Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet

from the and-they-go-viral dept

Sometimes I wonder what sort of qualification you need to be a "publicist." At the very least, you would think that it would help to be familiar with the basics of The Streisand Effect, and making sure that you don't make something worse. Apparently, that's not the case for the publicist that Beyonce hired to try to get "unflattering" images taken of her at the Super Bowl disappeared. It all started with Buzzfeed doing what Buzzfeed does -- pulling together a silly collection of images. In this case, The 33 Fiercest Moments From Beyonce's Halftime Show. That apparently resulted in a quick phone call from someone working as a publicist complaining that some of those photos were "unflattering," which was then followed up by an email... which Buzzfeed chose to post publicly as: The "Unflattering" Photos Beyonce's Publicist Doesn't Want You To See:
If you can't read that, the important part says:
Thanks for taking my call. As discussed, there are some unflattering photos on your current feed that we are respectfully asking you to change. I am certain you will be able to find some better photos.
Now, to their credit, the publicist did not demand that the photos be changed, nor make any kind of legal threat. While that may seem obvious since there would be no legal basis for Beyonce to make such a threat, we've certainly seen others make similar legal threats in the past. So it was a respectful "request." And, you can certainly make the argument that Buzzfeed's response was anything but respectful. But, come on. This is Buzzfeed we're talking about. Pageviews uber alles. So of course they're going to get more attention for it.

The end result? Suddenly lots and lots of sites are talking about it and (of course) highlighting the unflattering photos.
Some will argue, of course, that "any publicity is good publicity" and perhaps that was the strategy all along. That's a dubious argument however. Beyonce was getting a ton of great press for her Super Bowl performance. Why sully it with suddenly hunting down "unflattering" images that weren't doing any damage to her reputation in the first place? Asking for those images to be taken down hurts her image a lot more than any of the photos in question.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:39am

    Still hot

    Beyonce could be in a paper bag and still be hot. Silly.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Jason Kerr, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Meh.

    A respectful approach, if a little naive. Credit the character of the publicist, but not the competence.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Jason Kerr, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:44am

    Re: Meh.

    *credit subject to attrition pending further reactions.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:47am

    I can see why she didn't want some of those images getting out ;)

    http://imgur.com/9bZjOmo

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:52am

    I lol'd

    Seriously, why do these women wear such provocative, sexy outfits if they then don't want to have shots like this circulating.

    And is it just me or does anyone else think of poor Madonna's publicist having exactly the opposite problem? You get to a certain age and no-one wants to see that anymore...

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:52am

    Re:

    Yikes, but strangely intriguing...

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:55am

    Pic vs Video

    Why would the video not be more "unflattering", since she repeatably pushes her pelvis in and out?

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:02am

    Re: Still hot

    Meh, completely disagree. Never thought of her as being much beyond a fairly pretty face and that's about it. As for the rest of her? Keep it....

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Rick Battle, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:04am

    typo in last paragraph

    "... and that perhaps that was the strategy ..."

    should be

    "... and perhaps that was the strategy ..."

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    yaga (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Still hot

    Nice to know we can agree on something Ninja.

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Still hot

    No I do not live under a rock.

    Yes, I had heard the name Beyonce before and was vaguely aware she was some kind of celebrity.

    Yes, the first time I ever saw what she looked like was Obama's 2nd inauguration.

    As a geek(tm) I guess I live in a different world. I only became vaguely aware of the Kardassians fairly recently too. Guess I'm not missing much.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Ed C., Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:30am

    That photo wasn't so much "unflattering" as it as...well, you know.

    Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The internet is not like the old days were only a few publishers, newspapers, and broadcasters could discuss the news on the national stage, while everyone else had to merely sit and listen. Back then, an unflattering disclosure could be dealt with by a phone call from a publicist to an editor or producer. They lived by being first to break news, the threat of withholding information was enough to keep them in line.

    For the common folk in the audience, whether it be at home or at the pub, the only people who could hear them were the ones sitting around them. However, the modern internet is not just a public forum for neighbors, it's a public forum that spans across the national stage. And just like every other forum of public discussion, the internet has no inherent "journalistic integrity" to uphold. The common folk can't be shamed into submission for unflattering disclosures. When information can spread almost literally at the speed light, there's not much that an irate publicist can hold over them.

    So, spats like this are merely the old guard pretending that the world with the internet is the same as the world before it, and nothing has changed.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    AB, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:34am

    Meh, it's a respectful and polite request. I'm not sure why it seems to be getting painted in such a negative light. I think this was an excellent response to a reasonable concern. I'm no fan of Beyonce, but I feel we should be applauding this response, not criticizing it. Kudos to Schure Media (and to Beyonce for engaging them).

