Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
Again, I'll take this issue back to its source. Why do we even wonder whether or not someone is a viral marketter? Because it exists; it's unethical and distasteful. Also, it often feels that posters on various forums have some kind of hidden agenda. I think these are also generally manipulative and distasteful.
What would put an end to most of this nonsense would be straightforward and honest communication. It's a shame that some people feel that lying and manipulating is a better way to pursue their objectives. It really never is. The apparent short term gains tend to evaporate along with trust and credibility.
My agenda in this post, for example, is quite obvious I hope. To highlight a problem that negatively impacts gamers and the MMO industry. I'm also highlighting that it's now illegal, and I'm hoping to encourage a shift towards more ethical conduct and more effective communication.
I'm aware, however, that some people won't listen. They'll stick to their broken strategy and rationalize their behaviour until natural consequences inevitably cause them a lot of discomfort. Even then, they may blame other people for the consequences they brought on themselves. There's a very long thread going right now that attempts to do this regarding SWG.
This is, by the way, now a criminal offence thanks to the Federal Trade Commission.
I'd be very interested in knowing what exactly was the catalyst(s) for making this a criminal offense.
I have a copy of the article that discussed this when it became legislation...somewhere lol Let me try to recall: There was research done regarding viral marketting with regard to certain products. The research findings indicated that marketters intentionally misrepresented themselves for the purpose of gaining consumers' trust. Having gained this trust by deceptive means, they would then recommend a particular product or service. People felt duped by this and thought it should be illegal (akin to fraud), and the FTC agreed. This lead to legislative action ^_^. Go FTC, I love those people.
I'd love to read this article if you can find it. If you do find it would you mind sending it to me?
To Fishermage and miklieboo (sp)....i finally quit reading on page four of the thread. While it was very entertaining...and definitely killed some time ...you 2 seriously need to get a room. GOOD GRIEF!!!
But as disturbing as this sounds....I enjoyed both of your posts and will be following you both in the future.
Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Malickiebloo Originally posted by Fishermage Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers. That's not exactly what happened , I was responding to someone who made that point , With advice to ignore them. Where does that show that your heart lies? That one has to argue with you for pages over the subject before you move into new areas, away from being against those vets who believe that many of the posters here work for SOE. I'm not against anyone here just to be clear . That is my point. You betray a side in every post that is similar to this. Now, I really don't think you are in their employ. I really think you are bitter and cynical and sharing that, much as many people who post here. Old before your time, you end up siding with the bad guy BY DEFAULT. I can be very cynical I'll admit that. I am bitter to a extent , But it has worn off over the last few years. You may SAY you are against them, or don't agree with what they did, but you choose to cynically accept the company line. Again, not because you agree with it, but the cynicism you hold has made you accept evil as normal and not worth fighting. Evil is always worth fighting IMO I say that such is irrelevant. If you are in favor of something stand for it; no fighting is necessary to share a position. I share the opinion most here have shown (NGE was distastefully thrown upon subscribers ), However I usually don't share it in threads . If I think of something that hasn't been said I will speak up , But otherwise I leave it to people who write far better than myself. Foe instance, I obviously see both sides here; I play the game, have been all along, and actually want it to get better. To that end I have posted on the boardshere and there sharing my constructive criticism. I will not however help them sell their game, as many people here do. That's great man , It shows you have a level headed approach to debating. I will also not lie for them. The game is pretty crappy and I let people know, but it's all we have as star wars fans so I share that too. I wouldn't disagree with anything here. MANY players DO just that -- lie for them and pitch this game. Those are the free viral marketers -- fanboys or whatever people want to call them. I will NEVER actually side with them, and as such enjoy their flames. Yep ,But at the same time there are far more people here who state the true state swg is in . As a traitor to the vets for paying SOE, I enjoy that sides flames just as much; but you see, since THEY ARE RIGHT, and THEY are/were victims I am more sympathetic to the people who has their game chated and stolen from them, than the people who actually HAVE a game they claim to like. Which is actually one of the reasons I don't play , I've even wanted to at times due to the choices available , yet out of respect for my old community I stay away. MY SYMPATHIES are obvious although I might at any time praise SOE when they do well and criticize them when they mess up. Again a level headed approach. I can't see that with you. I see no sympathy either way, yet I also se you coinsistently giving a position that Smedley himself might share. IN this case YOU chose to get involved in THIS conversation in an attack on a few people on the vet side, NOT against the possible viral marketing that goes on here. Well all I can give you is my word that I am not against vets , Im against some things Individuals have done , Yet that has nothing to do with the vet population. THAT was the wire you tripped with me, at least in this thread. In thread after threads, I see this pattern of behavior, and yeah, I wonder why. Then you take offense. Oy vey. Originally posted by Fishermage
I was answering your edit, which stated the following...that was the context you cut out: "EDIT-I'd me more worried about myself If I came to a video game forum , for any reason other than looking for a place to kill some time. But that's just my opinion." THAT is where you started to slide into the "mental health" crap that goes on here.
