Slashdot Mirror
ArtX, Hannibal and Consumer Fraud
Gina writes "The guys over at Ars Technica have an interesting story regarding the schemes that marketing types try to combat bad hype.
The story started last week in one of the Ars Comdex reports, when Hannibal said that ArtX's Alladin chipset didn't look too hot, and continued in an email dialog between Hannibal and Rick Calle.
The story gets really weird when Mr. Calle went on Ars' forum and started posting stories discounting Hannibal's take on the situation as two different anonymous cowards. How'd Hannibal know it was Mr. Calle? The IPs of users are automatically logged (you know this before you submit your post) and both the anonymous cowards turned out to be from the same IP, which resolved to artxinc.com.
Here's Mr. Calle's response to the allegations, "P.S. you're good. snagged my IP, huh?! i'm rotfl
- rick." "
My question is, how much longer will this moron be rotfl with his company completely discredited like this? I mean, to get mentions on all the gamer sites about this has got to be absolutely devestating to their chances at marketing this product (or, for that matter, any other).
This does rank as an important object lesson about believing what anonymous sources have to say, however.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Sadly, negative advertising is seen as being more influential than positive development. It is, but it's also more corrosive. What you end up with is a cynical audience who doesn't believe anyone, because there's no-one left to trust.
Personally, I believe that a decent product will sell itself, and that advertising & promoting is an expensive delusion to cover the cracks that nobody wanted to spend the same money fixing.
We've seen this with Linux, and the *BSD's. Little or no promotion, other than the system working, and most (if not all) the effort going into making these OS' work. Linux has the highest rate of change of uptake of any OS on the market, and the BSD's have support so solid, it would make a neutron star weep.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
http://www.woz.org has an article about how the NYT tried to mask a pro-MS article as if it were written by Woz. This kind of stuff is getting silly. I can't believe posters.... Pro-MS posters may be MS employees... ArtX anonymous posers (note the spelling). Sigh, I guess it's time to remember... Don't believe anything you hear or read, and only half of what you see.
(Note: MS video evidence would fall into the other "half of what you see")
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
Unfortunately, when they're Anonymous Cowards, it gets a bit harder to tell if you've got:
Unfortunately, as you head down this list, there is a tendancy for honesty to diminish, as well as the usefulness of the information.
The issue isn't new; it was pretty evident in some reviews of LinuxCAD, that there were "reviewers" that may not have been at arms length from the "producers." Another review notes, about the "testimonials," that:
It was quite entertaining when Linux Gazette published an Official Reaction of Software Forge Inc. to "LinuxCAD Review"; I expressed in LG issue 42 that I appreciated their restraint in not using a spell-checker...
No, I haven't much use for Anonymous Cowards...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Bravo!
This type of self-moderation is essential for online communities. Although some people get really antsy and yell "free speech, free speech!", the interests of the readership are served by precautions such as IP logging. The forum's credibility also benefits.
Care to express you opinion to someone that matters? I'm sure David Orton, president of ArtX, would love to hear what you think about his marketing director. His address? deo@artxinc.com :)
Now, the product in question was a PCI network board, yet one of the performance curves was prominently labeled "SGI Indigo 2 R4400".
Ummm... the Indigo 2 doesn't have any PCI slots, it's EISA or GIO or nothin'. Thinking somebody just pasted the wrong graphic into the press-release, I read the copy - nope, mentions the Indigo 2. They were ready to run with this until I waved my hands repeatedly in front of them.
Shortly thereafter, the CEO asked if I could possibly work directly in their marketing dept, as they needed someone with a tech background (ah-yup!). I couldn't help but tell the guy that I couldn't stomach working a job where my main function was to lie to my customers. He thought that was pretty funny, and had a good laugh...
Perhaps the best thing to do, in addition to boycotting ArtX's products, is to email/snail mail the CEO directly, politely explaining why you'll not be purchasing any of their products.
