Advertising
9 Feb 2009
Truth Is In The Eye Of The Beholder
Was it wrong of Witcheryman to use a hoax to advertise its product? Or does responsibility rest with the media for not checking their facts? Mumbrella's Tim Burrowes wades into the debate
Back in 2007, Andrew Denton had a brilliant TV moment while giving broadcaster John Laws — who was just about to retire — a farewell grilling on Enough Rope.For much of the interview, Laws had managed to brush off the tough stuff, including the usual questions about the inquiry into his undeclared plugs for sponsors. As usual, he refused to see that he had done anything wrong.
But more than a year after that interview, what still sticks in the mind, long after Laws's explanations have faded, was how Denton put it to him in the final moments of their confrontation: "I don't get what you don't get about Cash for Comments".
In one sentence, it showed that not only were the two sides of the debate on transparency with the public never going to agree — they weren't even going to understand each other's points of view.
The last couple of weeks have felt a little like that, as the advertising agencies at the centre of two prominent media hoaxes seem unable to understand why their critics are outraged.
The first hoax, which my webiste Mumbrella exposed, was designed by ad agency Cummins Nitro Brisbane on behalf of their client, Tourism Queensland.
It was a brilliant idea: call for video applications for "the best job in the world" as caretaker of the islands of the Great Barrier Reef. The first video entry to be uploaded on the site featured "Tegan", who excitedly announced to the camera that she was off to get a tattoo of the Great Barrier Reef on her arm to improve her chances of getting the job.
Tegan quickly became news. In its report, AAP referred to the video with the qualifier that she "appeared" to be getting a tattoo. By the time it had gone around the world, however, that qualification had vanished. The tattoo made it into headlines and intros in newspapers and on websites across the globe.
Over at Mumbrella, we were suspicious from the beginning — Tegan was not the world's best actor. And as the tattoo story continued to generate headlines, I rang Tourism Queensland's communications office.
The press officer seemed slightly surprised to hear from me. No, of course Tegan wasn't an actress. She worked for the advertising agency. The fact that this may have been a tad deceptive did not seem to occur to them.
Why hadn't the journalists who reported the story bothered to make this call?
It was the same from the boss of the agency. He happily gave me the name of the girl in the video — it was Rhiannon Craig. Until we published this story and Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser announced that he took a "dim view" of the behaviour, it didn't appear to have occurred to those behind it that they were doing anything wrong. Nor, it seems, had it occurred to the media organisations to call these easily accessed sources for verification.
Cummins Nitro has since issued an apology saying the fake video entry was supposed to be an example of the kind of entry that could be submitted.
By the following weekend, it was another girl and another video. This time, "Heidi" was appealing on YouTube for the man of her dreams who had supposedly left his soon-to-be-released Witchery jacket in a cafe and she wanted to return it to him.
Once again, it was her poor acting that gave her away. Almost from the start, the press were asking if she was an actress. She denied it. And when people began to get an idea which agency was behind the stunt — Sydney-based Naked Communications — the agency denied it was a stunt too.
But the pressure began to mount as a vocal section of the marketing community heaped opprobrium on Naked for behaving so deceitfully.
As marketer Tim Longhurst put it: "Being socially destructive — eroding people's confidence in each other — isn't a simple by-product of this kind of dishonest marketing, it's the main outcome."
Nick Ellery had a similar take: "The line is to be drawn when you deliberately try to deceive your audience, with no real intention to cause dialogue, but simply to deceive in order to create traffic. This is no different to spamming. It sucks that this campaign is proceeding and that I will never buy anything from Witchery Man, or hire Naked as a strategy firm."
Yet Naked continued to insist they had done nothing wrong. In a great example of marketese, Managing partner Adam Ferrier told me: "If it gets to the point where you have to be 100 per cent truthful the whole time, it becomes a very sterile outcome. People will be afraid to try different things."