Yes that's my fault I know , It was a troll tactic nothing more . I appologize , I just really wanted to see where you would take it . BTW I only cut away parts of posts to clean up the mass of quote boxes . Nice responses, great discussing this stuff with you and I am truly glad that in our own way we have come to a meeting of the minds
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
have you seen me deny it? The question is: is it relevant? nope.
It is only relevant to people who wish to diffuse the real issues, and obfuscate the facts in defense of the unethical.
Originally posted by Socman75 To Fishermage and miklieboo (sp)....i finally quit reading on page four of the thread. While it was very entertaining...and definitely killed some time ...you 2 seriously need to get a room. GOOD GRIEF!!! But as disturbing as this sounds....I enjoyed both of your posts and will be following you both in the future. Claji Kiher - Ahazi Vet
Issues and discussions often lead to tangential discussions. If you found it entertaining, there was obviously no reason to get a room.
We had a fairly good discussion about logic and what goes on on these boards. The good part was neither of us are mean-spirited nasty people, like some folks here. We are both decent guys with an honest disagreement and as such, can have a heate discussion without resprting to childish hate. I think all are served to witness this
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. One has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here. No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer. It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG. Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
Man, unlike Suvroc and ArcAngel, you really come across as a more literate version of Wildcat and a few others that I've since blocked. Talk about playing games with semantics....
I really didn't need a lesson in reading comprehension 101 from you. On the other hand, it sounds like you could do with a refresher from 102: When reading any piece, you should be aware of the author's bias as well as the lens through which you read that piece. Had you not approached the thread with your typical Anti-SOE attitude, you might have actually seen the conflict and seemingly particular judgement against viral marketing as a result of both the title ("Does viral marketting really exist") and the actual content condemning a particlar (and contemptible) attempt at manufacturing said viral marketing.
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
Originally posted by therain93 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer. It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
Man, unlike Suvroc and ArcAngel, you really come across as a more literate version of Wildcat and a few others that I've since blocked. Talk about playing games with semantics.... I really didn't need a lesson in reading comprehension 101 from you. On the other hand, it sounds like you could do with a refresher from 102: When reading any piece, you should be aware of the author's bias as well as the lens through which you read that piece. Had you not approached the thread with your typical Anti-SOE attitude, you might have actually seen the conflict and seemingly particular judgement against viral marketing as a result of both the title ("Does viral marketting really exist") and the actual content condemning a particlar (and contemptible) attempt at manufacturing said viral marketing.
I have no anti-SOE bias. I have a pro-honesty bias. I have lavishly praised SOE every time they have done well, and gotten flamed by many vets for it, and I have harshly criticized them when they do badly. I am passionate but always try to be fair, and those who actually know my posting history know that.
I have praised them for: the RE system, the build-a-buff system for entertainers, creating a combat option for entartainers, the beastmaster system, the return of the village, collections, heroic instances, and most recently, update 5. I WANT them to do a good job, since that'll mean a better game for all concerned.
I enjoyed the flames of several of my fellow vets, as I often do, for those praises.
I have of course been quite critical as well over those same months for the bad things they have done, but once again, that just shows I march to my own beat without a bias.
The fact that I am flamed equally on both sides shows me that I am relatively unbiased.
Please, do try and prove I have an anti-SOE bias with all that taken into account. I actually think I am extremely kind to them, all things considered.
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer. It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG. Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading. Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ... Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games! Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
Look at how you STARTED in this conversation. Rather than talk about viral marketing and how it affects the forums, YOU CHOSE to bring up how some posters overly accuse other posters of being viral marketers.
