infolation · · Score: 1
      In Soviet Russia, Ambassador brands YOU!

      Branding in Russia was used quite extensively in the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century. Over time, red hot iron brands were gradually replaced by tattoo boards; criminals were first branded on the forehead and cheeks, later on the back and arms.

    25. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by Cederic · · Score: 1

      If it helps you any, they aren't firing someone over the phone they're using.

      They're responding to someone with a contractual obligation to promote their brand consciously doing something that actively damages it.

      Would you find that a reasonable cause for action?

    26. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Or then Samsung phones are so awful people take risks like that to avoid having to use them...

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    27. Re:Before anyone gets all outraged by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Samsung, LG, GE, Siemens... These companies are huge and sell products covering nearly everything, it is nearly impossible even for a brand ambassador to not have a competing product in your possession.

      Granted if this guy is getting paid enough for Samsung to sue him 1.6million dollars. I would guess he should know the full product line a bit better, and may have someone in Samsung helping him with his purchasing decisions.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    28. Re: Before anyone gets all outraged by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Yep and she was almost certainly paid in advance, making the only real way to retrieve the money beyond her voluntarily given up the money plus some damages is to sue her.

  2. seems reasonable by gravewax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gets paid a shitload with very specific contract conditions. Breaks said conditions, she gets sued. completely standard and reasonable, why is it a story here?

    1. Re:seems reasonable by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if it was in the contract or not. It's just outrageous to reprimand someone for the type of phone they use.

      She wasn't fired just for her choice of phone, she was fired for violating the contract she signed (and was paid for). There's a word for signing a contract to do something and then not doing it, it's called fraud. If you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house, and he took your money and used it to paint someone else's house, would you be arguing "It's outrageous to reprimand someone for not painting a house, people shouldn't be forced to work"?

    2. Re:seems reasonable by Mascot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be outrageous if Samsung fired factory workers for using a different phone. A _brand ambassador_, on the other hand, is literally paid specifically to promote the brand. If you don't want to use a product, don't become a freakin' brand ambassador for it and don't sign a contract saying you will use said brand.

    3. Re:seems reasonable by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house, and he took your money and used it to paint someone else's house

      It's far worse than that. This is a matter of image. She was paid specifically for that purpose, because of her high profile status and the image it would portray. Not only did she not help Samsung's image, she directly harmed it, far more than the value of the amount she was paid. A better analogy is that you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house and they vandalized it instead.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re:seems reasonable by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That you couldn't even pay people to use an Android/Samsung phone.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:seems reasonable by s4080326 · · Score: 1

      Additionally to this, brand ambassador roles are a co-promotion so Samsung would have been paying money to promote her personal brand as well as just their phones. Given the large value of the contract she should be expected to understand it properly.

    6. Re:seems reasonable by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      It's far worse than that. This is a matter of image.

      Exactly. Another analogy : It is not like you paying someone to make Brand A widgets and then their failing to make them, which could be resolved by stopping and reclaiming any payment and tools provided. It is like you paying someone to make Brand A widgets but they actually make Brand B widgets for your rival, on your pay and using the tools you provided. The damage is more than simply what you gave them because they are also reducing the market for your Brand A by flooding the market with Brand B.

    7. Re: seems reasonable by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      The story is that she is moderately anti Putin opposition and daughter of the legendary Eltsinoid politician who was major benefactor of Putin in those days

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:seems reasonable by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Graffiti is paint, technically.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:seems reasonable by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I literally have no idea why you think that's unlikely.

      I don't understand how you don't see this is open and shut.

      I'm the first person to roll my eyes at "Samsung executive's daughter caught using iPhone" or "Coca-cola employee takes kid to his favourite restaurant for his birthday, that happens to serve Pepsi, and doesn't force the kid to have water or milk but in fact allows him a Pepsi". But literally the job of the brand ambassador -- the whole job -- is to preferentially use that brand's products and represent how great it is.

