Techdirt. Stories filed under "authenticity" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "authenticity"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:00:00 PDT DailyDirt: Studying Advertising As A Science...? Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/18433715644/dailydirt-studying-advertising-as-science.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/18433715644/dailydirt-studying-advertising-as-science.shtml
  • Sex sells. Here's a project that aims to prove it by advertising to monkeys. Photoshopping the ideal female monkey form must be a pretty weird job... [url]
  • There's some research that suggests that the special status of fine art could be lost if used in advertising carelessly. Yah, like when I first heard The Beatles' Revolution in a Nike commercial. [url]
  • Authenticity is important -- even to a Nazi. Psychologist Paul Bloom talks about how we're all essentialists at TED and mentions how kids could think veggies are tastier if they're included in a Happy Meal. [url]
  • To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  
    • By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110823/18433715644     Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:57:45 PDT If You Have To Tweet About Me Before I Give You Content, Will You Still Respect Me In The Morning? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100831/02183710830.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100831/02183710830.shtml require some sort of promotion in exchange for "free" content -- such as "tweet about our album and you can download a song." Apparently, such practices are becoming more common place, with a whole company being built around the concept. However, just like I wrote when we first discussed this, these sorts of requirements seem like fake word of mouth marketing, unlikely to drive any sort of sustained interest. That's because you're requiring people to promote you just to get your content, rather than giving them the content and having it be awesome enough that they actually want to tell their friends about it. It basically gets the equation backwards, and in the process, seems to suggest that the content in question really isn't that good. After all, if you have to force people to promote you before you'll give them content for free, it sounds like you don't think they'd want to promote you after they got it. I can see why people would jump on this kind of bandwagon, but I think that those who do should consider the possible negative signals it gives off.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     not-realy-a-strong-endorsement http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100831/02183710830     Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:26:41 PDT Felicia Day's Success With The Guild Highlights The Importance Of Authenticity With A Community Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/13503710673.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/13503710673.shtml The Guild into a big success, by building a community of fans, connecting with them, and then coming up with some interesting ways to make money from that, including a unique sponsorship deal with Microsoft. Reader tuna points us to a Fast Company profile that updates us on how the last year has gone, and it sounds like things have only improved over time.

    One of the keys to the success is that she chose the sponsorship deal with Microsoft, in large part because it let her retain creative control over the project -- allowing it to remain authentic and true to what her fans wanted and expected.
    As buzz built, Day and her company, Knights of Good Productions, signed with ICM new-media head George Ruiz. "At one point, there were 25 different offers on the table," Ruiz says, "including from some major studios and networks and even a director with several $100 million films."

    Day turned down every one. "She said, 'George, don't make me take this deal!' " he says. So by the time Microsoft came calling, the agent had a new approach: The Guild is not for sale, but you can license it.

    The Seattle-based behemoth bit. Microsoft pays an undisclosed fee to debut each season exclusively on the company's Xbox Live, MSN, and Zune platforms (season four debuted in mid-July). "There is a common perception about Microsoft," says Day. "Especially when we first signed with them, the fans had reservations." But she was impressed that it got what she was doing and didn't want to interfere. "Microsoft doesn't even give me notes [on scripts]!"
    This is a key point that often gets lost in business model discussions. When we talk about different offerings, it's amazing how much people discount the importance of authenticity as a scarcity. We see it all the time with companies who want to sponsor something, and then have tremendous level of control -- losing all of the authenticity and, with it, much of the value (and, eventually, audience). It's nice to see a situation where a company (in this case, Microsoft) properly recognized when not to get too involved.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     keep-it-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100818/13503710673     Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:32:00 PST Andy Warhol Estate Accused Of Defacing Authentic Warhol Artwork To Limit The Market Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0257407830.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0257407830.shtml World Fair Use Day in Washington DC, put on by Public Knowledge. It was nice to see that one of the main sponsors of the event was The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. After all, if there's a famous artist who epitomizes the value of fair use and not artificially limiting the ability of people to make and sell art, it's Andy Warhol. Given that, it's disappointing to hear (via Justin Levine) that the very same Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts is being sued by a woman claiming that the Foundation's Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board deface Warhol artwork owned by others by stamping them with a red "DENIED" stamp.

    Now, the article linked above only gives one side of the story, so perhaps there's more to it, but the woman claims that the Foundation purposely defaces the artwork and greatly lowers the value of it in order to create additional scarcity for the artwork which the Foundation itself owns (and sometimes sells for significant sums). Of course, that's a pretty extraordinary claim that probably requires additional proof. The woman suing says that the Foundation requires people to sign a form with an indemnity clause which would stop those who own the works from suing the Foundation.

    The article also notes that "the board's stamp of approval is necessary for anyone in the world to sell a Warhol work," but that's the part that confuses me. Why? I know that, in the art world, it is important to be able to prove that a particular work is an original, so I'm guessing that's a part of it. But I don't see how the Foundation could totally bar a sale without the "stamp of approval" (or disapproval, as the case may be). But if it's true that the Foundation is purposely defacing (and disparaging) legitimate works owned by others, that seems like a particularly obnoxious way to represent Warhol -- though, given Warhol's oddities and history of putting his name on the paintings of others, perhaps it's just a modern version of a Warhol art project to insist that legitimate works are fakes.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     who-has-the-right-to-what-now? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100120/0257407830     Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:11:46 PST Authenticity Is Valuable Timothy Lee http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080303/142307417.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080303/142307417.shtml New York Times has a write up about Check Out, the new Wal-Mart blog that has been making waves with its blunt style. The blog's authors are purchasing agents for the giant retailer, and they aren't pulling their punches. "My life has not changed dramatically," one Wal-Mart employee wrote about Vista, "well, for that matter, it hasn’t changed at all." It's a fascinating move on Wal-Mart's part, and it may pay off for them. Wal-Mart has done a great deal of good for the American economy -- especially low-income individuals, by improving the efficiency of the retail sector and thereby reducing the price consumers pay for almost everything. But because they've been so narrowly focused on improving the efficiency of their operations, they haven't done a very good job with PR. They're widely seen as monolithic, heartless, and and impersonal.

    The new blog seems likely to pay off for the retailer in several ways. First, by making it clear that contributors are expressing their personal opinions, it gives Wal-Mart a platform to call out manufacturers who produce bad products while maintaining some distance between the blog and Wal-Mart's official perspective. Second, by allowing comments, it allows consumers to communicate back to Wal-Mart, helping the retailer's purchasers keep tabs on consumers' complaints about its products. Finally, and most importantly, it may help to personalize the store and give it a reputation for candor and openness it currently lacks. This will pay off, for example, next time Wal-Mart faces a PR challenge; a widely-read blog can give the store a way to get its side of the story in a way that's more personal and credible than a press release. The risk, obviously, is that a blogger might say something that causes flack for the company as a whole. Presumably they were careful to choose bloggers who won't say anything too intemperate. But Wal-Mart is probably in a pretty good position on this front. It's so huge that it doesn't have to worry too much about alienating its suppliers; they're going to be eager to get their products onto Wal-Mart's shelves no matter how much they might dislike what Wal-Mart says on its blog. So it can afford to be more candid than a smaller chain that might have to worry about jeopardizing its relationships with key suppliers.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     tell-us-what-you-really-think http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080303/142307417