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.

By: Ann Handley

Ann Handley — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:51:19 +0000

I agree, Harry. I’m not suggesting blogs are gospel, I’m suggesting they are a resource. In this case, for example, it would have offered a lead that might have resolved the situation more quickly and at less expense.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:43:14 +0000

Interesting discussion concerning blogs. I agree that blogs shouldn’t be treated as the final word. They are, however, conversations. Conversations should not be ignored by anyone, especially government agencies. Also, the use of technologies for communications need to improve at all levels of government.

By: Harry HAllman

Harry HAllman — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:56:02 +0000

Even had city officials monitored blogs and saw people talking about this promotion they should not accept that as gospel, just as we should not. Blogs are full my “opinions” and marketing messages so why not a misdirection fro terrorists. Who is to say terrorists couldn’t plant the concept that these were safe. We all know how some blog entries spread and become the truth even though they are not.

By: VJ

VJ — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:21:10 +0000

I don’t think government officials should have to go online viewing blogs. First of all ANYONE can post a blog. Suppose terrorists did put up the devices, then posted a blog saying the devices were for a marketing campaign. So the city officials ignore these black boxes with wires hanging out. Then during rush hour several of the devices explode and kill hundreds.
It’s upsetting that so many people think if something “looks harmless” then it is harmless…Didn’t your mothers ever teach you to check Halloween candy? There was a reason for that…

By: VJ

VJ — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:19:51 +0000

I don’t think government officials should have to go online viewing blobs. First of all ANYONE can post a blog. Suppose terrorist did put up the devices, then post a blog saying the devices were for a marketing campaign. So the city officials ignore these black boxes with wires hanging out. Then during rush hour several of the devices explode and kill hundreds.
It’s upsetting that so many people think if something “looks harmless” then it is harmless…Didn’t your mothers ever teach you to check Halloween candy? There was a reason for that…

By: KOB

KOB — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:51:22 +0000

This wasn’t a “hoax.” A hoax would be if they claimed it was a bomb. This is done all over all the time.
For the poster who said it should be done “especially after al qeada threatened American again”, does that mean all creative use of public space should be banned forever (al qaeda or a similar group will always have similar threats against us)?
My guess is that everyone expressing outrage lives outside of urban areas. anyone familar with urban space would be suprised at this. IOndeed this exact campaign has been ongoing in quite a few cities. They are in the DC meto.

By: CK

CK — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:17:19 +0000

Guys: I said this over at Jonathan’s post, too. But it’s something I’ve learned so I’m copying it at Ann’s post.
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.

By: Mario Vellandi

Mario Vellandi — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:05:36 +0000

Lewis,
Points understood and valid, of course. I think the real question is how big a risk did this event pose for miscommunication and the reaction it provoked?
I believe environments where drivers are present, have certain visual zones where no ads/bulletins should be present. An LED display could be distracting and dangerous to drivers. Thus, I agree that permissions/notices may be needed in certain areas.
In concurrence with Ben, this is an isolated incident. Its a Lite-Brite display with a cartoon character; this has NO reasonable connection to a bomb threat. Is Osama giving us a new message? The news/hype machine without complete information has blown this up to various degrees of reason-ability. The marketers could have mitigated this risk of potentially causing vehicular accidents by informing the proper city authorities. Basta!

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:01:35 +0000

That’s the sad part about it Ann. I wouldn’t be surprised if many government agencies don’t have monitoring blogs or other social media, conversations, etc. The technologies and tools are available. But, the status quo is easier. Few in government (exception may be the West Coast) even know what RSS is or even use it for their personal stuff.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:26:37 +0000

Ann – As a general rule, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that… Even encouraging workers to make a habit of spending a little time checking this sphere each day… But when crunch time comes, a city worker sees something that looks threatening, they understand that they no longer live in an age where they can afford to risk a false negative.
Marketers can be rascals without considering the consequences. Unfortunately, the people who want to protect us don’t have the same luxury to just assume everything is okay.