      Whether 1.6 million is reasonable, I don't know, that sounds high but I'm not in possession of the full facts for the situation. But as to whether the brand ambassador should lose the lawsuit? This is open and shut, unless there's some huge missing piece of the story (eg. "criminals broke in and swapped out the samsung phone for an iphone and the ambassador didn't have time to fix it", and *that* would be an unlikely situation to snicker at).

    10. Re:seems reasonable by raynet · · Score: 1

      Some companies don't allow you to use personal phone while working, she could have used her iPhone outside work.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    11. Re:seems reasonable by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      My friend was an office drone at the US embassy, had to get rid of the phone the Russian govt gave her the week she started their.

      Capiche

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    12. Re:seems reasonable by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      FML, there not their.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:seems reasonable by derrickn · · Score: 1

      Being paid to make Left Twix and making Right Twix, instead?

    14. Re:seems reasonable by houghi · · Score: 1

      Graffiti is paint, technically.

      No, it's not.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  3. Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone outside a few nerds would have noticed without the lawsuit. They could have just sent her an email saying put the damn iphone away. Instead they made themselves a laughing stock.

    1. Re:Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They haven't made themselves a laughing stock at all... at least not in front of the people they give a fuck about. I'll give you a hint: it ain't a few nerds.

      What they are accomplishing by suing is telling all other would-be contract breakers that just like the contract stipulates, Samsung will sue them too if they break the terms. A contract is a contract. She signed it willingly to get paid. She broke it and deserves to be on the receiving end of the penalty described in the contract that she signed.

    2. Re:Streisand effect by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I wonder if anyone outside a few nerds would have noticed without the lawsuit.

      I think that you underestimate Apple fans and people generally. They take a great deal of notice of what other people, particularly celebs, are using. I am on a particular camera brand forum, and there is a large and ongoing thread about who is seen with what brands and models of camera. Some members keep a count of the different brands that they people using around tourist spots and discuss the results.

    3. Re:Streisand effect by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That fashion conscious "the brands I use define me" behaviour is why Apple have such ludicrous profit margins.

      I guess I should respect firms like Apple and Leica for tapping into the market segment of wealthy idiots.

  4. in the usa a rule like that is not ok for 1099'er by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    in the usa a rule like that is not ok for 1099'er

  5. Well, that's an own goal by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect relatively few people would have heard of this if Samsung hadn't proposed suing. Even if we did, we wouldn't have thought about the implications.

    But, now you're suing. You're not tearing up a contract, you're suggesting it's a REALLY BIG DEAL by suing for millions of dollars. And so we're forced to look at the story closer, and realize that, yeah, it kinda is a really big deal. I mean, most of us wouldn't care that deeply about what we use. I'm an Android user, but if I were paid to use an iPhone for a year, I'd use it, it'd be my primary phone.

    It's hard to imagine a situation where I'd risk not receiving the money because of some minor quibble about the UI, or lack of user programmability, or whatever.

    Which means... Samsung's phones really must suck. I mean, like really suck. I mean, why would someone actually ditch a phone they're paid to use for a friggin' iPhone? People, the iPhone's UI isn't that compelling, it's nice, but... OMG the Samsung UI must be just awful. Awful.

    So now we realize why Samsung considers it a really big deal. By using an iPhone, this Russian celebrity has just told the world that the Samsung phone he was paid to use is the worst phone in the entire universe, that it's practically unusable, and you should probably avoid it.

    I had a Galaxy Nexus once. I hated it. So I can sympathize.

    But just think, if Samsung had just decided to quietly terminate the contract, nobody, not me, not you, would have ever gone through this thought process.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Well, that's an own goal by dkone · · Score: 1

      I think it comes down more to preference than your blanket statement of "brand X must really suck". I personally don't like the interface of an iPhone (or osX), but that doesn't mean it sucks. This lady has probably had an iPhone forever (which is probably a primary reason Samsung choose her) and didn't care for the Android experience (or in your words, "it sucks").