Naked argues that the press brought the embarrassment upon itself, and it has now upped the stakes by publishing a full page ad in The Australian's Wish magazine listing the journalists and media that it fooled with its girl-with-the-jacket-hoax. The ad features a photo of "Heidi" and carries the headline: "Witcheryman would like to thank everyone who helped us spread the word". As well as the mainstream media outlets that covered the controversy, it names two journalists — Caroline Marcus of Fairfax's Sun Herald and Marnie O'Neill of the Sunday Telegraph.
Marcus, who was the first journalist to report the fake story as fact, has called the hoax "journalistic fraud". She told newmatilda.com:
"Of course as journalists, we are always alert to the spin tactics used by marketing companies. However, in my experience, it is unusual for such companies to outright lie at every opportunity. It would become a real shame if the marketing industry felt that this type of journalistic fraud was acceptable. If the CEOs of Naked Communications and Witchery think that the media will forgive and forget being lied to, then the biggest joke is on them."
Of course, Naked Communications disagrees. After the stunt the agency commissioned some research which apparently found that only 21 per cent of their target audience found the stunt offensive or deceptive. According to Naked, this was a good result.
Personally, I don't get what it is that they don't get.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
My goodness, advertising companies telling lies? What is the world coming to? I particularly enjoyed all their competitors getting hoity toity about it. Of course all they do in their advertisements is tell the truth haha. And this sentence cracked me up, "If the CEOs of Naked Communications and Witchery think that the media will forgive and forget being lied to, then the biggest joke is on them." Tut tut, one should never lie to the (Fairfax) media, it is their job to lie to us.
It is more reflection on the laziness of reporters who latch on to anything to fill copy, SMH even reported after the fact that the company claimed the marketing was a sucsess, I say that is not news fit to be printed.
I find most advertising offensive especially big outdoor billboards that you can’t avoid and online ads that jump over into the collumn you are reading. Visual polution should be stamped out.
Yawn. Didn’t we see all this in 2006 with lonelygirl15?
This is all very embarrassing for so many reasons: it’s embarrassing that anybody regarded it as news even if it wasn’t a hoax, it’s embarrassing that anybody fell for it given that it was, it’s embarrassing that people are bitching and moaning about it as if it’s so shocking that anyone would try to manipulate the media or the public (Ern Malley happened over 70 years ago, people!), and it’s hugely embarrassing that an Australian marketing firm thinks this is some sort of coup. Are we such philistines that this idiocy passes for successful marketing in this day and age?
Pathetic, really.
Who out side of the media cares if media organizations are duped? It’s not like very many media groups are devoid of their own lies/distortions etc.
Never mind the bumf the internecine insulted egos! What about the public, not everyone is smart/cynical enough to see a blatant lie. Look at all those who were taken in by the shonky investment houses of cards.
Now its “Near enough is good enough”, “what’s wrong with a little puffing” and “lying by omission or obfuscation isn’t really lying” after all heaven forbid an ad being honest. As for the sterile environment bit what a load of self serving justifying crap. A lie is a lie no matter how you dress it. It seems to me that if you have to stoop to these sort of tactics perhaps the product is wanting as is the imagination/morality of the vendor and agency.
Or are now so low as to justify caveat emptor (survival of the sneakiest) or is it simply “All’s fair in love of and the pursuit of profit.”
It’s amazing the lengths companies go to to "market" their product. So few products actually sell themselves. The main goal of advertising seems to be to distract people from the thing being advertised, while associating it with something attractive (generally speaking, anyway). I have often wondered what it would be like if advertising didn’t feature any people, and ads just showed images of the product itself. No models, no beautiful, smiling faces. It would be quite weird. Probably wouldn’t buy as much junk though.
Just a point of information. Mat Baxter, the CEO of Naked, resigned today: http://mumbrella.com.au/2009/02/10/controversial-agency-boss-baxter-depa…
Cheers,
Tim Burrowes
Editor mumbrella.com.au
Do you mean to tell that the people on the tele ads who are hyping their great home loans and their beauty products that take years off their age and telling me how great their cars are ….. those people, with their melodic voices and pleasant looks and nice complexion and great lighting … might be actors paid to lie to me ..
Come on … get real!
ü Reduce, replace, reuse, recycle - the environment is everybody’s business