People that not only lie, but misrepresent the company they work for in an attempt to bolster public opinion wind up doing more damage than good in the long run. I'm sure Mr. Calle's will be deservedly short-lived, but only if the CEO of the company hears about it. Don't let this fall by the wayside folks!
P.S. On that note, does anyone have an address for the CEO? Email/SnailMail/Phone Number # would be nice...
This thing isn't logging my ip is it?
- rick^H^H^H^H^H^H
This article makes me wonder how often this kind of thing happens in the slashdot comments...
People can be FUD'ing our ears full without we readers even knowing it. They can be FUD'ing comptetitors products. They can be FUD'ing mozilla, linux, freebsd and whatever right here on slashdot. Some posts may be moderated down but how many posts get through the moderation?
This article really opened my eyes up. I'm such a nice guy, so I guess I have to admit I may have been too naive and unaware of such unethical methods.
Wasn't there an article about Microsoft starting their own Anti linux division. Makes me wonder if those guys are participating in discussions on slashdot and spreading FUD.
I might be a little paranoid but given MS and other companies well known FUD tactics it won't surprise me. If they are, they would at least be smart enough to not have IP's that originate from inside their company.
This kind of manipulation doesn't just happen in the consumer hardware space. Network hardware, in particular, seems to be based entirely on marketingspeak and fudged benchmarks. I haven't seen anyone go so far as to try to poison reviews in a public forum, but I have seen:
Single-processor 250Mhz Sun servers tested against Quad P3-500 Xeons
Performance numbers which assume that there are no features running on the product
Liberal use of "catchphrases" like "non-blocking switch" when technical details disagree
Benchmarks which favor vendor-specific implementations (just see how much better ASAPI does than Perl/CGI in a benchmark)
Blaming everything else around the device which seems to be having a problem (it's the router/firewall/switch/NIC/Server Proc, not my load-balancing device)
The more someone thinks they can get away with, the more they'll try. We should just crucify/boycott companies who use these tactics, as it will be impossible to trust them in the future. The free market, if properly informed, will take care of these abusers of consumer trust.
good. fast. cheap. (pick any two, you can't have all three)
Please behave responsibly with this information. IOW, express your feelings, but do so politely and professionally -- otherwise you are sinking to Calle's level.
From ArtX Press Announcements:
For Additional Press Information about ArtX, please contact:
Rick Calle, Director Marketing ArtX
650/842-8455
Rcalle@artxinc.com
For additional information about Ali or Ali products, please contact:
Nancy Hartsoch ALi 408/467-7450
nancy_hartsoch@acer.com
From Contact ArtX:
ArtX, Inc.
3400 Hillview Avenue Building 5, 2nd Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94304
650/842-8400 phone
650/842-0307 fax
info@artxinc.com
From Investor Relations:
For further information, please contact David Orton, President:
deo@artxinc.com
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Several people mentioned that this guy was just defending a product review... Actually, not.
Basically, the original post said that the guy had seen the product (video chipset i think) at a trade show (comdex?) and that it looked pretty crappy there, but that it could be for reasons other than the product itself.
Then this guy from the company concerned starts an email conversation with the poster of the article, saying why it didn't look as good as it could.
It gets pretty involved from here, but basically the marketing guy lied in his emails, then posted two messages using anon accounts to discredit the original poster. ("I saw that, he's full of shit!" type of thing) He used the tactic of making the first post look like it was written by an idiot, agreeing with the article, then the second post (a reply) looks more intelligent, and backs the company and the product.
Original article poster checks IP's on the posts, sees they're the same, and posts a note saying to be warned as both these posts were made by the same guy.
Then the marketing guy sends another e-mail to the article poster and says "found my IP's out, eh? pretty smart" or something to that effect.
Naturally, this is pretty appalling to the original article poster.
I mean here's a marketing guy trying to defend his product. A noble cause, nothing wrong with that, but the tactics used are nothing short of disgusting. Admittedly, used right they WORK, but still...
I think this is a case of someone just being caught in the act. Obviously, the marketing guy is a bit clueless, since he admitted his guilt via e-mail, and didn't realize how disturbing this was to the internet user psyche.