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:37am

    Well that was just a request that was bound to fail.

    Problem:
    Publicist sees unflattering pictures of client as intended in a collection of unflattering pictures of client.

    Solution:
    Publicist asks for unflattering pictures to be changed with more flattering pictures in the collection of unflattering pictures.

    Result:
    Publicist gets made fun of and draws attention to collection of unflattering pictures of their client.

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Joe Dirt, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:44am

    The whole sad truth is that what she was doing throughout her halftime show was way LESS family friendly than the act Janet Jackson did. Why is there no outcry for the sake of the children?

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Still hot

    Ninja? Did I miss something? DH is Ninja?

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    because visible boobies thats why

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:59am

    But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    If people like Coulton can mount a crusade among his fans to "shame" Fox for not crediting his song, shouldn't a similar campaign on the part of Beyonce's publicist be able to "shame" a website for using unapproved photos?

    I'm curious why one pressure approach is approved of and one pressure approach isn't, yet the goal is similar: getting the media to take an action that the artist wants to happen.

    And in both cases, the media didn't respond as the artists wished.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Ed C., Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

    Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    Interesting point. Shaming can be a double edged sword, and public opinion decides which way it swings.

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Joe Dirt, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re:

    I saw no boobies. I saw flesh... and alot less of it from Janet than from Beyonce. Also, Janet wasn't dry humping the camera, and everything else she pointed her crotch at.

    Don't misunderstand me, I like soft porn as much as the next guy. Just have a little consitency when it comes to outrage or offense.

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Public outrage and offense is never consistent. And almost never rational.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I saw no boobies.


    That's the point. Janet showed actual nipple for about 20 milliseconds. That clearly trumps any amount of non-booby flesh.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:46pm

    Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    It is a very good point. I think the kind request was completely fair and reasonable. That Buzzfeed is a certain organ about it is their right, but the request should be respected for being well written. I think that in the end of it all it is more a tale about Buzzfeed not being nice, than a bad publicist!

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:46pm

    Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    Depends on whether the 'offence' was against the person doing the shaming, or are they trying to hide their own actions.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Rob, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 12:53pm

    News Flash!

    People in motion can sometimes look weird when captured in still photos. Film at 10. Stills at 10:01.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Ed C., Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    I've seen plenty of cases, especially here on TD, where shaming someone else's actions comes off looking like a cry baby or a jerk.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    Depends on whether the 'offence' was against the person doing the shaming, or are they trying to hide their own actions.

    These examples haven't been about anyone trying to hide their own actions. It's been about artists or their representatives hoping influence the media.

    I've suggested that public opinion pressuring the media in regard to celebrities and creative content may not work, especially when the public regards this stuff as public domain, whether it is or it isn't.

    What I am trying to foster is a discussion about whether there really are universally accepted standards for all of this stuff. I think small communities may develop agreed upon standards within their memberships, but I'm not confident that there are worldwide standards. What is acceptable in an Islamic society, for example, is different than what is usually acceptable in the US. I'm hoping that people understand that community norms are not consistent across all groups, so hoping those standards will settle all problems may be expecting too much.

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    I've seen plenty of cases, especially here on TD, where shaming someone else's actions comes off looking like a cry baby or a jerk.

    Yes, I tend to agree, which is why I have come down pretty hard on Coulton. I can understand why people might be upset when they don't get acknowledgment for what they created, but I think that will be the norm moving forward. Stuff will increasingly be shared and it won't always be credited.

    And yes, I can understand why a publicist might want to have some photos of Beyonce taken down, but there's a whole industry built around featuring celebrities in photos they don't want made public. It goes with the territory.

    What I am saying is that I don't think Coulton was a "good" example and Beyonce's publicist is a "bad" example. I think they are both examples of the same thing: celebrities who want exposure, but on their terms. However, it doesn't always happen that way.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Still hot

    Beyonce just doesn't do it for me. Different strokes and all that. But I actually looked at and was entertained by the "unflattering" photos. The "flattering" versions aren't very interesting to me. So, at least with me, Beyonce got a publicity benefit from this. Win/win!

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:54pm

    Re:

    There was nothing inherently wrong with the request, and I don't condemn it. It is just very silly, is all.

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    What I am trying to foster is a discussion about whether there really are universally accepted standards for all of this stuff.


    I thought this question was settled over a hundred years ago.

    There are not.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    I thought this question was settled over a hundred years ago.

    There are not.


