New at Reason
Dave Weigel looks at how a box of talking french fries shut down a city.
Comments to "New at Reason":
The first thing I thought when I heard about this yesterday was that even dumb terrorists would not place a bomb in full view of everybody. Wouldn't they try to hide it or something?
. | February 2, 2007, 9:15am | #
Good one, master Weigel.You're the bomb!
Sam Franklin | February 2, 2007, 9:17am | #
i wish there had been a fraction of this outrage when they shut down the anthrax investigation.That attack was real.
The person or persons who did that attack are still out there. Maybe they have more anthrax, I don't know about that.
I think catching and punishing the anthrax attackers would be a deterrent to future terrorists.
Chales Oliver | February 2, 2007, 9:28am | #
It's amazing to me how the Herald and the right-wing press seem to be personally blaming Ted Turner for this. You'd think they would be aware he sold out to Time-Warner over a decade ago, and he hasn't even been on the board of directors for about a year. Then again, maybe they do know that.When even the Freepers are laughing at your statist over-reaction, then it really is time to shut up shop and slink home in disgrace.
The figures I heard that Time-Warner would be hit up for to cover the costs of the police was about $750K. I'd say they could pay 10 times that and still have gotten a steal on the publicity.
Christopher Monnier | February 2, 2007, 9:52am | #
I can understand why Turner would cave for business reasons, but it would be awesome if they would stand up and say, "No, Boston, YOU caused the panic. We didn't do anything wrong. YOU overreacted and thereby put the city in an unnecessary panic."P Brooks | February 2, 2007, 9:58am | #
How do you suppose the newshounds knew where to send their helicopters to get that "dramatic breaking story" footage? Who could have tipped them off? Would the police engage in self-promotion?Naah...
If I was the company, I'd tell Boston if they want to save the panic money in the future, call the 9 other cities that didn't overreact and ask their police chiefs and mayors to give a seminar to yours.
MP | February 2, 2007, 10:06am | #
I like this quote from Pollak:Many have claimed the signs were "like saying 'fire' in a crowded theater." Wrong. This was like taping a picture of a fire to the wall of a theater and someone freaked out and called the fire department
Except, it was more like a picture of a girl with really red hair that looked like it was on fire.
Dan T. | February 2, 2007, 10:06am | #
While the panic was obviously overblown, it's a little hard to totally let proponents of "guerrilla marketing" off the hook.I mean if the whole idea is to figure out deceptive ways of advertising products, then don't be too surprised when people are deceived.
Unfortunately, Massachusetts is the state that sent the Amiraults away for years of hard time for, well, for nothing. Obviously, their criminal justice system has only a tangential relationship with justice. I'd say the Boston Two had better have their toothbrushes packed.
tarran | February 2, 2007, 10:09am | #
Hold on a minute though -The guys posting the signs did do one thing wrong; they didn't get permission from the owners of the property before they posted the signs. Essentially, they treaspassed.
Of course, the hysterical bedwetting of the national security apparatus was an overreaction to a pretty minor misdemeanor. But they aren't completely innocent of any crime.
I would still contribute to their defense fund. I like them.
tarran | February 2, 2007, 10:11am | #
So Dan T (if that's your real name)What's exactly dexeptive about putting up a picture of a cartoon character to advertise the cartoon?
If I advertise that for $1.00 I will poke you in the eye, and then, after you hand over your buck, I poke you in the eye, where's the deception?
MP | February 2, 2007, 10:19am | #
What's exactly dexeptive about putting up a picture of a cartoon character to advertise the cartoon?The deception is that it is not obviously an ad for a movie.
It is obviously not a nefarious "device". I'm still waiting for the media to call it what it is, a sign.
stephen the goldberger | February 2, 2007, 10:25am | #
All i can really think they did wrong was either trespass as stated, or litter. Maybe some sort of anti graffiti defacing public property laws are on the books. They could get charged with some of that.But to say they've incited some sort of hysteria through a hoax is ridiculous. In any case they've made the police department look very stupid, and they're going to throw the book at them.
Even I know | February 2, 2007, 10:26am | #
MP,If you don't recognize it maybe, but if you know what it is then it is obvious. (as so often happens in life).
