Industry Group Sponsors College Course To Create Fake Blog

Scott Jaschik writes "At Hunter College, professors are debating the ethics of a course in which an industry group paid for a class to develop a fake student who would write a fake blog to discourage other students from buying knockoff products. The controversy involves both commercial interference with academic freedom and the ethics of 'guerilla marketing.'"

An 'actual' fake blog?

[RLiegh (247921)]

This is different from all of the 419/v1@gr@ blogs on blogger how, exactly...?

Fake Blog, Fake Student-

[Naughty Bob (1004174)]

It sounds like those companies really have a handle on how to get the youth on-side.

Re:Fake Blog, Fake Student-

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

Birdy, birdy, in the sky
Dropped some whitewash in my eye
I'm a big kid, I won't cry
I'm just glad elephants can't fly.

Re:Fake Blog, Fake Student-

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

Authenticity and originality are key to the youth demographic and they know it. The problem is that ads have failed at those for a long time. Some ads can still do it through humor and strange premises (like the old spice ads I love so much). Unfortunately, people are smart, and copying another ad campaign's success backfires more often than not.

It's a problem that's crept up on them for the last few years. Frankly, I'm shocked that corporations are struggling to look authentic and original.

Re:Fake Blog, Fake Student-

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

Which is pretty funny considering what a bunch of sheep the youth demographic is.

As someone who's old enough to have seen several "youth demographics" come and go, I can tell you that this generation is less sheep-like than the previous 3 or 4.

Re:Fake Blog, Fake Student-

[NevermindPhreak (568683)]

I think you two are defining two different "youth" groups. You're probably thinking of high-schoolers or college kids. Your parent post is probably thinking of people in their early to mid twenties. From a marketing standpoint, the 18-25 age group is more desirable, or so I'm told.

You two probably have different personal experiences with "youth demographics" as well.

Personally, I'm 23. I have a full time job, pay for school on the side, and pay my own mortgage. While I think some commercials are funny (Chuck Norris Old Spice comes to mind), I almost never buy that product. Most of my friends feel the same way.

Re:Fake Blog, Fake Student-

[jimdread (1089853)]

Authenticity and originality are key to the youth demographic and they know it.

Once they work out how to fake authenticity, they'll crack the youth demographic wide open.

Maybe this was a class about irony

[pembo13 (770295)]

Cooperate sponsored fraud in order to deter legal purchases of questionable knock-off products.

What a screw up.

[gnutoo (1154137)]

I love the brag [iacc.org]. The Industry Conclusion is correct, though not the way they want it to be.

Conclusion:
The campaign will live beyond the event as the Web sites will remain live, and students will be reminded by the giveaways to Break the Chain of harmful of harmful events that can result from counterfeiting.

They are going to have a hard time living this one down. Fake blogs, with more than 300 myspace friends, including Justin Timberlake! What they have managed to do is indelibly link their brands to fake. Hyped, expensive fake regardless of real quality. How do they expect anyone to trust them again? Their stuff is better why? Because they spend money on BS like this? Because the "real" stuff comes from a sweat shop with a sharper whip? It's hard to imagine a better example of the harm imaginary property does and they festering pile of lies that supports it.

Well, they now admit it

[HairyNevus (992803)]

The blog finally admitted that it was fake: http://encounterheidi.blogspot.com/2007/05/here-is-catch-i-am-totally-not-real.html [blogspot.com] . I love how the students who created this blog chose the ditsy valley girl stereotype to convey their message, and stuck with the persona 'till the bitter end: "Here is the catch- I am totally not real!"...the bolding was me.

Ironic

[Presence1 (524732)]

They are attempting to create a counterfeit person to persuade people to dislike counterfeit goods.

Counterfeiting of goods does suck, but this does not seem to be the way to get people on your side...

Do as I say, not as I do

[Jherek Carnelian (831679)]

The industry group in question was the IACC - International anti-Counterfeiting Coallition - their mandate being to fight the production and sale o fraudulent knock off products. They were essentially paying for a class to create a fraudulent student with a fraudulent blog while preventing any sort of critical discussion or analysis in the class.

Ho hum. Just another case of corporate hypocrisy, move along, move along....

OUTRAGE!