      Although I don't like iPhones because they suck (your word, not mine) if someone was paying me a huge sum of money to use one for a year, you can bet your ass I am only using an iPhone. Hell, I would dry hump it on national TV if the money was right.

    2. Re:Well, that's an own goal by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > I mean, most of us wouldn't care that deeply about what we use.

      1st. Yes, **some** of us DO care about what (mobile) phone we use -- based on functionality and usability -- not some iHipster fad.

      2nd. FTFY: The fact that Samsung thinks:

      That people actually give a shit what phone some nobody (*), er "Samsung brand ambassador" Ksenia Sobchak, is using

      -- a politician, no less -- also known as Russia's "Paris Hilton", is freaking hilarious!

      (*) Yet another Russian politician, TV anchor, journalist, socialite and actress, that no one gives a fuck about.

      I guess Samsung didn't hear of the Streisand effect. Not that it matters. Now that people are aware that Ksenia broke her contract I seriously doubt the negative news will have a meaningful impact on Samsung sales.

    3. Re:Well, that's an own goal by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I don't really think so.
      I think it's far more likely that this "brand Ambassador" was a brainless douche who IS too stupid to understand that no, you can't just do whatever you want once you sign a contract.

      I mean, duh.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:Well, that's an own goal by azcoyote · · Score: 1

      Sure, that is how people will perceive it, sadly. Too bad for them. Samsung is definitely my favorite brand of phone; I hate Apple products and prefer the freedom of Android all the way. But from my experience--I've had a number of Androids, but of course I haven't tried all of the manufacturers--Samsung provides the best Android experience that I have tried. They have great standard apps and extras in addition to great hardware.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    5. Re:Well, that's an own goal by jimbo · · Score: 1

      Hatred is one of the most powerful and intense human emotions. I have yet to completely understand why people can feel such toward a device like a smartphone. Maybe toward a company that is particularly malicious. Once I learned real hate toward a person I've never used it lightly again.

      In any case I was happy with my Samsung Galaxy S6, it was and is still a really great phone but it is scandalous that it no longer receives OS upgrades which is why I got an iPhone now. I can use either OS and personally don't care either way.
      What is interesting is that the privacy focus of Apple is in its own way liberating.

    6. Re:Well, that's an own goal by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      By using an iPhone, this Russian celebrity has just told the world that the Samsung phone he was paid to use is the worst phone in the entire universe, that it's practically unusable, and you should probably avoid it.

      Holy crap, hyperbole much? A more realistic interpretation is that she liked her iPhone and was just stupid.

    7. Re:Well, that's an own goal by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I suspect relatively few people would have heard of this if Samsung hadn't proposed suing.

      I suspect Samsung actually checked and found out. Were people posting the video of her trying to hide her iPhone under a piece of paper on camera? Where people reposting the video? Voting it up? Yes? Then we're suing, and suing big.

      Now maybe we wouldn't have heard about it at all if Samsung hadn't sued, since it was all on Russian social media, which is almost as insular as Chinese social media, but then again we might have. And still, she negatively affected their brand image in an entire country. Letting that slide sounds like a bad idea, if only because they have other brand ambassadors around the world.

  6. Nonsense... by YuppieScum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They voluntarily signed a contract - and received significant payment - to only use Brand X. They were caught using Brand Y.

    That's a very simple case of "breach of contract."

    You, sir, are an idiot.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Nonsense... by TXJD · · Score: 1

      Which makes the lawsuit perfectly valid, as that's how you settle whether the contract is enforceable, etc.

  7. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure Samsung required in contact that any public exposure would require that you use the proper phone brand. How hard is it these days to simply do what your paid to do? If you love the iPhone so much why in the world did you sign a contract with Samsung? Yeah, this person should be sued for breach of contract. That's the way it works folks, you agree to do something for compensation then do it.

  8. don't blame her by lactose99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    She probably just didn't want to catch on fire.

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    1. Re:don't blame her by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      She probably just didn't want to catch on fire.