    Yes, I agree, but sometimes some of the proposed solutions don't seem to take this into account. Since I like the idea of expanding commons, I'm depending on groups of people finding ways to work together. But I am not so naive as to assume that there won't be problems along the way. I think you have to anticipate what may go wrong rather than to sell an overly simplified view of the world.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Ed C., Feb 6th, 2013 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    Yes, I agree, but I was replying to someone else's comment. My reply to your previous comment, which the other person was also replying to, was "Interesting point. Shaming can be a double edged sword, and public opinion decides which way it swings."

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Ed C., Feb 6th, 2013 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    I was just pointing out to AC what the other edge of the sword was.

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    Yes, I agree. But the discussion I sense you really want to have is not whether there is a universal standard, but how various social groups can share things even though they may have very different social standards.

    I think it's more-or-less a fruitless (and harmful) exercise to get people to compromise on their standards in the aim of developing one that fits everybody.

    In my opinion, the only workable (although not easy) approach is to put the "standards filter" on the edges of the commons, but not on the oommons itself. Social standards are maintained within the group proper, and not exerted beyond that group.

    I do realize that we have one major, bad example of a group trying to do this with the internet: the great wall of china.

    So, I guess, I have no solid answer to the problem.

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 6th, 2013 @ 5:01pm

    Re:

    LMFAO Let me guess Reddit Photoshop battles?

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exactly.

    No nipple! No point!

    *waits*

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 9:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    In my opinion, the only workable (although not easy) approach is to put the "standards filter" on the edges of the commons, but not on the oommons itself. Social standards are maintained within the group proper, and not exerted beyond that group.

    I read your comment earlier today and was pondering it, but didn't really have a response. But I just saw this and maybe it offers a different way of thinking about standards. I don't really like the "us versus them" mentality that many people and discussions fall into. Maybe this is a way to try to counteract that.

    Shareable: Six Habits of Highly Empathic People: "The big buzz about empathy stems from a revolutionary shift in the science of how we understand human nature. The old view that we are essentially self-interested creatures is being nudged firmly to one side by evidence that we are also homo empathicus, wired for empathy, social cooperation, and mutual aid."

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 10:57pm

    Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    If people like Coulton can mount a crusade among his fans to "shame" Fox for not crediting his song, shouldn't a similar campaign on the part of Beyonce's publicist be able to "shame" a website for using unapproved photos?

    Um, no. They are seen as two very very different situations.

    1. Involves a small time, self-made artist with a very close connection with his fans... having a situation where a large multi-national company is seen as taking advantage of his beloved creation for their own benefit (whether you believe that or not doesn't matter -- that's the perception).

    2. Involves one of the wealthiest women on the planet, having a "publicist" try to remove something that she didn't like from the internet.

    If you can't see how those two things are perceived differently... then you're not going to get very far in this business.

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 6th, 2013 @ 11:36pm

    Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    1. Involves a small time, self-made artist with a very close connection with his fans... having a situation where a large multi-national company is seen as taking advantage of his beloved creation for their own benefit (whether you believe that or not doesn't matter -- that's the perception).

    Coulton contemplated legal action. That's not in the spirit of sharing.

    I am concerned about big companies exploiting artists, but if you want to allow everything to freely enter into the public domain, that's going to be one of the issues. Getting your fans to crusade for you when everyone is using everyone else's stuff won't make a lot of sense. It's going to be the norm and bitching that someone "ripped you off" is not going to carry much weight.

    That's what I am saying. Once it's all available to everyone, and everyone is sharing and modifying, credit isn't going to be paid to everyone involved. Accept that it's out there and in the cultural commons.

    Similarly, if you're a celebrity and the media uses photos that you don't want, tough. In fact, if privacy goes out the window, it may be hard to make a case even if you aren't a celebrity if your photo is used without your permission.

    I am VERY concerned about big corporations taking advantage of people, which is why I'm always advocating ways to eliminate the need for the big corporations. I'm as skeptical of big tech as I am big media.

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 12:00am

    Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    What's really exciting and potentially very disruptive is how online collaboration is pointing the way for more discussions of P2P/sharing/commons economies. Traditional ideas of property, ownership, and governance are being re-examined.

    In terms of creativity, the idea of who is a creator, who deserves credit for an idea, how we attach that credit up and down the system, and so on are worthy topics and will get discussed more and more as people discover that is art is being copied/shared/modified in many ways by both individuals and corporations.

    Both Coulton and Beyonce's publicist are still operating with the idea that they have more control over their images than perhaps they do. Exposure to your fans and to the media means you are more exposed, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. It's going to be a whole new ballgame very soon. So much to think about and talk about.