[Urger (817972)]

As a Hunter student I am outraged that I was not monetarily compensated with part of this graft.

Educational Standards?

[owlnation (858981)]

You can add patronizing to that list.

If students are so dumb that they need to be told basic smarts by a blog (fake or otherwise) then they should not be in University.

Re:Educational Standards?

[Protonk (599901)]

to what basic smarts are we referring? Distinguishing counterfeit products from the real thing? Can you do that unerringly? Can you tell me the difference between a knockoff of windows XP and the real thing? Can you tell me the difference between a knockoff brake cleaner and a brand name brake cleaner? Maybe, but I would hardly classify that as "basic smarts" or a prerequisite to entering college.

Perhaps you are referring to a willingness to choose the "real" product over the knockoff. Here you are on unstable ground. In some cases (heart surgery, car parts, etc), the quality of the product is not immediately visible to the buyer and can't be divined by inspection. In that case, there is a strong argument to be made that avoiding knockoff products is good sense. You can't eyeball a hydraulic line to see if it will fail catastrophically. In the case of DVD's, CD's and purses, the need is less severe. There isn't a buyer safety issue. if your knockoff version of Rush Hour XXVII sucks, then it isn't the end of the world. the people who suffer are the industry (because they can't sell you a copy of something you already have) so it is THEIR interest that is being protected here, not yours.

Which part of this is common sense?

Why

[AtomicDevice (926814)]

I want to meet the kids that would sign up for a class like that. It's like those anti-piracy commercials they put at the beginning of rental dvd's "Hey kids, do what the man says, or we'll make you sign a settlement for a couple grand, and tell your friends how not cool it is"

bah

[nomadic (141991)]

Idiotic. As a Hunter alum I'm extremely disappointed. The professors at the school always kicked ass, but we got screwed on the administration a few times.

They should be debating the ethics of high book...

[Joe The Dragon (967727)]

They should be debating the ethics of high book costs and the small changes that force you to buy a new book each year for no new info as well other carp fees that are pushing College costs up not stuff like this.

Stop the lies!

[iamacat (583406)]

The blog was not sponsored! I met this poor Heidi girl and she was really heartbroken about that counterfeit handbag, so we swapped our sob stories. I got real cool Dell as a birthday present, but then it turned out it had a counterfeit copy of Vista installed. Not only the wallpaper had a slightly different color, but the fonts on the screen were not as crisp and defined as on REAL Vista. Worst of all, I couldn't enjoy any of the Windows Genuine Advantage downloads.

Then I started reading up on that and discovered that software counterfeiting is invariably linked to crime and even terrorism. Wouldn't somebody think of the children! Be a broken link in the chain and stop software piracy! Most importantly, don't undermine american capitalism by using free software that is anyway full of stolen code and patent infringements!

Read the full article

[Protonk (599901)]

The "fake blog" portion of the story is compelling, but it isn't the whole story. all in all, the actions of the university and the coalition (the IACC) were pretty repugnant. The school engineered the course to teach the industry viewpoint and ensured (via industry observers) that the professor did not deviate from the talking points. when the story initially broke, the school decided that it was an internal matter and didn't merit any outside scrutiny.

The professor in question voiced real ethical problems with the course but was basically told to shut up and teach--because he didn't have tenure that was pretty much his only option. The job market for PhD's without tenure isn't exactly robust.

Never mind that this was basically taxpayer subsidized indoctrination.

Re:Read the full article

[Protonk (599901)]

where do you people come from? why do you even bother formating this post to quote me and link this? I mean, why don't you just yell at your houseplant or something? Let me know when you have a modicum of understanding of the following words:

ethics
severity
continuum
contradiction
proportionality

Don't strain yourself.

It's obvious

[Mr. Freeman (933986)]

Won't it be a little obvious that it's fake when people read "So yesterday I was listening to my Ipod, don't buy a zune or anything else, buy an ipod because they're so much better, and I saw a cute girl" "and then today I was driving in my DODGE CHARGER, buy a dodge charger, don't buy ford made products".

Also, why are professors debating the ethics of the course? Was the course created knowing that some company was going to pay the students to make a fake blog? Seems to me this issue should have been dealt with long ago.

A fake student...

[Aegis Runestone (1248876)]

As opposed to a real student?

Is this a problem?

[davidwr (791652)]

As long as there was a prominent disclaimer at the top saying "this blog is a work of fiction and is done as a class project under the auspices of Dr. I. M. Controversial at QuestionableEthics University" then I don't see the problem.

What's that you say? There wasn't a disclaimer? The student gets an F.

Double Dipping & Possible Sunshine Law Violati

[protektor (63514)]

I would love to know if the students also had to pay for the class, just like they do for any other class. Also did the students get a full outline of the class before they signed up for it, like most other classes offer?

Sounds to me like this is a case of double dipping. The school gets the corporation to pay for the class, and then they turn around and get the students to pay for the class as well. I'm sure every University and College would love to be paid double for each class they teach. Sounds like this is more about the greed of the school, than it is about actual teaching.

Also where is the state on this? I don't know about their state but the state of Missouri has Sunshine laws. Basically if you take state or government money, then everything has to be open and clearly detailed about what you do with the money and everything associated with it. You can't have secret board meetings, or secretly spend the money on anything. Everything in the school has to be open and transparent, even school groups that receive money from the school, since they get it from the government.

Sounds like a *HUGE* violation of the "Sunshine laws" to say that this whole review, etc. is an internal school matter. It certainly would not be the case in Missouri.

Fake blog is Ok...

[lixee (863589)]

Thank God it wasn't a Facebook profile. They could have ended up in jail.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=545 [zdnet.com]

No worries

[Deadstick (535032)]

...George P. Burdell will hijack that blog in about five minutes.

rj

IACC members link

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

For anyone interested in complaining to the member companies about this... here is a link [iacc.org] to their membership list.

Some members are no surprise and don't care if their customers hate them (RIAA, MPAA). Others are more likely to respond to bad press (Apple, Microsoft, Vivendi). Other sponsors are directly responsible, such as the government agencies (many in the USA and Canada) and the states of North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Send a letter or e-mail, maybe this crap will not happen again, at least not in academia where it is so easily detected.

It might teach them a good lesson in a way

[MikeRT (947531)]

Don't believe everything you read online, from any source. MSM, bloggers, etc. Look at what they're saying and evaluate it against other information.

Backlash experiment?

[immel (699491)]

The people at the IACC seem like your typical corporate droids, but they can't be stupid. The must have known when they first commandeered the course that the truth would come out after the course ended ("Heidi" herself admitted she was fake May 2007, at the end of the spring semester), and that guerrilla marketing has a failure mode which frequently involves consumer backlash.

This makes me wonder: Was this whole thing (or at least part of it) an experiment to gauge the intensity and duration of our backlash?

If so, I hope they get the message. The comments on Heidi's blog aren't much more forgiving than the ones on slashdot.

Guerilla Marketing, Astroturfing, and others...

[trims (10010)]

Honestly, if we had an F.T.C. with any balls in this country, they'd spent a lot more time coordinating with the Fraud division of Justice Department and stop this kind of crap, plus all the damn astroturfing, and that stupid "guerilla marketing" stuff. It's all fraud, pure and simple.

With any sensible reading of the fraud and deceptive marketing sections of the law (sections under US Code Title 15, plus others) surely covers all the tactics used in this kind of activity. Remember, we're talking commercial speech, which has considerably different protections and limitations.

Problem, of course, is that the FTC has been stacked with appointees from industry. Foxes guarding the henhouse, again, as usual. Sadly, this has been going across multiple administrations, and I'm not sure that it will change.

-Erik

This is not new

[harm5way (616066)]

Students, especially in technology and business programs, like to receive real hands-on experience. These courses review case studies of real companies facing real challenges on a regular basis. In any other situation, students doing work for credit at a private firm would be considered an internship. There's no real difference, so what's different here? Coach has a counterfeiting problem. How do marketing and PR students handle this? They explored the idea of using a fake blog. It was academic research. Nothing new here- this is consistently done all the time in psychology: the double blind experiment.

I don't see a problem with the sponsorship either. Indirectly, students become indoctrinated (others would say specialized) with "corporate" branding throughout their studies anyway. Math and statistics courses tend to focus on using certain packages, for example Mathematica and SPSS. In computer science, it's either the Microsoft suite or specific open source products like MySQL (why not PostgreSQL?) Likewise, biology labs tend to use certain methods with corresponding complex equipment like DNA sequencers, PCR kits, RNA microarrays, etc., especially in biotech courses. Some skills are learned in school that way.