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
I was talking about the specific kind of viral marketting I found in the article I quoted. I really thought the example was very clear. To further clear up any unintentional ambiguity, I just explained how this article would apply to the MMO industry.
Also, to answer Rain's post. I actually came up with the title before writing the entire OP. The question "does viral marketting exist?" was uppermost in my mind. I was meaning the deceptive kind that you also find distasteful Rain--the kind that involves paid plants. The rest of my points flowed from this original thought, but really aren't represented in the title, I agree.
My conclusion I guess would be: it exists, it really is a deceptive ploy, it is therefore unethical, it's illegal, and people who are doing it should knock it off.
Btw, all that would be needed for this to stop would be for people who are acting on behalf of a gaming company to admit it. They could put SOE, Funcom etc. rep. in their sig. for example. Then they can say whatever they want with no legal or ethical problems, simply because they would no longer be pretending to be something they are not.
Actually, I think people would think more highly of a company for being upfront. I believe it would build credibility, whereas viral marketting tears it down.
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer. It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG. Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading. Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ... Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games! Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games. Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it.
I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously.
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420 Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by Costanza420
Originally posted by Fishermage
Originally posted by therain93 I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is.... 1.) Does viral marketing exist? 2.) Viral marketing is bad. 2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine. So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3.... In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it. Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
he didn't mean grassroots viral marketing, as was obvious from his post, the link he referenced, and the entire discussion.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer. It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG. Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading. Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ... Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games! Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games. Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O. Prove it.
I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously. In other words, you can't. Thank you for your time.
Comments
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
Again, I'll take this issue back to its source. Why do we even wonder whether or not someone is a viral marketter? Because it exists; it's unethical and distasteful. Also, it often feels that posters on various forums have some kind of hidden agenda. I think these are also generally manipulative and distasteful.
What would put an end to most of this nonsense would be straightforward and honest communication. It's a shame that some people feel that lying and manipulating is a better way to pursue their objectives. It really never is. The apparent short term gains tend to evaporate along with trust and credibility.
My agenda in this post, for example, is quite obvious I hope. To highlight a problem that negatively impacts gamers and the MMO industry. I'm also highlighting that it's now illegal, and I'm hoping to encourage a shift towards more ethical conduct and more effective communication.
I'm aware, however, that some people won't listen. They'll stick to their broken strategy and rationalize their behaviour until natural consequences inevitably cause them a lot of discomfort. Even then, they may blame other people for the consequences they brought on themselves. There's a very long thread going right now that attempts to do this regarding SWG.
I'd be very interested in knowing what exactly was the catalyst(s) for making this a criminal offense.
I have a copy of the article that discussed this when it became legislation...somewhere lol
Let me try to recall: There was research done regarding viral marketting with regard to certain products. The research findings indicated that marketters intentionally misrepresented themselves for the purpose of gaining consumers' trust. Having gained this trust by deceptive means, they would then recommend a particular product or service. People felt duped by this and thought it should be illegal (akin to fraud), and the FTC agreed. This lead to legislative action ^_^. Go FTC, I love those people.
I'd love to read this article if you can find it. If you do find it would you mind sending it to me?
To Fishermage and miklieboo (sp)....i finally quit reading on page four of the thread. While it was very entertaining...and definitely killed some time
...you 2 seriously need to get a room. GOOD GRIEF!!!
But as disturbing as this sounds....I enjoyed both of your posts and will be following you both in the future.
Claji Kiher - Ahazi Vet
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"EDIT-I'd me more worried about myself If I came to a video game forum , for any reason other than looking for a place to kill some time. But that's just my opinion."
THAT is where you started to slide into the "mental health" crap that goes on here.
Yes that's my fault I know , It was a troll tactic nothing more . I appologize , I just really wanted to see where you would take it .
BTW I only cut away parts of posts to clean up the mass of quote boxes .
Nice responses, great discussing this stuff with you and I am truly glad that in our own way we have come to a meeting of the minds
fishermage.blogspot.com
have you seen me deny it? The question is: is it relevant? nope.
It is only relevant to people who wish to diffuse the real issues, and obfuscate the facts in defense of the unethical.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Issues and discussions often lead to tangential discussions. If you found it entertaining, there was obviously no reason to get a room.
