Yeah, the media here played a HUGE role in creating a lot of the hysteria yesterday. I mean, these displays were up for weeks, but the panic occurred on one day in the course of a few hours - clearly that's no coincidence. And now they continue to call the displays "hoax devices" even though this was clearly no hoax.

Jonathan,
I've lived in cities or large suburbs (100,000+) for most of my 60 years, and I agree: cities are great because they are full of rough edges. But I wonder if the response to "Bombed in Boston" is a generational thing.

When I was a young man, I thought all authorities were dazed, confused, humorless and frightened by anything that didn't look like them. I still think they are dazed, confused, and humorless, but I better understand why they might react the way they did yesterday in Boston to LEDs.

And having served in the military for 8 years, I can tell you that your assumptions about these LEDs obviously looking not harmful, don't play well with those whose job it is to defend a nation or a city. Assumptions injure and kill people.

NB: Don't fail to read Ann's post regarding this same topic, but with a substantially different POV. Both of us are from the Boston area, so it's interesting to compare our takes on what is for us a very pressing local issue.

I think the police were the last to know. People were calling into radio shows early in the afternoon telling anyone who'd listen that it was a cartoon. It wasn't until 5pm that Boston officials figured it out.

It's not often that I appear conservative -- but I guess this time, I do. (LOL!) You know I love you, Jonathan -- but I respectfully disagree that the city overreacted. I don't think they did EVERYTHING right... they definitely could have checked the Internet before deploying a bomb squad, for example (!). But at the same time, it seems irresponsible for any company to place wired little devices in crevices around the city. At the very least, it seems dumb and not very well thought-out. And if I was the one in charge, I can't say I would have responded any differently.

That being said, I feel for the artist who created the packages and who was arrested last night. He looked thoroughly bewildered on the evening news.

All: Being a New Yorker that went through the mass-transit shutdown of 9/11 and the subway strike a couple years back what is VERY easy to forget is this: when mass transit shuts down or is stalled it’s not just people getting to work that are inconvenienced. People also can’t get to chemotherapy treatments and to their children at school. We just can't imagine the ramifications until it happens.

I just find it inexcusable that Turner Broadcasting waited until 5pm to respond. They should set an example. I'm between your post and Ann's so excuse me if this is repeated ;-).

Jonathan: it would be great if we were all just in this big joke together, but we're not. These two jackasses at Interference, along with their client, need to get slapped.

Not only do you do something stupid, you follow up your success with second-rate comedy on camera? You attempt a cover-up? Smart.

Everyone involved needs to get fired here for showing extraordinarily lousy judgment. Whoever signed off on this work order to whoever executed it. You hire an agency to come up with clever ideas and then to do them *right*. This was a clever idea that the agency utterly and completely failed to think through -- and then they had the audacity to mock everyone who asked them what they were thinking.

Yikes. All involved need a pink slip. And an attorney.

Sorry, almost done --

Here's the thing that kills me about this: the idea itself wasn't half bad.

What I find inexcusable is that the agency didn't execute -- they didn't think through the program -- they didn't ask themselves rhetorically late one evening in front of the white board, "...OK... so what could go wrong?"

That's what you hire an agency to do.

And then, to cap it off, they implied that everyone else was stupid for not "getting it". Amazingly poor judgment.

Am I still shouting? Sorry. I'll get off this soapbox for a moment and get back to work.

Please understand -- I've been "the client" at places like Sony and Plantronics where this kind of thing would have seriously caused trouble. So I'm sensitive.

Denny: I hear all your points loud and clear but I think the client (as I've been the one hiring the agencies) also needed to ice-pick, or poke holes, in this. At the end of the day this is a Turner-funded program.

Doesn't excuse the agency--but blame is ALSO due to Turner for:
1) not poking holes
2) not responding to the public or police until 5pm.

Agree?

CK: oh, you better believe the client is on the hook for this and shares a huge amount of the blame here.

(I think I skewered the client argument harder over at NtCMO).

Did you say the client needs to get an ice pick?? I thought I was taking this a bit too seriously...

