Fake persuaders....viral marketing.

This is from last year's Guardian. I just saw this posted way down in another thread. I feel it deserves it own.

There really is not much to say except this looks familiar. If you are on guard for it, then it is easy to spot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,715153,00.html

SNIP....."While, in the past, companies have created fake citizens' groups to campaign in favour of trashing forests or polluting rivers, now they create fake citizens. Messages purporting to come from disinterested punters are planted on listservers at critical moments, disseminating misleading information in the hope of recruiting real people to the cause....."

MORE..."An article on its website, entitled Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World, warns that "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first 'listen' to what is being said online... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party....."

MORE...."On the day the paper was published, messages started to appear on a biotechnology listserver used by more than 3,000 scientists, called AgBioWorld. The first came from a correspondent named "Mary Murphy". Chapela is on the board of directors of the Pesticide Action Network, and therefore, she claimed, "not exactly what you'd call an unbiased writer". Her posting was followed by a message from an "Andura Smetacek", claiming, falsely, that Chapela's paper had not been peer-reviewed, that he was "first and foremost an activist" and that the research had been published in collusion with environmentalists. The next day, another email from "Smetacek" asked "how much money does Chapela take in speaking fees, travel reimbursements and other donations... for his help in misleading fear-based marketing campaigns?"

It needs to be seen and recognized.

It does not do any good to post a thread unless it is bashing Bev or bashing the various candidates....so :kick:

This statement should ring some bells on here though the name is different:

A researcher was discredited for being an activist. But it was all done by people who were really not who they said they were.
".....that he was "first and foremost an activist" and that the research had been published in collusion with environmentalists...."

Well, duh, but isn't most real research done by activists, and aren't environmentalists ok things to be anymore?

:kick:

....to the top of the page! :evilgrin:

Anyone who doesn't see this happening here at DU either hasn't been here long or reads with their mind closed. :)

A while back I remember seeing someone had posted a link to a 'help wanted' ad looking for 'conservative activists' to counter 'liberal lies'
in online forums! It may have been for the same company!
:kick:

:kick: :kick:

for the Bivings Group.
It has been cleaned up since I looked in on it a while back, but they do list some of their clients - lovelies such as the Republican National Comm. and the Petroleum Institute.
Thanks for posting this.

http://www.bivings.com

Financial

J.P. Morgan Chase
MasterCard International
The Nasdaq Stock Market

Government
NASA
National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education

Energy
AES
BP Amoco

I watched it during the '96 campaign.

It was rampant during the 2000 campaign. It's been going on here since day 1.