We had a fairly good discussion about logic and what goes on on these boards. The good part was neither of us are mean-spirited nasty people, like some folks here. We are both decent guys with an honest disagreement and as such, can have a heate discussion without resprting to childish hate. I think all are served to witness this
fishermage.blogspot.com
It's always nice to have an argument with you LOL, Noone does it better .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm at a bit of a loss in this thread, I don't feel like the title and the original post really fit well together. What I kind of get is....
1.) Does viral marketing exist?
2.) Viral marketing is bad.
2.) Let's beat on SOE (and rightfully so) for a very bad viral marketing plan that misrepresented to the public some indvidiuals' enthusiasm for SOE products as genuine.
So, coming away from that, in reference to 1, viral marketing very much indeed exists. Conceptually, the marketing for a product or service is done largely by consumers and enthusiasts in a grassroots kind of movement. Companies kill for it and you can't get much better reaction from a paid/structured campaign. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Is viral marketing bad? No, I don't think so. I also don't think that companies planting the seeds for viral marketing are bad or wrong for doing it. For example, leading up to the Dark Knight, plenty of Joker-related internet-based websites were set up with clues in order to generate interest. One fan was then "kidnapped" by the Joker and allegedly found dead as part of the ploy. In another example (and frankly, I don't think I would fault Nintendo if it did have a hand in it) is the Wii Fit youtube video (you know the one, the girl shaking her undie-clad bum while hula-hooping). As if the Wii Fit wasn't pouplar enough already, that video got ridiculous numbers of hits generating further interest in it. In those two cases, something objective was put out there (not necessarily by the company though!) and people latched onto it, making a decision if they liked it or not. Which leads into number 3....
In SOE's case, as ArcAngel pointed out though, SOE crossed that line of objectivity by effectively hiring plants to promote the game as genuine user opinions. I think we would all agree that this effectively is the same as paying off professional reviewers or passing off press releases with favorably leading statements to the media outlets. I think we all agree here that that is not kosher and SOE has rightly been spanked for it.
Also of note, I'm not really surprised that a law was passed against it -- I likened it to paying professional reviewers but it really is more akin to the Payola scandals of the 50's/60's when record companies would pay dj's to play their songs. That was made illegal if broadcasters did not disclose to listeners that they were receiving some sort of compensation for doing it. EDIT: this was like the precedent that made it a criminal offense.
EDITED: doing a little research first
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
fishermage.blogspot.com
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. One has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
fishermage.blogspot.com
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
fishermage.blogspot.com
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
Man, unlike Suvroc and ArcAngel, you really come across as a more literate version of Wildcat and a few others that I've since blocked. Talk about playing games with semantics....
I really didn't need a lesson in reading comprehension 101 from you. On the other hand, it sounds like you could do with a refresher from 102: When reading any piece, you should be aware of the author's bias as well as the lens through which you read that piece. Had you not approached the thread with your typical Anti-SOE attitude, you might have actually seen the conflict and seemingly particular judgement against viral marketing as a result of both the title ("Does viral marketting really exist") and the actual content condemning a particlar (and contemptible) attempt at manufacturing said viral marketing.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
Man, unlike Suvroc and ArcAngel, you really come across as a more literate version of Wildcat and a few others that I've since blocked. Talk about playing games with semantics....
I really didn't need a lesson in reading comprehension 101 from you. On the other hand, it sounds like you could do with a refresher from 102: When reading any piece, you should be aware of the author's bias as well as the lens through which you read that piece. Had you not approached the thread with your typical Anti-SOE attitude, you might have actually seen the conflict and seemingly particular judgement against viral marketing as a result of both the title ("Does viral marketting really exist") and the actual content condemning a particlar (and contemptible) attempt at manufacturing said viral marketing.
I have no anti-SOE bias. I have a pro-honesty bias. I have lavishly praised SOE every time they have done well, and gotten flamed by many vets for it, and I have harshly criticized them when they do badly. I am passionate but always try to be fair, and those who actually know my posting history know that.
I have praised them for: the RE system, the build-a-buff system for entertainers, creating a combat option for entartainers, the beastmaster system, the return of the village, collections, heroic instances, and most recently, update 5. I WANT them to do a good job, since that'll mean a better game for all concerned.
I enjoyed the flames of several of my fellow vets, as I often do, for those praises.