      It's going to be winter soon in Moscow - having a combustible phone might be advantageous.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  9. Can you imagine the backlash if Apple did this? by euxneks · · Score: 1, Interesting

    People are like: "meh, they broke a contract" but if Apple did this, I bet there would be ravenous pearl clutching. The double standard is palpable.

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    1. Re:Can you imagine the backlash if Apple did this? by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Apple does attract a bit more negative attention. But most people look at a story like this and nod to themselves and think something along the lines of "that seems reasonable for [company] to do, because their employee broke their contract and may have caused brand damage" where [company] is Samsung or Apple. But most of these people don't bother commenting. The commenters are the ones who have a bone to pick with somebody in the story.

      There's not much point in getting worked up about negative comments online, they're not necessarily representative of common or broadly held opinions.

    2. Re:Can you imagine the backlash if Apple did this? by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      People are like: "meh, they broke a contract" but if Apple did this, I bet there would be ravenous pearl clutching. The double standard is palpable.

      That doesn't make sense. How can something be "palpable" if you merely imagined it?

      Honestly, you should save your outrage for things that actually happen, rather than what you imagine some opposing group might do.

  10. Re:Who Cares? by euxneks · · Score: 1

    So did Hillary, yet no one talks about her anymore.

    LOL

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  11. Re:LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! by jon3k · · Score: 1

    Apparently you literally cannot even pay her to use a Samsung phone.

  12. time for a commercial break by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    sounds like the makings of an Apple commercial.

  13. Re:LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Apparently you literally cannot even pay her to use a Samsung phone.

    Perfect! Wish I'd thought of that!!!

  14. What? by skam240 · · Score: 1

    "Which means... Samsung's phones really must suck."

    How on earth does that follow? For starters Samsung phones run the same OS as every other phone on the market except for Apple's so how on earth can they be offering such a significantly worse experience? After that, their phones are always well received critically including this latest gen and have been absurdly popular for about a decade now. You don't achieve the market dominance Samsung has in such a competitive market as Android smart phones without making a good product.

    Given all of this it seems infinitely more likely they were teaching a lesson here and confident enough in their brand that they could care less about how it shows in the news. Besides, how mainstream is this news going to be? I seriously doubt it will even register in terms of general social consciousness.

    For the record, I just switched off from being a 7 or 8 year Samsung user to a different brand. My choice, however, had nothing to do with a lack of quality in their phones. It had everything to do with price versus value and the fact that there are a ton of cheaper smart phones on the market nowadays that do exactly what I want them to do for half the price of a Samsung. This carries over to Apple as well as their phones are of very similar capabilities and cost the same ludicrous amounts. Both top tier brands are completely failing nowadays to deliver anything that properly distinguishes themselves from phones that are half the price.

    This Samsung rep was clearly just a twit who preferred Apple's OS over Android so much she was willing to risk her job over it.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:What? by YuppieScum · · Score: 1

      This Samsung rep was clearly just a twit who preferred Apple's OS over Android so much she was willing to risk her job over it.

      Actually, it's highly unlikely that she even knows what an OS is, let alone that there are different ones.

      More likely is she took Samsung's money and phone, then realised that FaceTime or whatever other Apple-specific thing wasn't there, so switched and hoped no-one would notice because, like, they're all just phones, right?

      Oh, and is was effectively a sponsorship deal, not a job per se.

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    2. Re:What? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Actually, it's highly unlikely that she even knows what an OS is, let alone that there are different ones."

      How do you come to that conclusion? If she doesn't understand that how on earth would she have been hired as a Samsung rep? I feel fairly confident a massive corporate entity isn't that incompetent when hiring reps.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:What? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      You don't need to know what an OS is to use a phone, Samsung are selling hardware, the software is incidental, it's not even their own software.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:What? by YuppieScum · · Score: 1

      If she doesn't understand that how on earth would she have been hired as a Samsung rep? I feel fairly confident a massive corporate entity isn't that incompetent when hiring reps.

