Registered: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 10

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMO4now
But maybe I am missing your point? If so, please clarify, and I'll try to clear the fog out of my head!!!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 5

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMO4now
I am simply saying that lawsuits will likely happen... after all, the high-profile corporate forums are going to be the Ca$h Cows for the viral advertisers, so when it becomes enough of a stress on these forums to sue they will do so, IMO

---

I'm sorry but I just don't see that it follows. The forum I'm a regular at which was targeted by the CourtTV shill is a non-profit organization which would never sue a spammer. My own forum doesn't even have any anti-spamming rules so I'd likely rely on kneecapping a shill's credibility like you mentioned in your first post.

It just doesn't seem culturally viable to me for forums to sue. There isn't the same invasion of personal space like there is with email spam, nor is there, at this point anyway, anything like the profusion of viral marketing driven posts.

As KittenKaboodle pointed out, the keystone to the viral advertising arch is pretending to be a regular joe talking about something you like. Once that keystone is sledgehammered out, the structure collapses. A post or two is a far more effective sledgehammer, both in results and cost, than a lawsuit. Given their focus on the bottom line, corporations seem to me to be the least likely to sue when they can quite easily kneecap a spammer with a post and a ban, entirely free of charge.

quote:

---

You're right, a ban is easier, and as far as e-mail spam I tried my own personal "banning" by setting up filters. It got so bad that I was spending hours setting up the filters, and ultimately the personal mailbox was not worth my time. I left the e-mail world for a while.

---

Posts on a public forum are different from emails, though. I just don't think that at this stage in the game you can say that litigation is inevitable. It may happen, sure, but I don't see a clear equivalence between the flowering of email spam and viral marketing on public boards. For one thing, we're so much savvier now than we were when email spam began. It's a very different cyberworld.

quote:

---

When people start leaving sponsored forums due to this, I believe the corporate sponsors who can afford to do so WILL sue.

---

I suppose that depends on how much they value the community. It seems more likely to me that they would simply shut down the forum and deploy a fleet of viral marketers of their own.

quote:

---

IMO, by nature an advertisement is a product referral.

---

You're right. I phrased that poorly. What I meant to say is that an advertisment is not a request for a product. In any case, I can see how the line might be a fine one on paper, but I can't help but think that in a community where people interact regularly, it's relatively easy to distinguish the advertiser from the regular guy who likes something.

quote:

---

I would be little more receptive if you would quit picking at semantics. It's annoying and makes your responses seem abrasive. If you would kindly agree to do this, I think we will get along fine!

---

I'm sorry, JMO4now, but I have no idea where I picked at semantics with you. From my perspective, I have responded to the substance of your arguments every time, not quibbled over definitions. I suppose that means we won't get along fine, which saddens me as I don't what I've done to needle you. It was certainly not my intent and I apologize for any annoyance I've caused.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 349

quote:

---

Originally posted by corona688
No, I think we're pretty much in agreement now. I just think that it might be possible to control intrusive viral advertising right now, because it's nature is different. If we take action now, we might not need to wait for uglier, more intrusive laws to control the ugly, intrusive viral advertising. That means taking action, though -- it must be made clear that this behavior is unacceptable.

Not all viral advertising is intrusive, by the way. I thought the 'subservient chicken' thing was pretty clever -- it spread by word of mouth, people came to it rather than burger king shoving a disguised advertisement in everyone's faces.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 4

Forgive my longwindedness, but I was just thinking about this, and it occurred to me that I think the core problem with this type of viral marketing is that it really just a hamhanded attempt to shortcut a real, valid, and effective phenomenon.

I frequently work, at least peripherally, in marketing, and I usually recommend viral marketing as an effective tool. But not by hiring people to tell others about the company. By providing services that cause people to tell their friends. I work mostly in IT and telco companies, so what I tell my clients and employers to do is provide something for free. Maybe online reference materials related to their industry, a series of whitepapers discussing the state of the art of the technologies they work with, an industry-targeted news portal, or something like that. That kind of viral marketing works, and works very well.

Providing services like that does serve to create good will for a business. People learn something from your company, or find a useful tool you provide, and it establishes that company as friendly, authoritative, and trustworthy. And people do tell their friends and coworkers about it, because it is valuable information for them.

So viral marketing does work. But it works best when it happens naturally. Look at Google, for example. I've never seen an ad for Google. Do they even buy ads at all? Their marketing is at least primarily word of mouth. But their company name has been verbed. They're massive. And all because of real, organic viral marketing. But their viral marketing works because it's real and organic. When they started out, people liked their service and told their friends about it. Since then, they've added new services, and people tell their friends about them. I've seen several boards where regular posters start threads about new Google services they've found useful. Not brand new posters, but trusted members of the community. I read those posts, I pay attention to their recommendations, and I do go try out the tools others recommend, because I know those people, and because their recommendations are geniune and uncoerced.

Looking around, it appears that Court TV does have some natural viral marketing that's already working. This discussion board is large and active, and no doubt contributes positively to their reputation. They appear to have co-marketing agreements with other reputable and relevant sites like crimelibrary, Smoking Gun, and FindLaw, and they provide access to information that people want.

Those are all legitimate and undoubtedly effective tools. And the reason they work is that they provide a service that the users want. They provide useful links to information, a forum on which people can discuss subjects of interest to their audience, etc., and because they are useful, people tell other people about them.

To better take advantage of the viral marketing phenomenon, companies need to provide the kind of services that make people want to tell their friends about it. Hiring people to pretend to be your friends simply in order to tell you about products and services is ultimately going to be far less effective, and may even have a net effect of damaging your business' reputation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 349

quote:

---

Originally posted by livius drusus


[QUOTE][B]I'm sorry, JMO4now, but I have no idea where I picked at semantics with you. From my perspective, I have responded to the substance of your arguments every time, not quibbled over definitions. I suppose that means we won't get along fine, which saddens me as I don't what I've done to needle you. It was certainly not my intent and I apologize for any annoyance I've caused.

