Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   SteveD, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 4:18pm

   
   

   On the one sense I'd agree the add wasn't that big a deal, but on the other advertising-types are well known for pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with. Give them a loophole such as this and you could create all kinds of problems.
   
   I think it better there be absolute standards in this case. Companies should have to be truthful in any form of advertising.

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

2.  

   Re:

   

   Slartibartfast, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 4:46pm

   
   

   I agree with SteveD. This particular incident might seem pretty innocuous but it's a tiny opening into a very large loophole for advertisers who, as we know, are right down there with bankers, used car salesmen, spammers and other con artists on the integrity scale. Start out by making it absolutely clear what is acceptable, and what isn't.

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

3.  

   

   Ima Fish, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 4:55pm

   
   

   I could understand the debate about whether we need truth in advertising laws in the first place. But I cannot understand the thought process of believing we need them in some mediums but not in others. If advertisers have to tell the truth on television, radio, and in print, then they should have to tell the truth online.
   
   I think the mistake you're making is claiming it was not an "actual advertisement." It was an actual advertisement in that it was intended to sell a product. Merely because it was very creative and subtle does not change that fact.

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

4.  

   I Agree Too

   

   porster, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 5:10pm

   
   

   I agree with all of the above, it is an atemp to sell product and it was misleading.
   
   Bring back the rattan I say!

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

5.  

   What about REAL adverts?

   

   Mike, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 5:23pm

   
   

   I think they should maybe focus on REAL advertisements, like my ISP who continue to advertise unlimited cable internet, when they cap ALL their tiers. And possibly political adverts talking about what they are going to do if elected, and then totally ignore those statements when elected...

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

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 5:32pm

   
   

   Gotta say I agree with them, to be honest.
   
   Firstly, this kind of stuff pisses me off in general. I guarantee that someone, somewhere, has been using that video as "evidence" of how dangerous mobile phones are and spreading it around friends and family. Helping to perpetuate crazy theories like that piss me off immensely.
   
   Secondly, it was an advert that essentially said "Man, look how bad the competitors are, you should use us!" except the "look how bad they are" part was made up. Ok so it's not a particularly raging example, but still, they're saying "if you put a mobile near your head it'll cook your brain use our product instead". If this was allowed to go on without checks, in a few years we'd be seeing viral ads like a kid home-video'd drinking coke and coming down with some disease or something, put out by pepsi (yes I realise it's an extreme example).

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

7.  

   Generally Agree

   

   Jospeh, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 6:05pm

   
   

   I generally agree with the lot of you.
   
   Except on your second point, Anonymous Coward.
   
   At no point did the Viral Video ever say "use our product instead"
   
   All in all though, it is a coniving prank played by an advertsing company, the dreggs of society - and all actions by such corporations must be regulated.

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

8.  

   Re: What about REAL adverts?

   

   Sos, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 6:06pm

   
   

   My favourite is the mobile phone plans for $30 a month with $200 worth of included calls. No, its $30 worth of included calls.
   Its like saying a can of coke is $1 with $500 worth of included beverage.

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

9.  

   Re: Re: What about REAL adverts?

   

   Jospeh, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 6:39pm

   
   

   Sounds like a bargain Sos - do you except western union money transfer?

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

10.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Joseph Young, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 7:04pm

    
    

    And, you’ve only got to think a little to see where you’re going to run into problems. Let’s take another urban myth: Wind farms cause epileptic fits. So, we have an oil company sending out a viral video. Late evening. Setting sun. The turbine blades start to pass through the beams of light. There’s a mild strobing effect. All the actors in the video pretend to have fits. That should be fine. Nothing’s being advertised, they’re just pretending that alternative energy sources are dangerous.

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

11.  

    Hard to Imagine

    

    Anonymous Coward, Nov 24th, 2008 @ 11:58pm

    
    

    While perhaps some people were fooled initially into believing the video was real, it's difficult to see that video alone (which didn't mention hands free kits) driving people to using hands free kits. If anything, someone who believe the video would probably just use their phone less entirely, rather than switching to a hands-free kit.

    Disagree. It's hard to imagine people giving up their phones rather than switching to hands-free.

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

12.  

    Re: Generally Agree

    

    DS, Nov 25th, 2008 @ 7:17am

    
    

    Humm, I would think that the premise of cooking your brain would be, at the very least, "use our type of products instead". Somewhat of a general advertisement of a class of products, that the sponsor of the viral add, just so happens to sell.

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

13.  

    Moron in a hurry

    

    Mark, Nov 25th, 2008 @ 7:31am

    
    

    If you are stupid enough to believe you can pop corn with a cell phone you shouldn't be allowed any sharp objects, much less a cell phone.

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

14.  

    I'm hungry

    

    Yakko Warner, Nov 25th, 2008 @ 8:18am

    
    

    I haven't seen the ad, but suddenly I'm in the mood for popcorn. %>
    
    I have to wonder about this. So we're saying that ad agencies have to be regulated as to what videos they distribute online.
    
    But what about the other viral pieces of fake information distributed online? How many emails do we get forwarded from family and friends about some amazing or outrageous "fact" that's debunked with a 5-second search on Snopes.com?
    
    Did this ad agency even come up with the concept that cell phones can pop popcorn? Or did someone just "hear" that from someone else and decide to write that into an email and forward that to 100 of their closest friends? What if some random person took that email and decided to make a video out of it, and then the ad agency got the whole idea from a pre-existing video? What if they just used the "amateur" video? Where's the line of when it becomes an "ad", if the core message never changed?

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

15.  

    Re: What about REAL adverts?

    

    Richard Ahlquist (profile), Nov 25th, 2008 @ 10:02am

    
    

    Its stories like this that I created my new site for Mike. Check it out. ;)

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

16.  

    Two issues

    

    Petréa Mitchell, Nov 25th, 2008 @ 10:17am

    
    

    We have two issues here. The first is being an ad or not.

    "[...] the only time people discovered that it was an advertisement was in conjunction with the revelation that it was a hoax."

    It's still an ad, and more dishonest for not being clear about it.

    The second is the whole issue of the hoax.

    "It seemed rather obviously fake [...] but some people were tricked."

    If people are being tricked, it's not obviously fake. Anyone about to argue that the the hoax is harmless fun (and I can't tell for sure whether Mr. Masnick does or not), please check out What's the Harm?.

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

Add Your Comment