Comments on: Dot Bomb: Lessons from News Headlines

By: Jon Foster

Jon Foster — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:23:37 +0000

Ann:
I don’t know what is more irresponsible:
This bone head PR stunt gone very bad or considering the ability of government officials to follow blogs?

By: Ann Handley

Ann Handley — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:59:20 +0000

XSpotGuy: As I said above, I was suggesting tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek that the bomb squad subscribe to the blogger’s feed. (But at the same time, pointing out that a blogger did, fundamentally, break the story and report the truth way ahead of mainstream press.)
Anyway — thanks for stopping by.

By: Vahe

Vahe — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:29:24 +0000

XSpotGuy,
Really, is there a need for hype on this issue (haven’t we learned even now?)? It’s clear who was more misguided…
Anyway, yes, Interference ought to have handled things differently–but so should have the authorities. And of course, especially nowadays, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies should be monitoring public sources of information–like blogs. One assumes Boston immediately informed the Feds–at least _they_ should have had the resources to figure out what’s hoax and what’s not.
Just goes to show you how well our tax dollars are spent…
And, guess what, I bet the City of Boston will be using this in its presentations to wrangle more anti-terrorism funds from the Federal gov’t…
I’m just sayin’.

By: XSpotGuy

XSpotGuy — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:39:12 +0000

I’m not sure who is is more misguided – Ann or the folks at Interference. Ann – why would it be the responsibility of the city to scan blogs? It really is about foreseeability. As noted elsewhere, much of this would have been prevented had Interference alerted the Boston officials – actively taking a position, not passively foregoing their ethical obligations. The good news? Turner is writing a big check. The bad news? The pub they received for this show far exceeds any check they would have written. Interference will be using this in their presentations for years, as they successfully business from more desperate marketers who are in it for the short term.

By: David Esrati

David Esrati — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:16:05 +0000

The 2 million dollar fine is going to change the way agencies evaluate the value of guerrilla campaigns.
The placement of the devices has more to do with them seeming like bombs instead of looking like them. Bomb makers aren’t typically going to put “this is a bomb- danger” sign on it in an urban area.
I wrote about this- in a post titled Guerrilla Marketing and the Golden Rule here: http://www.thenextwave.biz/tnw/?p=293

By: VJ

VJ — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:54:26 +0000

NW Guy
The odds of anything happening w/candy are slim to none but here’s a case, http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp
Anyway, looking back on the incident, it’s easy for critics to say Boston residents overreacted to the situation because the devices turned out to be harmless. However last week when city officials found them they did not know what they could be. They decided to play it safe and use caution to remove these offensive devices. I’m just saying its better to be safe than sorry.

By: Tammy Strnatka

Tammy Strnatka — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:21:07 +0000

Here’s an excerpt from blog on this…
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?

By: NW Guy

NW Guy — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:32:41 +0000

VJ,
There have been studies tracking down urban myths and the Halloween candy scare is one that has been debunked. Unfortunately it was at it’s height during my youth so some good candy was taken away from me
Let me know if you can link to any stories that provide an example of people hurt from Halloween candy.
BTW, the severity/popularity of peanut allergies is also exaggerated.

By: Kevin Hillstrom

Kevin Hillstrom — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:28:51 +0000

Good discussion folks!
I wonder how all of us would have perceived this marketing stunt had it not gone sideways in Boston?
I hope we would have given it the same level of contempt that we view this with now. Unfortunately, I think a minority of marketing folks would have found this tactic to be brilliant.

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:04:48 +0000

About the security issues at stake, I’ll bet that Homeland Security is monitoring the Internet for suspicious dialogs and clues to terrorist activity, and that includes blogs. Maybe municipal agencies don’t have the resources to do that, but cooperation between federal, state and local law enforcement may have helped in this case. Maybe communication between these different levels hasn’t improved since 9-11 as it was supposed to. That’s not a marketing story – that would be criminal for the people of the U.S.
As for the creative people who dreamed up this campaign…whether right or wrong in this approach, someone representing the client signed off on the concept and the campaign. That’s where the responsibility lies.