---

I changed the order of your post to clear the air here, 'hope you don't mind! I suppose it was the comment about the word "nag" in your first response to me, followed up by your comment about my use of the word "argue." However, I have re-read and now feel that I was too quickly put off by your arguments against my specific words, when viewed in ratio with the other points you were trying to make. There was certainly validity in the rest of your comments, which was overshadowed in my reaction to the "nag" comment. Thus, I take some responsibility in being a bit too "thin-skinned" there... Thank you for your apology... so no worries!!!

quote:

---

I'm sorry but I just don't see that it follows. The forum I'm a regular at which was targeted by the CourtTV shill is a non-profit organization which would never sue a spammer. My own forum doesn't even have any anti-spamming rules so I'd likely rely on kneecapping a shill's credibility like you mentioned in your first post.

It just doesn't seem culturally viable to me for forums to sue. There isn't the same invasion of personal space like there is with email spam, nor is there, at this point anyway, anything like the profusion of viral marketing driven posts.

---

I guess I am just a bit jaded here. I just don't believe that it is possible to prevent the unscrupulous few from attempting their maneuvers. I look at the future of such advertising and I see profits, and that makes me think that it will take litigation to fix it... because as we see with SPAM, there is always some yutz out there working for the easy buck! While most of us aren't in a position to be able to sue, even though we are affected by such viral advertising, I believe the ones most able to sue will, in time. No, I don't believe viral advertising is enough of a problem now for this to happen, but because of the SPAM problem I believe that evolutionary process will ultimately bring about the need for court intervention, if viral advertising becomes successful.

As far as invasion of personal space, I don't think that was the basis for successful e-mail SPAM suits. I think it was economic damages on the part of corporations affected that drove the suits, and I believe that this economic reasoning may be possible in the case of viral advertising. I'm not a lawyer, though (I just play one on CTV message boards. ).

I agree that this is not enough of a problem Now, but if viral advertising is successful then I believe the issue is destined for court. After all, forum sponsors would be paying to moderate, equip, and store the posts. In deference to many of the posters on this thread, maybe this can be averted as people try to create enough public outrage that viral advertising becomes unacceptable.

Here is where the "jaded" part comes in... I just don't believe that we as consumers have enough *direct* economic control to prevent viral advertising. Unlike the CFC fast food wraps, and the environmental policies of oil companies--which were both influenced directly by loss of revenue dollars, I don't see that as possible with viral advertising. It is not us as consumers that pay the marketing companies, it is their clients. I just think there are too many links in the chain between the consumers and the decision makers on the viral advertising issue.

However, I would love to be wrong about this, since I hate to see unfortunate and unnecessary laws brought about. And I admire the people with enough idealism to try to accomplish this...

quote:

---

As KittenKaboodle pointed out, the keystone to the viral advertising arch is pretending to be a regular joe talking about something you like. Once that keystone is sledgehammered out, the structure collapses. A post or two is a far more effective sledgehammer, both in results and cost, than a lawsuit. Given their focus on the bottom line, corporations seem to me to be the least likely to sue when they can quite easily kneecap a spammer with a post and a ban, entirely free of charge.

---

I agree with you here, that was what I was trying to convey in my first post! Yes, it's too difficult for one person to do this, but if enough people do so (and notify forum moderators, as well) then maybe there is a chance... I think KittenKaboodle's comment about "newbies" is key to this. If viral advertisers are forced to post abundantly before their advertisement is credible, at some point it is not worth the effort. And I think that Corona's effort to bring attention to the problem is a valid approach, since it takes public education about the problem to ensure enough people start sledgehammering to make a difference!

quote:

---

Posts on a public forum are different from emails, though. I just don't think that at this stage in the game you can say that litigation is inevitable. It may happen, sure, but I don't see a clear equivalence between the flowering of email spam and viral marketing on public boards. For one thing, we're so much savvier now than we were when email spam began. It's a very different cyberworld.

---

Hopefully! I think you have a more positive attitudge than I do (back to the "jaded" comment, above!).

quote:

---

I suppose that depends on how much they value the community. It seems more likely to me that they would simply shut down the forum and deploy a fleet of viral marketers of their own.

---

I think this is in direct relation to the revenues generated. Unfortunately, it will be the little guys that are forced to close down. Over Thanksgiving, I was looking for a recipe that Louisa May Alcott put into her story "An Old-Fashioned Thanksgiving." This story is all over the web, but unfortunately without the recipes! I made my way to http://www.alcottweb.com/. I thought surely it would be there! But then I clicked to see that the site has been shut down due to e-mail SPAMmers spoofing. YUK! I think this proves your point.

quote:

---

You're right. I phrased that poorly. What I meant to say is that an advertisment is not a request for a product. In any case, I can see how the line might be a fine one on paper, but I can't help but think that in a community where people interact regularly, it's relatively easy to distinguish the advertiser from the regular guy who likes something.

---

My logic here is as follows. In requesting a product, that by nature is a product endorsement. In responding with sources, people are endorsing suppliers. I hope it's relatively easy for individuals to distinguish an honest request vs. an advertiser, but the problem I see here is that the rules against promotion would have to be written for everyone equally. IMO, The law-abiding masses would respond by not posting about products, or where to get them, and the lawbreakers would continue to advertise. The moderators would have to enforce equally amongst all participants to gain any credibility in fighting viral advertisers.

As usual, all of this is IMO! And boy, now my brain is REALLY fried!!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged