Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wikipedia Google Technology

The North Face Used Wikipedia To Climb To the Top of Google Search Results (adage.com) 105

Posted by msmash from the stranger-things dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: When you first start planning a big trip, step one will likely happen at the Google search bar. Step two might be clicking onto the images of your target destination. The North Face, in a campaign with agency Leo Burnett Tailor Made, took advantage of this consumer behavior to keep its name top of mind with travelers considering an adventure sports excursion.

The brand and agency took pictures of athletes wearing the brand while trekking to famous locations around the world, including Brazil's Guarita State Park and Farol do Mampimptuba, Cuillin in Scotland and Peru's Huayna Picchu. They then updated the Wikipedia images in the articles for those locations so that now, the brand would appear in the top of Google image search results when consumers researched any of those locations -- all done for a budget of zero dollars. "Our mission is to expand our frontiers so that our consumers can overcome their limits. With the 'Top of Images' project, we achieved our positioning and placed our products in a fully contextualized manner as items that go hand in hand with these destinations," explained Fabricio Luzzi, CEO of The North Face Brazil in a statement.

According to the agency, the biggest obstacle of the campaign was updating the photos without attracting attention of Wikipedia moderators to sustain the brand's presence for as long as possible, as site editors could change them at any time. The "hack" worked, at least for a while, evident in a quick Google search of some of the places mentioned in the campaign's case study video. Further reading: Wikimedia is not pleased.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The North Face Used Wikipedia To Climb To the Top of Google Search Results More

The North Face Used Wikipedia To Climb To the Top of Google Search Results

Comments Filter:

  • Fly me! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @02:24PM (#58686970) Homepage

    Damn, I wish I could fly all over the world to take pics on "a budget of zero dollars"

    • Me too. I never even noticed this, because travel to exotic vistas isn't in the budget when I have more practical needs such as a new roof (thanks, Hurricane Irma).

      I'm also not surprised this happened. There's this scene in this old Richard Pryor film Moving where the family is having a yard sale, and they've got this whole stack of mustard jars labeled "free". The asshole neighbor comes over, takes all of them, and brings them to his yard, and charges for them.

      If you're giving away something for free wh

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Shag ( 3737 )

      Does the cost have to be zero dollars to anyone, or just zero dollars to you? If you're taking pics for someone, it's not at all unreasonable for them to cover your airfare, lodging, and reasonable expenses like ground transport and food. I'd have a lot fewer stamps in my passport (and wouldn't have my wife and kids) if my photographic activities in days of yore had been limited to places I could afford to go out-of-pocket.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by darkain ( 749283 )

        No idea, just responding to the fact they claimed to do all of this without a budget, which is obviously bullshit. :)

  • No, thank you (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Their stuff has taken a downhill turn in QC over the last few years. I remember buying a supposedly nice (and expensive) NF duffel at their store in Seattle during my honeymoon. The thing ripped within a month and I never exceeded the weight limit or had anything "pokey" in the bag to cause the rip. For the $110 I spent, the bag should have lasted far longer. During the same trip, I also bought an inexpensive REI duffel for less than $40 and it's still intact with almost zero wear and I've used it many, man

    • I bought a "Swiss Army" branded backpack and I use it as my everyday commuter pack for work and groceries. It seems fairly tough but the zippers are the weak point, they are way too fine for the kind of yanking I do. One zipper failed one day but the rest of the pack was still good after 4 years. So I took it to a repairshop and they fixed it for 14$.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dasunt ( 249686 )

      Their stuff has taken a downhill turn in QC over the last few years. I remember buying a supposedly nice (and expensive) NF duffel at their store in Seattle during my honeymoon. The thing ripped within a month and I never exceeded the weight limit or had anything "pokey" in the bag to cause the rip. For the $110 I spent, the bag should have lasted far longer. During the same trip, I also bought an inexpensive REI duffel for less than $40 and it's still intact with almost zero wear and I've used it many, man

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ChoGGi ( 522069 )

      I think you mean GoRuck?
      Personally I've got an old MEC brand backpack for hiking, and a nice Deuter Aircontact something for camping.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by K10W ( 1705114 )

      Their stuff has taken a downhill turn in QC over the last few years. I remember buying a supposedly nice (and expensive) NF duffel at their store in Seattle during my honeymoon. The thing ripped within a month and I never exceeded the weight limit or had anything "pokey" in the bag to cause the rip. For the $110 I spent, the bag should have lasted far longer. During the same trip, I also bought an inexpensive REI duffel for less than $40 and it's still intact with almost zero wear and I've used it many, many times.

      As an aside, if anyone wants a real hard-use bag/rucksack, get a RoRuck. No affiliation whatsoever, but they are made in America and made right. These bags will see you through the apocalypse. Expensive, but in this case, you get your money's worth.

      goruck are not hard use by any stretch and are pretty much same as NF. I burn through bags with how hard I am on them and even managed to wear out likes of snugpak within couple of years of none daily use (weekly mostly). For hard use better looking at likes of kifaru, mysteryranch, eberlestock and in cheaper end likes of DA (directaction) has served me well in their small packs. Carried a DA ghost for past few years daily and still going despite it gets battered and loadedto max it stays pretty comfy relat

  • Wikimedia should send them a bill (Score:3)

    by caseih ( 160668 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @02:28PM (#58686998)

    Except that it would set a precedent for advertising on Wikipedia, Wikimedia should send them a hefty bill. What North Face did was clever, but clearly abuse of Wikimedia's resources. Not sure how that passed the ethical "go" at corporate headquarters.