The hilarity of too much terrorism. I wonder what they'd probably think of myspace phishing.

I agree this was a miss-directed promotion especially in a time when we are under a terrorist treat. If the city had not responded the media would have used this to tell people how unprepared they are. So Boston really did not have a choice.

With that said I think it is ridiculous to take these two kids who distributed these devices and blame them. They were just the troops in the field.

Turner is doing the right thing and reimbursing Boston for the expense. That should be enough.

The more interesting story will be the fall out at the agency and at Turner.

On the positive side Boston got paid to have a drill.

To All:

I think most of the points above are well made and worth weighing. A few points of my own in regard to various comments:

No, I don't think this is one big joke at all. In fact, I think it reflects disturbing failures at many levels.

I'm disappointed that the agency, Interference, hadn't responded IMMEDIATELY once the bomb scare made the news early Wednesday morning.

I'm disappointed that the police and other security forces merely REACTED, rather than applied REASON, to the situation. (That's why I'm not among those who feel reassured by their excessive actions. It's not enough to respond forcefully; the obligation is to respond wisely.) Once the first cartoon device had been destroyed and analyzed, why continue the state of siege across the city?

I'm disappointed that Turner Broadcasting delayed action until late Wednesday afternoon, then let two artists take the heat with a night in jail.

I'm disappointed by the artists, who, instead of grasping the seriousness of the situation and responding accordingly, behaved like clowns and added insult to injury.

I'm disappointed, most of all, by the media, who had readily available access to the Web that would have provided clarity; instead, they milked the panic for all it was worth, then wrote "indignant" columns the following day that ignored their own culpability in this mess.

I agree completely on your last two points -- the artists were completely clueless and disrespectful, I thought... "adding insult to injury" indeed. Sadly, I see an invitation to the Daily Show or Letterman in their future...

Your point about the media is spot-on.

I think that as more information becomes available, it appears that Boston did not particularly overreact. Apparently, there were threats that day in London and Washington DC, so Boson was on the alert to begin with. Coincidentally, there were a couple of things that looked like pipe bombs found in other locations. The sign under the infrastructure that set off the entire ruckus had not been up for 2 weeks, but, in fact, for one day. (The 2 week old signs were, more appropriately, placed where the target demographic hangs out - not on girders under highway overpasses.) It was daylight, so the LED sign was not apparent - what was evident were batteries and wires. (And you tell me if the signs weren't meant to look kinda-sorta-a bit like bombs, why the exposed innards?)

Net result: Turner looks like they didn't have much of a grip on the firm they hired to get edgy. And probably doesn't end up with any more viewership. Sure, a lot more of us have now heard of Aqua Teen whatever, but I'll hardly be lining up to watch it.

Interference demonstrated spectacularly bad - possibly criminal - judgement not in the concept or implementation, but in their trying to keep the lid on things rather than own up right away when the commotion started. But, if they survive, will come out with a reputation as THE firm that knows how to appeal to the edgy, young, hip crowd.

And, as Anne has noted, the two "artistes" in Boston get temporary cult status and their 15 seconds of fame.

Oh, and I get to realize that I am now, officially and irrevocably, an old fogey.

Here's an excerpt from my blog on the topic...

This is suspicious in many ways – Turner? – Interference? – Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens? It worked!!! You got buzz!!! You did your job!! But at what cost?

The whole thing was irresponsible, irreverent, slightly sinister and childish. So there’s my little slap on the hand. Was it really all in good fun? Over all I think it stinks.

Oh yeah!!! When did it become acceptable to flip people off in a very public marketing ploy?

Jonathan,

Here's a comment that was posted on my blog on the same subject (which completely disagrees with your view):

"I live in Boston, and spent two hours that day worrying that my teenage daughter, who takes the subway over one of the bridges that was shut down, was in danger of a bomb."

That, in-and-of-itself is the reason that there shouldn't be any more debate about this. That's not marketing and sure as hell isn't good marketing. It's no better than a harmful high school prank.

Here's another take on it: Would you want to associate your company with Interference? Or even work for them?