It is as 'deceptive' of the 'watch this space' or 'it's coming' ads that have been around for decades (which are OBVIOUS ads now, but caused quite a stir in my sleepy little northern town the first time they were used)
And while folks are busy picking nits about whether it was 'nice' advertising or 'really' trespassing' or other myriad minutia, let's not lose sight of the fact that the overreaction was not the fault of the sign posters but of those who panicked.
If I sneeze in a crowded theater and someone else screams 'oh my god a bomb!' (believe me, it could happen during alergy season), who caused the panic?
P Brooks | February 2, 2007, 10:27am | #
"Turner Broadcasting System apologized to Boston-area residents on Friday for a security scare that had bomb squads checking out electronic signs that were part of a nationwide marketing campaign for its subsidiary Cartoon Network."...when what he should have said was, "What the fuck is wrong with you people?"
steveintheknow | February 2, 2007, 10:27am | #
They have already secured my vote for 'Person of the Year', and its only February.MP | February 2, 2007, 10:39am | #
It is as 'deceptive' of the 'watch this space' or 'it's coming' ads that have been around for decadesThat signage is first and foremost an artistic presentation of a copyrighted character. Only the fact that it was put up by an ad firm makes it an ad. It could have been put up by any fan of the show. Thus, it is not obvious that it is an advertisement. And it is especially not obvious that it is intended to help promote an upcoming movie release.
And that's what makes it such a good example of guerrilla marketing.
Even I know | February 2, 2007, 10:47am | #
MP,Yes, but I think you will find that 'is not obvious' and 'deceptive' do not mean the same thing. (which was rather my point)
To clarify, my objection to guerrilla marketing is probably better exemplified by the other examples in the story, like paid individuals on the subway bragging about a business like they're customers.
Mind your own business | February 2, 2007, 10:54am | #
DanTQuit eavesdropping on the subway and you won't have these problems ;)
Clean living prevails.
dhex | February 2, 2007, 11:05am | #
"To clarify, my objection to guerrilla marketing is probably better exemplified by the other examples in the story, like paid individuals on the subway bragging about a business like they're customers."i don't really have a problem with this either, but i'm not a stealth marketer, nor am i very nosy.
I live in a city that doesn't have a subway - I was just giving an example. I'd hate to get to the point where word-of-mouth recommendations for a business are no more reliable than regular advertisements are.
For once, I have to agree with Dan T, at least in principle. While I am not going to get terribly upset over the subway scenario he describes (although the same thing is done in college cafeterias, and nearly constantly on the web), it is sleazy and dishonest.
Mo | February 2, 2007, 11:17am | #
"I'd hate to get to the point where word-of-mouth recommendations for a business are no more reliable than regular advertisements are."Then don't listen to WoM recs from people that you don't trust.
James Otis Show | February 2, 2007, 11:20am | #
But they aren't completely innocent of any crime.Trespassing isn;t a crime, it's a civil offense. Asshole.
The good thing about this is Menino's political career is OVER! Even a real terrorist attack couldn't save him now.
I would like to say that at least these guys didn't resort to using sex to sell their product. I mean, using sex to sell is the most base form of advertising. It would never work on an intellectual such as my------HOLY BEGEESUS, look at the rack on the Valentines Day Gift Chick on the right.
tarran | February 2, 2007, 11:34am | #
James, sweetie,There are two definitions of crime: 1) An act that is unlawful 2) And act that was wrong.
Guess which one I was using?
BTW, the criminal gang calling itself the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does list trespassing as a criminal offense in their rule book. according to them, it's only a civil matter if you were invited in as a tenant and then refuse to leave when your lease is revoked.
You really should brush your teeth more often. Your mommy buys you toothpaste, right?
mediageek | February 2, 2007, 11:36am | #
"The deception is that it is not obviously an ad for a movie."Except, that, evidently Cartoon Network had also purchased billboards all over town that included images of these exact same characters.
Boston got punked.
mediageek | February 2, 2007, 11:39am | #
Cab, don't be such a dick.Her name is "Reason Pillow Girl" or "RPG" for short.
mediageek | February 2, 2007, 11:40am | #
"I'd hate to get to the point where word-of-mouth recommendations for a business are no more reliable than regular advertisements are."Dan, you're full of it. Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
James, you're pretty much wrong. Trespass is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.
mediageek - is she the same as RPG? wow. I didn't recognize her without the wig
MP | February 2, 2007, 11:53am | #
The good thing about this is Menino's political career is OVER! Even a real terrorist attack couldn't save him now.You clearly aren't from the Boston area. Mumbles is mayor for life.
John M. Joy | February 2, 2007, 12:05pm | #
wish there had been a fraction of this outrage when they shut down the anthrax investigation.I concur... especially since the sweet old lady who died as a result lived about two miles from where I'm presently sitting.
That attack was real.
The person or persons who did that attack are still out there. Maybe they have more anthrax, I don't know about that.
I think catching and punishing the anthrax attackers would be a deterrent to future terrorists.
The guys posting the signs did do one thing wrong; they didn't get permission from the owners of the property before they posted the signs. Essentially, they treaspassed.Agreed. Tresspass and defacing public property (or unlawful posting) or whatever. But methinks we (with a certain exception) can all agree that ain't what this is all about.
Of course, the hysterical bedwetting of the national security apparatus was an overreaction to a pretty minor misdemeanor. But they aren't completely innocent of any crime.
A geologic epoch ago (i.e. my high school days), some friends and I pulled a similar stunt - albeit the intent was to poke fun at the Powers That Be, as opposed to advertising a cartoon. (Full story is the link under my name.)
I even got to call the object of our fun-poking - ON AIR - the "epitome of State of Connecticut stupidity." Nobody came after me or my friends... and we actually did it TWICE. I shudder to think what would have happened if we did it today.
JMJ
dead_elvis | February 2, 2007, 12:46pm | #
They have already secured my vote for 'Person of the Year', and its only February.That would be quite the big deal, for them to win two years in a row.
Mad Scientist | February 2, 2007, 1:00pm | #
To be fair to the buffoons running Boston, there was an actual bombing hoax in Boston on the same day. This probably contributed to the panic when they started to get calls about electronic devices scattered around the city. I don't think this excuses their stupid overreaction, but it does make it somewhat more understandable. Interestingly, the guy who planted a device that actually looked like a bomb wasn't charged, while our two heroes were. The Boston guv has some 'splainin to do.As Arlo Guthrie pointed out decades ago, there are serious consequences for being a litterbug in Massachusetts.
ezra | February 2, 2007, 1:35pm | #
From the article: "...Fox legal expert Andrew Napolitano patiently explained that the artists hadn't done anything we could execute them for."Was Napolitano trying to defuse some Fox News anchor's panic attack, or was he only suggesting that a slightly lesser punishment might be in order?
Mad Scientist | February 2, 2007, 2:03pm | #
This one's rich:"Just a little over a mile away from the placement of the first device, a group of terrorists boarded airplanes and launched an attack on New York City," police Commissioner Edward Davis said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The city clearly did not overreact. Had we taken any other steps, we would have been endangering the public," he said.
You did endanger the public, you jackass!
Dave | February 2, 2007, 5:23pm | #
The subway case does involve deception. The guerilla advertising case doesn't.In one, the goal is to mislead people into thinking something false. And it has that result: people do end up thinking something false. In the other, the goal is to make people wonder what that is (or if they recognize, feel 'cool'). And it has that result: people do end up wondering what that is.
I find this obvious, but maybe there's some subtlety I'm overlooking.
Rhywun | February 2, 2007, 5:36pm | #
I guess I'm the only one here not amused by these antics. But then again, I fucking hate hipster shit. And by the way, one would think it self-evident that permission was required to attach electronic devices to public property. I guess in the mad dash to attract the all-important young male demographic nobody thought of that. Oh but then it wouldn't have been x-treme! and viral! enough.Eric the .5b | February 2, 2007, 7:17pm | #
I guess I'm the only one here not amused by these antics.Well, it is stupid and wasteful and frustrating of Boston's government. But you have to laugh...
But then again, I fucking hate hipster shit....Dude? Dumb people in government are much more worth hating than hipsters - or even hippies.
Sam Franklin | February 5, 2007, 8:59am | #
I guess I'm the only one here not amused by these antics. But then again, I fucking hate hipster shit.From our Microsoft discussion, I had you more tagged as Apple guy than PC guy, Rhywun. Maybe Superbowl commercials don't know everything after all.