Bound to be astro-turfing...

But fun, much more so than the 'naf mystery jacket owner Naked lied about created to flog cheap gear.

I'm curious. Bets? Craiglist makes sense, some other networking/dating site perhaps?

Update: it is not astro-turfing or some corporate strategy, I regret my earlier cynicism (I'm not usually cynical ), it is however, plagiarism. Melburnian Craig is reprimanded here for ripping off the idea from a New Yorker who's ever so slightly pissy...

Feeding an obsession

Not all media are responding to Naked's campaign with quite the same resigned acceptance. Whereas Fairfax think it's an innocent hoot, Newscorp see it in different terms.

The Australian's article clearly states that Naked have lied, on several occassions in fact. Whether the original lie, the fictitious Heidi and her mystery man/jacket, can be explained as just clever marketing is important, but no more so than the other deceptions. The lie that Naked wasn't involved, they were. The apparent lie that media interest was accidental, not a direct consequence of Angela Cuming's involvement. If Naked seeded the story through an intermediary, Cuming, then their previous protestations will be even more hollow. To me, their denials seem less and less plausible.

Whether they're guilty of anything more than unethical behaviour remains unclear. The provisions of the Fair Trading Act mightn't apply unless liberally interpreted. Should this practice be allowed to develop without constrain - because professional restraint doesn't appear to exist - then the already flimsy division between news and advertorial will be impossible to maintain.

Industry reacts to Naked

Here's a great summary of views about the Witchery campaign from within the marketing industry. I think the general view is negative. Note in this second article, relating to the student Naked did on the reaction to the campaign, the CEO of Witchery clearly is of the view that any media is good media. This industry-commentary is interesting and valid, and despite the survey results, I remain of the view that the consumer is being taken for a ride here.

Birds of a feather...

I'm struggling to work out a sensible rationale for the media's fawning coverage of Naked's duplicitous advertising. Were I more cynical, I'd guess that any tactic that boosts advertising is seen in a positive light by old-media struggling in financial circumstances. Equally likely, is the fact that it's just good copy.

The latest angle is reports, by Naked, that their analysis of the feedback confirms it's ok to lie to consumers. Too harsh? I don't think so. I wonder if the media would be so forgiving if an oil company was lying to consumers? A tobacco company? Would the news media be so forgiving if government misled them?

Apologists for this approach rely on the argument that no one cares or is harmed, but I think that's simply not true (and Naked's arguments to the contrary can be easily dismissed as partial) even if it's true in this instance. What of the efficacy of journalism, news media and advertising, are they not harmed (the latter may be beyond repair)? What of the fact that, at least prima facie, a breach of the Fair Trading Act has occurred? Can this be excused simply because YouTube commenters say it's ok? That's a flimsy and convenient argument.

If this deceitful tactic is tolerated, expect more and more faux-news and less and less critical and independent journalism. The incentives are clear; why pay for an advertisement if you can get free news media coverage. Are the media complicit? I'm certainly aware that smaller papers will offer news coverage as part of an advertising package. Small beer though it might be, it is neverthless an insidious erosion of consumer rights and should be opposed as such.

The flippant and dismissive attitude of Naked and its supporters could be either plain naivety or a quite deliberate attempt to obfuscate. Again, I'm not sure which.

Let's see what MediaWatch make of this as I've sent this 'tip-off':

Is the news media's fawning coverage of Naked's deceitful campaign to promote Witchery's clothing a sign that consumer standards are under new threat? Could the media coverage be linked to a favourable advertising deal? As we now know Heidi's lost love is a Disney-inspired fabrication, have Naked and Witchery not breached section 42 (1) of the Fair Trading Act which forbids "misleading or deceptive" practice?

This kind of astro-turfing erodes consumer confidence and undermines the efficacy of consumer protection laws. It appears to be tolerated because it's fun and not intended to harm. I wonder if Country Road feel so ambivalent?

Advertising ethics

I've long been interested in advertising. At its best it can rival traditional arts for innovation and creativity. Sadly, most advertising is complete rubbish. Unoriginal, banal and crude. I suspect clients are as much responsible for this situation as are agencies.

Will more austere economic conditions lead to a more sophisticated approach? Not if the recent Witchery campaign by Naked is anything to go by. In summary, a made-up story of unrequited love is carried by the news media - a pretty girl is looking for a mystery man and has only a jacket from which to trace him... how Disney. Factor in the reach of YouTube and you've got an interesting story... were it not completely false.

All media is good media though right? No harm's done? This is real creative, it shouldn't be constrained by traditional values? This, at least, was the rationale put forward by Naked's Adam Ferrier... that was after Naked first denied they had anything to do with the campaign.

Ferrier argues that there was no deception (so let's for the moment forget their initial denial) because "The word deception implies an element of harm. This campaign hasn’t harmed anyone, not even close". I suspect the good standing of Witchery and Naked will be harmed so on this alone, he's hopefully wrong. But worse than this is his incredibly naive logic. If no harm occurs, no wrong has been done? Clearly ethics wasn't part of his education.

By Ferrier's logic then, a breach of law would be excusable if the breach caused no harm. Speeding through a School zone but you hit no kids: fine. Lying about the children overboard, they were already wet remember: fine. Telling the wife you're watching a band when you're really with your fantasy baseball buddies: fine.

The harmless lie. Famous through time. Forget what Kant said, there's modern restrictions that apply in this situation like, for instance, section 42 (1) of the 1987 Fair Trading Act. It's not only the consequences of an act that makes it harmful, it can be the simple commission. This is why we forbid dummy bids, restrict the use of credentials or insist on full disclosure. Reliance on the veracity of published information is critical to the stability of commerce and government. Partiality, deception and subterfuge are regulated not just because they may cause direct harm, but also because they erode confidence.

Ferrier's a fool. This is clear. Whether his foolishness is exceptional or endemic to the industry is unclear.

Update: Ferrier's got a blog through which he's expanded his published rationalisation. The language is a little opaque but the essential point is that "social media [presumably this means advertising] need to be judged, not on how well they abide by the so called rules of social media, but rather the effectiveness of the communications." I wonder what he means by "the rules"?