Marketing tactics have done stuff like this for decades. The "rumor mill" and "word of mouth" is a well-known phenomenon. Commercials and advertising will notify an audience your product exists. Product reviews will get a select few to buy. Word of mouth can get the entire population to go for it.
Just look at the movies, for example. How many of you have seen a movie because a friend recommended it? Hell, usually that's the only reason I'll see a movie. Reviews often just don't have that much impact.
But many years ago on the Usenet, someone discovered the secret to easy word of mouth on the 'net. Anonymity.
Bit sad, really. I think a product will sell itself, if it's a good product.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The corollary to this is that freedom of speech gives you the right to speak, but not the right to be heard.
-B
I word for a somewhat large ad agency -- we do work for a soda company, a major European car company, a baby food company and a major watch company. Anyway, an encouraged and smiled-upon practice here is what they call "guerilla marketing," which is not limited to: spraypainting/chaulking walls and sidewalks with a client's product name in an attempt to fake "grass roots" support and buzz; engaging in "viral emailing" wherein an account executive or project director emails 10 - 20 people they know with product hype in the hope that those people will email 10 - 20 people, etc.; by camping in newsgroups that may contain our audience's demographic and posting about their "experiences" with a product, and, as seen recently, by posting in forums on enthusiast Web sites. Such practices are often done with the client's express consent and I can guarantee that other agencies do these things as well.
Anyway, the point is that ArtX is not the only company that is seeding "interest" in their products or services by posing as outsiders. At least at the firm I work at, it is actively encouraged.
ALI press release on their comdex booth
ALI/Artx press release on the Aladdin 7
ALI/nVidia press release on the Aladdin TNT
If you take the time to look at them, you'll see that ALI was showing both the Artx chip and a TNT2 based chip in the same booth. This is precisely what has been denied by the person giving his thoughts on the booth. In fact he states that he was at the booth for an *hour* and the word TNT was never mentioned. Seeing as one of the 3 products there was called the 'Aladdin TNT,' I find this hard to believe.
There is no denying that Rick Calle screwed up. He should have posted a note to the discussion list pointing out the facts of what was actually shown at the booth and provided proof(such as the URLs above). He should have posted this and put his name and email address at the bottom. He didn't, and that was a mistake. Unfortunately he seemed in a rush to counter some potentially incorrect information that was out there about his company and it's product.
I think we all need to ask ourselves what would happen if we had just released something and someone started talking about in a negative way, *and* it appears that the person may not have even been looking at the product in question? What if I were talking about some new Linux distribution that looked remarkably like Windows98, and performed just as poorly? (And it turned out to actually have been Windows98, but I was *mistaken* in believing that it was Linux?)
The fact that Hannibal failed to even notice the existence of the TNT2's bothers me as well. As does his refusal to believe that TNT2's were there, or do any checking into the matter with another source. 2/3 of the article talks about the email exchange (noone has bitched about him taking private email and publicizing it yet).
It is far too easy to pick on a marketing person trying to discuss technical details. 2 paragraphs about the LCD information. So in his email Rick mixed up refresh with persistence. That was an unfortunate mistake. You should try watching a DVD movie on one of those screens and you will see the persistence problem.
Fast forward to another couple paragraphs discussing the performance of a TNT2 AIB, which is, of course, completely irrelevant when discussing an integrated chipset. (which is what the other 2 machines had, the Aladdin TNT)
This is followed up by a couple paragraphs discussing whether or not someone was fragged. This really could've been an honest mistake.
In the end, I think that intentionally posting the anonymous messages to the forum was wrong. Nothing said in the email exchange was wrong however. I also think that Hannibal's refusal to accept the possibility of his own mistake was wrong, as was the lack of any attempt to find out what was really shown at Comdex. (Is a trip to the ALI web site so hard?) If you are going to write about something and publish it, you should at least expend some effort to make sure that what you are writing about is the truth.
And yes, I do work at ArtX, though this email is not at all an official company position. I prefer my non-work-related email at home(eric@ericscott.net).