I have of course been quite critical as well over those same months for the bad things they have done, but once again, that just shows I march to my own beat without a bias.
The fact that I am flamed equally on both sides shows me that I am relatively unbiased.
Please, do try and prove I have an anti-SOE bias with all that taken into account. I actually think I am extremely kind to them, all things considered.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Maybe because it's true, and you deny it?
It is true ,But is no catalyst of any one group here..Which was the point of the post he is commenting on. The opposite is also true , Viral marketers paid or not, exist . And do damage the industry , The extent of that damage is debatable however imo . Legally it isn't legit ,I'll add it's ethically bankrupt for a company to practice these acts .
The damage done by corps employing these methods however is questionable due to another form of Viral marketing IMO , It is perfectly legal as well .You can find it on any page in this entire site.We're taking part in it right now to be precise. Anything we say here related to a given game be it a recomendation or a critique is essentially a method used by the viral marketer. Which would explain the overuse of the term . If we're all doing it , Again IMO we are . Where does the damage leave our hands and become a responsibility of the corporations ?
Well the viral marketting I'm talking about is only done by corporations. What do I mean by this? It's when people working for companies pretend to be something they are not in order to win the trust of consumers and then endorse a product or service. In the context of MMO's, these people would pretend to be player/consumers of a particular game, and pretend not to be what they in fact are--company representatives. They would then recommend the game to actual player/consumers. The recommendation comes across as credible because it is allegedly made by a fellow consumer that does not have a vested interest in the promotion.
That article I've quoted presents the same context. People working for Sony were pretending to be happy Sony customers. In fact, they weren't. They were desperate and deceitful Sony sales reps.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
I was talking about the specific kind of viral marketting I found in the article I quoted. I really thought the example was very clear. To further clear up any unintentional ambiguity, I just explained how this article would apply to the MMO industry.
Also, to answer Rain's post. I actually came up with the title before writing the entire OP. The question "does viral marketting exist?" was uppermost in my mind. I was meaning the deceptive kind that you also find distasteful Rain--the kind that involves paid plants. The rest of my points flowed from this original thought, but really aren't represented in the title, I agree.
My conclusion I guess would be: it exists, it really is a deceptive ploy, it is therefore unethical, it's illegal, and people who are doing it should knock it off.
Btw, all that would be needed for this to stop would be for people who are acting on behalf of a gaming company to admit it. They could put SOE, Funcom etc. rep. in their sig. for example. Then they can say whatever they want with no legal or ethical problems, simply because they would no longer be pretending to be something they are not.
Actually, I think people would think more highly of a company for being upfront. I believe it would build credibility, whereas viral marketting tears it down.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it.
I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously.
We are discussing whether SOE uses paid viral marketers; NOT grassroots word-of-mouth. That's always a problem when words have multiple meanings. When such is the case, one must carefully check out the context and usage.
Or, better yet, the original poster can be specific and make clear what he or she is talking about. Especially with the way the term "viral marketer" is thrown about around here.
No need. When the word "viral marketer" is thrown about around here, people always use it to mean paid viral marketer...otherwise there is no need to throw it about.
there would be no reason for anyone to start a thread that effectively meant: do people talk about what they like? which is what it would mean if someone was meaning the other meaning of viral marketer.
It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used.
TRANSLATION: It's not up to the OP to be specific about what they mean, as long as it slams SOE and SWG.
Typical.
Nope.
Translation: It is up to people to have facility with the language being used, and how humans generally communicate with one another on earth to comprehend what they are reading.
Who or what one "slams" is irrelevant.
Waitaminnit. Going back a bit ...
Did you actually say "It is not up to every poster to qualify and define every term he or she uses. Ome has reason to expect a minimum of effort on the part of the reader to discern meaning from usage and not play semantic games with the words used." This is coming from YOU, the king of playing semantic games!
Holy shit. The world has officially flipped on its axis.
I never play semantic games, although I do sometimes seek qualification and clarification when I am not sure what someone means. I do so in the interest of communication and truth, not for the sake of any games.
Thank you for pronouncing me King of something, however.
You ALWAYS play semantic games. It's your M.O.
Prove it.
I could just post a link to your profile on the o-boards. Come on Fish, seriously.
In other words, you can't. Thank you for your time.
fishermage.blogspot.com