By: Ann Handley

Ann Handley — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:07:59 +0000

You know, Spike, I was joking about the bomb squad subscribing to blog feeds. But at the same time, it’s incredible that no one on that end would have checked the internet — always my first source of information. WOuldn’t it make sense to have someone tasked with monitoring blogs and other social media — both in this case as well as more general intelligence?

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:51:08 +0000

Ben – I’m sure that’s true (although I don’t know what would possess me to do a search for “ignignokt” – That’s a mouthful), and it makes sense from a tactical perspective.
My question is about our culture that accepts it (and even finds it entertaining), not CN’s tactic.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:27:59 +0000

Cam, the character is often portrayed as giving the finger. (Do a google image search for “ignignokt” and you’ll see what I mean.) It was just a symbol for fans of the show to know that something was up, i.e., the release of the movie next month.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:19:11 +0000

Everyone seems to have a good grasp on why this was an irresponsible ploy that wasted resources, scared a bunch of people, and hurt our reputations (Thanks, Lewis) … I agree.
But let me look at it from a different angle… Perhaps the gesture is now looked on as a symbol of a commendable defiant attitude, but when did we get to the point that it’s okay for marketers to give the audience a message that has been previously associated with blatant and obscene disrespect?
Just wondering.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:06:21 +0000

Well, could we at least ask city officials to be reasonable, like they were in every other city where this campaign took place? (E.g., in Seattle they said it was no big deal and there was no panic, etc.) As a Bostonian, I apologize for our officials’ incompetence.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:05:09 +0000

I do see Lewis’ point about informing officials. But, I do see Ann’s point about viewing blogs. Sure there are many blogs. But, I bet a Technorati or Google search would have found out immediately what it was. I work for a government agency. It’s such a struggle to change the culture and bureaucracy. My everyday challenge is bringing in innovation through the use of available technology and creating conversations with our customers.

By: Ann Handley

Ann Handley — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:42:51 +0000

Thanks for all the comments, guys…
Stephan: Pretty funny image.
And Spike: I was suggesting tongue-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. Just an observation.
As so many of you suggest (Maureen, Harry, Lewis, Paul, CK), the Freak Out Threshold is set pretty low these days… understandably. Boston may look silly for overreacting, but hindsight is always 20-20.

By: Spike

Spike — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:11:10 +0000

It wasn’t innovative. It wasn’t clever. And it sure as hell wasn’t entertaining. It was a bonehead idea. Talk about advertising being invasive!
And I don’t think you could ask city officials to read blogs to find out about this stuff before it happens. There’s too many blogs and too much information. I’m in the biz and I had no idea about it! It didn’t show up on any of my feeds until last night!

By: Harry hallman

Harry hallman — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:02:25 +0000

I am all for buzz marketing and guerilla tactics but placing electronic boards like this in any American city is bizarre. Especially after the al-Qaeda has just threatened to bring the war to the US again.
They could have come up with something else to use. That is creative out of control or just being lazy. Years ago I sent an ammunition box with a proposal in it to TBS as a gimmick. I would never even think to do that after 2001. Sorry that is just the way it is now.

By: CK

CK — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:58:13 +0000

Thanks for covering this Ann. I covered it over in my corner (great…now another city hates marketers!). Lewis has a lot of great points above. Living in an “on-alert” city (NYC) I know what it’s like to have the police shut down subway stations over a “mystery” package so I’ve no doubt NYC would have done the same thing…and we city-dwellers, like the lit signs as part of the campaign, would be flipping-off the marketers behind the scheme for the inconvenience and scare.
But here’s my BIG question: Why did it take Turner Broadcasting (producers behind the show) until 5pm to issue a statement when the first device was found at 8am? That’s the same thing CNN is asking (and they’re owned by Turner).
P.S.: Boston, we’re sorry that marketing wrecked your day. There are plenty of innovative marketers who want to delight and not frighten you.