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 12:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    Oh, and I should have tossed this out. Just saw it today. A piece worth reading. He questions the transformative power of the Internet, but that is as it should be. It's good to pull these ideas apart. If they can't stand up to some examination, then they won't survive the inevitable problems.

    Why Social Movements Should Ignore Social Media | New Republic: "Now that Internet-centrism is not just a style of thought but also an excuse for a naive and damaging political ideology, the costs of letting its corrosive influence go unnoticed have become too high."

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 12:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    Oh, and I should have tossed this out. Just saw it today. A piece worth reading. He questions the transformative power of the Internet, but that is as it should be. It's good to pull these ideas apart. If they can't stand up to some examination, then they won't survive the inevitable problems.

    Why Social Movements Should Ignore Social Media | New Republic: "Now that Internet-centrism is not just a style of thought but also an excuse for a naive and damaging political ideology, the costs of letting its corrosive influence go unnoticed have become too high."


    Evgeny is somewhat famous for being incomprehensibly wrong on these sorts of things. In this case, hilariously so. You should read Steven Johnson's response to Evgeny, in which he points out that nearly every point that Evgeny "summarized" of his book is almost exactly the *opposite* of what Johnson said.

    http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2013/02/tilting-at-windmills-the-internet-edition.html

    Also this:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112336/future-perfects-steven-johnson-evgeny-morozov-debate-s ocial-media

    So if you want to "pull ideas apart" to see if they can "stand up to some examination," have no fear: Evgeny's don't.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 12:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    I learned about the article from a tweet from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation. That's why I like his site so much. When there are criticisms of P2P ideas, he publishes those, too. If you want to change the world, you need to know how your ideas are being perceived and expand the discussions to encompass them.

    P2P Foundation � Blog Archive � Evgeny Morozov harsh critique of Steven Johnsonís Peer Progressive book

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    preciousillusion (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 2:26am

    And the story is on Reddit frontpage, and god only knows what 4chan will do with the pics..

     

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

  46.  
    icon
    Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 6:46am

    Re: Re:

    Haha nope, my own little Photoshoop diddy, but I should post it to Reddit.

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    I don't really like the "us versus them" mentality that many people and discussions fall into.


    Me either. That mentality is idiotic. Regardless of how different two people's opinions on something are, there are always at least a few points they actually agree about. Also, few issues really have only two two sides, and polarized positions are rarely about the positions themselves, but are more usually about base, mindless tribalism.

    And we all do it to some degree.

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2013 @ 2:41pm

    Re:

    Unintended consequence:
    Publicists now unemployable.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Paul David Drabble, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 6:14am

    Good or Bad PR Move?

    Has anyone actually considered is the attempt to have the "unflattering Images" of Beyonce actually a genuine PR screw up?
    Or is it a clever marketing ploy to get the Beyonce brand free Viral publicity?

    All publicity is good publicity isn't it?

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 8th, 2013 @ 7:29am

    Re: typo in last paragraph

    "Some will argue, of course, [b]that[/b] "any publicity is good publicity" and [b]that[/b] perhaps that was the strategy all along."

    "Some will argue... [b]that[/b] perhaps that was the strategy..."

    Your version removes this link, so it takes out the "some will argue" from "strategy", changing it so that the writer thinks "perhaps that was the strategy". The original version said that "some will argue that perhaps that was the strategy" without making a judgement himself.

    There was no need to fix it.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 8th, 2013 @ 7:30am

    Re: Re: typo in last paragraph

    Redo for markup:

    "Some will argue, of course, that "any publicity is good publicity" and that perhaps that was the strategy all along."

    "Some will argue... that perhaps that was the strategy..."

    Your version removes this link, so it takes out the "some will argue" from "strategy", changing it so that the writer thinks "perhaps that was the strategy". The original version said that "some will argue that perhaps that was the strategy" without making a judgement himself.

    There was no need to fix it.

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 8th, 2013 @ 11:12am

    Re: Good or Bad PR Move?

    Has anyone actually considered is the attempt to have the "unflattering Images" of Beyonce actually a genuine PR screw up?
    Or is it a clever marketing ploy to get the Beyonce brand free Viral publicity?


    I looked at the "unflattering" photos and they reminded me of Tina Turner. I love Tina Turner, so having Beyonce move from pop icon to a rock icon like Tina is a good thing in my mind.

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Feb 9th, 2013 @ 1:20am

    Re: Re: Re: But if asking people to remove photos doesn't work, why would "shaming" work?

    I thought private citizens still had some control over unauthorized use of their photos. Turns out they don't.

    Revenge Porn - Business Insider

     

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This