December 9, 2004
flacked by chanel?
Too funny. Recently I wrote a rather negative review of the new Chanel No 5 ad.
Now, you’re perfectly free to like the ad. It really doesn’t matter to me. Some people like that kind of stuff. We all have our funny, oddball preferences.
But for some reason, it matters to both Sherry and Mary that I didn’t like the commercial.
Both left comments:
Mary:
I LOVE the commercial…it took my breath away! The whole thought of it is so romantic!! The atmosphere, the love, the acting it was simply incredible! Nicole Kidman is beautiful! It was like no other commercial i have ever seen!! Good Job Chanel!!!!!
Sherry:
To all you people that are down playing this commercial…chanel is getting the last laugh!! becuase not only are you arguing and spending your time talking about it your exposing what you “think is dumb”(the perfume)…so when you think you are doing benifit and putting this masterpiece down you are actually helping them…so who is getting the last laugh…!!
I know, I know, both are abosultely DRIPPING with sincerity. Also they were posted 3 minutes apart. Ha.
So I write the following in the comments:
Well, Sherry and Mary, since you both are writing from the same IP number, your opinions carry less weight than those leaving comments for HONEST reasons.
I suspect you’re some PR flack in the pay of Chanel.
Whatever. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. I happen to not think much of the commercial, but maybe there are plenty folks who do.
Now for the record, I don’t know who actually wrote the comments. Maybe it was somebody working for Chanel, maybe it was just some Chanel-obsessive weirdo. I could track down the IP number source, but I won’t bother.
Somebody hasn’t figured out yet that the rules are changing…
"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter.
A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.].
A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.
Communications wars. Who controls the message and the idols earns influence.
What happends around this ad/myth, the money spent for production etc… is a message in itself. PR guerilleros are even more ridiculous.
I personnaly think this ad is ugly, presomptuous and useless.
It’s time for companies to treat their audience with respect.
Hugh
It seems that the corporate world is catching on that what is said in influential blogs makes a difference — Jason/Sony, Hugh/Chanel?
Ross Mayfield is wondering about a sudden reticence creeping in. http://smartpei.typepad.com/
I wonder — 2 years ago, who read our stuff — a few friends. Now the very point that is being made that authentic conversation is the only trusted medium is starting to shake the conventional world. So we see them reacting such as considering suing Jason, stuffing fake comments on your site and my being public enemy # 1 of the provincial government on PEI.
Now the genie is out of the bottle, they know that we are the enemy and they will treat us as such. Did this not happen in the 17th century as puritan pamphleteers and publishers of vernacular bibles began to undermine the then power system?
It seems having an opinion, is dangerous. Well to people selling things, esp, when you disagree with them. However, i think it’s a bit sad, and desperate, that they only recourse is to stamp their feet and say it is good. What would be much more productive is if their product was good in the first place. If Chanel No.5 didn’t smell like poo, they would not have to waste, millions on selling it to me.
Just one point for future reference, as you make this mistake quite often and it’s begun to bug me: it’s IP number, not ISP number.
IP = Internet protocol
ISP = Internet service provider
Sam, duly noted. Thanks =)
I recall in previous posts some snooty reference to the stuff you buy in drug stores. Well, guess what? Chanel No. 5 is sold in a lot of drug stores. Maybe before they drop 18 mill on a commercial they should deal with basics like not selling your super high quality luxury product at Walgreens.
Here’s the scenario: Mary reads your article, comments on it, forwards a link to a cow-orker Sherry in the next cubicle, who reads the article and leaves a similar comment.
Being friends, it’s not surprising they think alike. Because this happens in quick succession, their comments are only minutes apart. Since they are writing from the same office, behind the same firewall, they appear to have the same IP address. So it isn’t *necessarily* bogus.
Just playing devil’s advocate.
Perhaps, Kevin. Hey, I could be wrong…
I’d be less suspicious if the two writing styles weren’t so similar… they kinda “smell” the same, somehow. Or is that just me?
Also, I’m now #2 Google search for “Chanel No 5″. I’m easy to find.
nice work if you can get it.
i’d at least make up names that don’t rhyme fer chrissakes.
seriously — how DO paid trolls get their jobs? is in on craig’s list? i’m ready for a change! finally, the job i could do from home in my bathrobe — a dream come true! i could finally earn the money i need to buy a wi-fi enabled laptop and spend all week long in my favorite coffee shop. would i ever make those baristas sick of me by the time friday rolls around…
i guess i just don’t have what it takes.
Nevertheless, the key question remains unanswered: can you really take seriousy anyone who pebble dashes their comments with that many exclamation marks? They’re clearly a nincompoop!!!!!!
You suspect they work for Chanel? I guess that makes sense. After spending that much money on the ad itself they really have to scrape the bottom of the piggy bank to hire anyone to fight on the blogfront, and can’t afford the luxury of literacy.
The rules have changed
Hugh at gapingvoid has been on top form with his series on the Chanel No 5 movie/ad. Funniest of all are some of the comments defending the ad.…
There are in fact listings for this type of job on craigslist, usually in the “Marketing/PR” category. Often the job titles will be something along the lines of “brand ambassador” or “Promotional Marketing Reps.” Most people would call them “street-teamers.” Apparently there are some folks so obsessed with their favorite brands that simply buying the logo-defiled clothes and handbags is not sufficient to prove their devotion. No, they would prefer to do thankless, tireless work (like posting on weblogs and discussion forums) in the hopes of scoring some more free logo-encrusted trinkets.
Oops, damnit! Just read Hugh’s post on Bzz Agents. So, yeah. What he said.… =)
The Chanel ad really did suck.
Big money is spent on national ad to sell at Walgreens is part of an equation that makes fiscal sense. The only way to sell those millions of bottles is to remind us to buy them.
Blog-vertising with real conversations cuts out the ad-men and huge chunks of cash.
Worth defending? You bet.
But will blogging survive commercials?
What I like about Blog-vertising is that ‘heart’ is a recognizable quality. You can’t really fake it. I’ve gone to a few advertising links from the Void and found them pretty good. I grow to trust McLeod’s judgment and taste.
Reading Bloggerists exercises our bullshit meters.
That process stimulates emotional and intellectual interactivity on a high level. It sticks.
Less passivity.
Less psychological fol-de-rol.
Less crap.
Less condecension.
How to fight back? Throw away your television set.
Damn.
Got me goin’, that.
(Faked) Conversations as Advertising
I posted a couple of days ago about Hugh MacLeod’s website. If you mosey down to his post Flacked by Chanel?, you’ll see that he’s getting posts on his website that look like something that could have been written by…
Nicole Kidman is a hottie but the ad is crap. There, I said it and I’m glad.
Too funny indeed. Here is another thought. If Mary and Sherry are one cubicle away, how come Mary can use lots of capital letters and can spell, but Sherry can’t? The messages smell the same because both are constructed to be maximally different from one another.