      She wasn't "hired as a Samsung rep." She's not a Samsung employee.

      "Brand Ambassador" is akin to a sponsorship deal - take this bucket of money to exclusively use, been seen using and promote our [product] during your daily life.

      Outside the "Slashdot bubble," most people don't know what a phone OS is. At best, they might recognise there's a difference between Apple and non-Apple, but are generally unaware what those differences are...

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    5. Re:What? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Semantics, nice.

      And no, the general public is well aware that Apple and Android phones run different OS's. They may be fuzzy on the details but we're talking about an incredibly common consumer item. Most understand the jist of it.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    6. Re:What? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      This isn't a sales Rep at an Apple store we're talking about here, this is a fairly significant figure if they can be sued for damages in the millions. Furthermore, she clearly knew what she was doing was not allowed as she was trying to hide which phone she was using while she was using it. That clearly implies she understands the difference.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  15. iPhone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't using an iPhone punishment enough?

  16. Agree to be paid, botching contract by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why this is super surprising. If you're paid to use X product and you get caught using a competitor's product then of course you're going to get sued. It's so simple almost anyone can understand it. Don't like it? Then don't agree with the contract, don't take the money.

  17. Reminds me of Alicia Keys and Blackberry by mccrew · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a similar situation about 5 years ago. Blackberry had just hired musician/singer Alicia Keys as some kind of brand ambassador or creative input, or some other ceremonial title. Her first twitter post was something about how good the new Blackberry Z10 was, but of course it also had the client identification text: "sent from my iPhone." Oops!

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
  18. good by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    can't stand that privileged nobody

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  19. If youz gonna take money from Nike.... by ZoomieDood · · Score: 1

    then don't be caught dead in Converse, man!

    Whutz wrong wid you man?

    Don't bite the hand that feeds you!

  20. "I'm not allowed to do this, because of a contract by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Apparently in the video, as she covers the iPhone with a piece of paper she states she's not allowed to be seen using one, due to the contract. So she knew. She might have an overriding sense that rules don't apply to her, though. She is a politician, after all.

  21. At least it's not an insecure phone like Donald by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    At least the phone he uses isn't an insecure phone that the Russians and Chinese are listening in on, as is the case with the President of the Fearful States of Amerika.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  22. HAHAHAHAHA by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Is this any worse than when Siri was asked what the 'best' smart phone was, and answered the Samsung Galaxy ? Did they really pay someone that much money or is this an 'estimate' of damage or a potential damage to the brand issue ? I used to love when Nickelodeon network used what was obviously an apple product but with a pear logo on screen to avoid advertising for Apple.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  23. What kind of decent manufacturer does it? by aeeneas · · Score: 1

    Paying famous people for using their products. That's a low for Samsung.

  24. Re:LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Yeah, clearly she's to dumb to be able to use anything other than an iPhone.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  25. Not uncommon at all. by Camembert · · Score: 1

    It is not uncommon at all. Leonardo di Caprio is an ambassador for Tag Heuer watches for example. It is just an advertisement channel.

  26. I'm very curious where the people saying by waspleg · · Score: 1

    "OMG IT'S WRONG TO GET FIRED FOR WHAT PHONE YOU USE!!?!?!" actually live.

    I live in an Orwellian double-speak named "Right to Work" state where I could fired for literally anything other than the handful of protected classes (gender/race/religion/sex) and have literally no recourse for it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's definitely the reality.

    In this case, this woman was hired specifically for her high profile and supposed to be marketing their phone for them by being seen using it.

    She willfully broke her contract in a very public way and they're suing her for the damage she caused their image which is exactly what she had been hired to improve not destroy.

    Samsung should stop chasing Apple's coat tails anyway. I have a very old Samsung phone and would not buy most (any?) of their new options because they've removed basically the point of getting one; flexibility and user serviceability. If I can't use an sd card and replace the battery myself, etc, then I'm not at all interested. Pre-loaded malware/bloatware doesn't help their case either.