Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   nonuser, Aug 4th, 2005 @ 7:01pm

   
   

   this kind of guerilla marketing

   seems spunky and clever when it's done by a small, struggling outfit, but tacky and over the top when one of the big guys does it. Microsoft's astroturfing campaign is another example. It comes down to role awareness, I guess.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Ivan Sick, Aug 4th, 2005 @ 8:32pm

   
   

   No Subject Given

   What happened, a class action suit was started because people believed and then disagreed with somebody they never even heard of before? It was a goofy thing for Sony to do, sure, but why does stupidity continue to be mollycoddled?
   I'd like to know what the basis of this suit is. "The fake guy said Hollow Man was a good movie and it wasn't! Wwwaaaaaaahh"?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   thecaptain, Aug 5th, 2005 @ 4:52am

   
   

   No Subject Given

   The sad part is how many people will have the receipt or ticket stub to even COLLECT that measly 5 bucks?
   
   The only winner here were the lawyers on both sides...I mean, the fine was low enough that Sony would consider that "the cost of doing business" and simply continue or find some OTHER way of misleading the consumer (yeah, those quotes on posters and adds might not have sold the movie to people...but what pisses me off is the fact that they tried and figured they could get away with it....lets have some accountability)

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Boilerbob, Aug 5th, 2005 @ 7:01am

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   I'd like to know what the basis of this suit is.
   
   It's called false advertising. Granted the damages to movie goers was small (who hasn't left a movie saying that was a waste of money) but Sony LIED on their advertising. The marketting people that authorized the quotes were fired and the public is aware that you can't just listen to whatever the ads say. That's the benifit of the lawsuit not to get my $5 back.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Beck, Aug 5th, 2005 @ 7:09am

   
   

   One Judge Had It Right

   From other coverage:
   

   When the California courts agreed to let the suit go forward as a class action, a dissenting judge called it a "farce" and "the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal", saying: "We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys."

   
   
   

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   GunGeek, Aug 5th, 2005 @ 7:43am

   
   

   No consumers will collect

   Here's my prediction:
   
   NOBODY will get their $5 or even a fraction of it.
   
   The settlement provides for only a maximum $750,000 payout to the people that weren't specifically named as plaintiffs, and that gets spent at a maximum of $5 per claimant. If the amount per person gets down less than $1.50, then the WHOLE chunk goes to a charity and NONE of the moviegoers gets a penny.
   
   And you just KNOW that more than 500,000 people are going to put in for their free $5.
   

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   spam, Aug 5th, 2005 @ 11:14am

   
   

   Re: One Judge Had It Right

   that judge is very right.
   
   The lawyers should be barred from collecting any money unless the consumers do as well.
   
   Lawyers are overpriced greedy leeches on society.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment