Originally posted by: apoppin
Now, tomorrow morning, i look forward to your answer how what i laid out [above] is filled with "assumption and conjecture"
What you laid out above is from your original post and the link contained in it and therefore was not what I am talking about, but if you want some examples of assumption and conjecture, here are a couple.
Originally posted by: apoppin
AEG has employees that MONITOR forums and approach forum members to do PR work for them as "paid moles". They don't contribute ANYthing except advertising for nVidia . . . in fact they deteriorate the forums.
This directly contradicts the way the link in your own original post describes how this works. They are established, and assumed by AEG to be respected members who are given a free product to review and post about if they feel so inclined. Here is the quote from your own article as to how it works
These individuals are then approached regarding their interest in joining NVIDIA's community outreach programme. Those that register said interest are then provided with a free NVIDIA product (graphics cards generally speaking, although as NVIDIA has noted this campaign has been diversified into other product areas) in return for these users providing feedback to NVIDIA for the product they have been given, as well as hopefully evangelising the product to other members of their community. Thus, good word of mouth about the product is spread by a highly valued member of a community among his peers, who then take his sentiments on-board, spread them on to other communities, users, friends etc, and so on - The 'good news' spreads quickly, acting as a perfect form of viral marketing.
Originally posted by: apoppin
The difference [and principle] is" Anand PAYS for addvertising . . . not STEALING it like AEG.
By using the word stealing, you are saying it is illegal. You are also making the assumption that they are not paying for advertisements, which is not true, because there are no advertisements to pay for. I understand the argument that is could make advertisements unnecessary, but viral marketing isn't a sufficient tool to market a product all on it's own. It is simply a questionably (I put that there for you) good way to spread the word that the product is actually good.
Originally posted by: apoppin
again there is NO comparison . . . Anand is paying and disclosing all they way . . . AEG exists as a secretive parasite - let's not mince words, that's what they do . . . they leech [off forums withour paying] and suck [resources] - that's why VIRUS is so appropriate.
Same as above.
Originally posted by: apoppin
i am simply reporting the News and reReporting EliteBastards. And fending off BS personal attacks by nVidia fanboys and probably AEG too . . . . . . what took so long?
Actually the shoe IS on the other foot - simply put: your company screwed up . . . don't worry it's only "image". . . and i see the nVidia 'damage control' has finally begun and the tactic is to get this thread locked.
Here you suggest that these "paid moles" as you call them are told what to do. Again this is not in line with the very same viral marketing that you describe in your OP. To clarify a point, nowhere in your original link does it say they get paid beyond the first product they receive under the auspices of testing it and providing feedback, with the hope that a good experience results in spreading the word. These aren't employees of AEG and nVidia, and therefore nobody is in here trying to get the thread locked to quiet this.
Originally posted by: apoppin
From JimmyH's link:
it's difficult to see how it could be used to regulate a range of viral marketing techniques that operate via peer-to-peer spread - i.e. material is passed on voluntarily by online users and it generally bypasses media owners altogether as far as paid-for space goes. (Cynics and conspiracy theorists may conclude that this is the real reason why regulating viral marketing is being looked into?).
glad to see the
legality of viral advertising is being invetigated and it looks like it may be illegal soon . . . so much for your "harmless" practice.
:roll:
That is a very subtle changing of wording I highlighted there, but it is endemic to many of the post here. That simple change in wording along with the quote being taken at least partially out of context changes what it actually says. Here is the same quote without important things cut out.
It will be interesting to see whether the UK's Advertising Standards Association (ASA) now tries to extend its remit to cover buzz marketing as part of its non-broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code. The code doesn't currently apply to live oral communications. However, the ASA is currently investigating if (and how) viral marketing could become part of the code.
For now, the code covers only paid-for ad space on the web. So it's difficult to see how it could be used to regulate a range of viral marketing techniques that operate via peer-to-peer spread - i.e. material is passed on voluntarily by online users and it generally bypasses media owners altogether as far as paid-for space goes. (Cynics and conspiracy theorists may conclude that this is the real reason why regulating viral marketing is being looked into?). Even if the ASA somehow extends its remit to cover unpaid-for space on the web, how on earth would it police any viral marketing-related regulations it puts into place, not to mention all the other editorial content that would then be subject to scrutiny?
So clearly by this post, it isn't illegal, but what they want to do is to regulate it. That is a very different concept. It also illustrates the point I have been trying to make that viral marketing doesn't use paid-for ad space, and therefore is not stealing or cheating their way out of anything. They don't pay because forums are free and they don't post ads. Word of mouth doesn't qualify as advertisement as far as pay advertising goes.
As to your repeated assault on my "ethics", I am not the one slandering a company into the ground. I am trying to present an alternative viewpoint to yours, and that is that although viral marketing CAN be unethical, it is NOT always that way. Simple disclosure fixes that immediately, and you have no proof that there is anything preventing disclosure, because no article about this particular instance VERIFIES the existence of an NDA.
Now, I also noticed that you assume I think your original post that started this thread is useless. It is not, and I never said as much. What I said wasn't helpful or useful was your blind (near)flames empty accusations, and victim's attitude. The original post is useful in that it creates discussion and brings an important topic into the public eye. The problem is that that original post has been taken farther than it can factually or fairly be taken (and it isn't just you doing it, and I didn't mean just you when I originally said assumptions and conjecture). The problem is that you are trying to walk a moralistic high road that doesn't exist in simply throwing around the word "unethical" at everything someone else says that disagrees with your own viewpoint.
Once again, I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but you effectively asked me to do so in posting this...
Originally posted by: apoppin
Now, tomorrow morning, i look forward to your answer how what i laid out [above] is filled with "assumption and conjecture"
So I posted one more time. Now as I said before, my patience is running very short with this and I don't want to turn this into more of a flame war than it is already becoming, so this is for sure my very final post in this thread. If you wish to discuss it
with me further, do so in a PM, not here.