This is what happens...

[LaskoVortex (1153471)]

...when education deviates from first principles. You start getting courses like "guerilla marketing" or "late Byzantine Women's Studies" or "Topics in Gay Poetry". Though these are probably worth someone's time to study, are they really right for undergraduates who need an education rich in basic skills? Disclaimer: Not against guerillas, late Byzantine Women, or Gay Poets. Just *for* learning basic skills first.

Pretty soon, everything is a potential topic and departments find they can be talked into anything. They are especially vulnerable when some industry group dangles a monetary carrot on the end.

Hunter said they now have a committee to review new industry sponsored courses. First, *now*? Why not before? Second, *all* new courses should submit to faculty review in the department that will teach the course. A proposed syllabus should be reviewed at the bare minimum with a discussion of the teaching approach.

Shameless Anti-capitalists

[Bob9113 (14996)]

Shit like this is why I want to scream whenever I hear corporations whining about anti-trust laws and how the free market should be allowed to self-regulate. Here's a thought; stop working so hard to break the perfect information that is a fundamental requirement of efficient free market capitalism, and maybe I'll take you a little more seriously.

If you're going to show such complete lack of respect for Adam Smith's ideals, it is unreasonable to ask the government to abide by them. Once you decide to stand up and compete like an honorable person, then you can invoke the term "free market" in your defense.

Let me get this straight...

[tompaulco (629533)]

...you're supposed to get your ideas of which brand of product to buy by reading blogs? Even ones apparently run by a valley girl? Wow! I have been truly been barking up the wrong tree.

Isn't this the same scam they run on tv ads?

[CrazyJim1 (809850)]

Hello. I ate at Subway and lost 200 lbs. So start eating so you can lose weight too!

I've used BioFlex, and I have rock hard abs. Of course, I earned mine through lots of situps, but I did use BioFlex for a minute before they paid me a lot to be a model on this commercial.

unbelievable ads

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

Did anyone else check out the fake blog/pages? There was a banner ad for a service where you can rent designer purses so you can show them off and then return them without having to pay the full price. It seemed to be a real service. The fact that such a company can stay in business is probably a sign of the apocalypse. Does anyone really know anyone who is so obsessed with designer brands that they would do such a thing? I can actually understand buying a designer product if you believe they actually make better products and are worth the cost. I sometimes pay more for a product from a company who has proven they make quality goods. But do people really buy (or rent) designer products for the sole purpose of showing off... conspicuous consumption of purses?

It makes me appreciate all the intelligent and deviant friends I have all the more. The only brands they consume conspicuously are on the opposite end, with titles like "black label" and "old crow."

I doubt it would read as genuine

[lena_10326 (1100441)]

Marketing agencies spend a lot on infomercials and they never, ever ring true. They're always obvious inside of 60 seconds of viewing. I can't see how a fake blog would be any different.

The damage done

[hyades1 (1149581)]

by guerrilla marketing to the social fabric vastly outweighs any possible social benefit it could bestow. People practicing it should be wiped out of business without mercy or restraint. For society to work, we have to routinely extend a certain level of trust to people we don't know personally. When that trust is abused by people trying to sneak their products in front of your face with lies and misrepresentation, one of the pillars of society is undermined.

I always thought if I was one of the people aggressively solicited by those actors who were marketing cameras under the guise of needing help to take a picture, I'd have decked the creep when I found out what he was up to, and smashed his camera into tiny little pieces.

Re:DON'T READ SLASHDOT!

[Constantine XVI (880691)]

You must be new here

Re:I see BLOWBACK!

[Protonk (599901)]

What a reasoned and thoughtful statement. I'm so glad that you allow for room on both sides of the discussion.

Re:wth?

[Protonk (599901)]

Libel laws are pretty forgiving in the United States as the 1st ammendment protects a lot of factually incorrect/misleading speech. England and commonwealth countries have stronger libel/slander laws.

Also....why are you quoting a dictionary to suggest that legal trouble is afoot?

you mean something like...

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

slashdot?