    • "ethical"...it's a corporation. "Ethical" is "increase shareholder profits", that's how it passed muster.

      That said, it was a clever hack of both wikipedia AND google, so hats off to them. Seems they even provided wikipedia with something of value in the exchange, so I'm having a hard time finding fault with their behavior.

      • Re:Wikimedia should send them a bill (Score:5, Insightful)

        by caseih ( 160668 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @02:53PM (#58687150)

        Right. It's clever, but clearly unethical. So I find it easy to fault their behavior. It's a literal example of the tragedy of the commons. I don't believe that the solution is to not have a commons in the first place.

        • Synergy is not unethical.

          • Synergy when one side has explicitly said it doesnâ(TM)t want synergy is a violation of consent, which is unethical. Wikimedia explicitly says its site is not to be edited for marketing purposes.

            • Breaking a TOS is not unethical. It's not even enforceable by the courts in Wikimedia's case. No one has any reasonable expectation that the TOS have been read. There's no active consent on the part of the contributor.

              Expecting people to abide by your hidden TOS is more unethical.

              • This isnâ(TM)t about TOS. This is about the ethos of the site, which isnâ(TM)t hidden. Itâ(TM)s blatant and repeated everywhere on just about every page. Itâ(TM)s hard to use the site without getting the message that this is built and offered as a shared, non-commercial space. AND NORTH FACE KNEW THAT. This isnâ(TM)t a case of ignorance. This is wanting disregard for the hospitality of the site.

                • The ethos is that of a community editing content to find a consensus. If you think it's anything else, you are projecting your own fantasies. As North Face is part of the Internet community, they have as much right as anyone to decide what is good content.

                  • You need a sarcasm tag for that. I do get it though. Ha. Ha. Slightly funny. North Face sucks though. What a bunch of dicks.

        • Where's the harm? It's not as if wikipedia or google lost anything in the exchange; point of fact wikipedia apparently got a lot of high quality images for free. Let me tell you; that's a bargain. I just paid 100/shot for some professional images of my business for web use.

          Guess I'm just not that upset about a clever hack which involved the use of a high value gift to the intermediary.

      • "Ethical" is "increase shareholder profits", that's how it passed muster

        Yeah, not considering actual ethics and looking at just the bottom line is the thing that we should actively encourage companies to not do.

        so I'm having a hard time finding fault with their behavior

        Not all things revolve around value, trust is an actual thing. North Face's actions is a violation of trust, which IMHO is a lot more valuable.

        • Yeah, not considering actual ethics and looking at just the bottom line is the thing that we should actively encourage companies to not do.

          Follow that behavior to it's natural conclusion and the economy collapses. That might just be the literal definition of evil.

          Companies absolutely should be prioritizing their own self interests above all else, and that means tempering greed with wisdom. Don't short change your future in order to boost this quarter's numbers, for instance. Screw your staff over at your own peril. ect...

          But to suggest companies should ignore their own financial well being in pursuit of "ethics"? Laughable, and suggestive

          • Follow that behavior to it's natural conclusion

            Well actually you took it to the absolute illogical conclusion, but okay. Asking companies to actually attempt to put forward ethics to some degree isn't asking them to "Eh, you know what? Fuck profit!".

            Companies absolutely should be prioritizing their own self interests above all else, and that means tempering greed with wisdom

            I'm not sure if you understand how in one single sentence you completely contradicted yourself.

            But to suggest companies should ignore their own financial well being in pursuit of "ethics"?

            I didn't suggest that. Allow me to repeat for you what I did say since apparently it got lost somewhere between the monitor that you saw it on and your brain.

            Yeah, not considering actual ethics and looking at just the bottom line is the thing that we should actively encourage companies to not do.

            That is, we should actively encourage companies to no

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      Except that it would set a precedent for advertising on Wikipedia, Wikimedia should send them a hefty bill.

      For what pre-designated service? According to what pre-existing schedule of charges? You cannot simply make up a bill because you feel that someone owes you something after the fact. Well actually, you can, but they're not going to pay it and you're not likely to convince a court to enforce it.

      What North Face did was clever, but clearly abuse of Wikimedia's resources.

      Identify one image use policy [wikipedia.org] that

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

        Identify one image use policy that was broken. Even if you do, you're going to have a hard time getting around this:

        You don't need to zero in on image use policy, as they already have a general policy: WP:NOTADVERTISING [wikipedia.org]

        Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.

        Product placement is not objective, unbiased, nor free of puffery.

        Also, it's not Wikipedia's policies that are important, but Wikimedia Co

    • but clearly abuse of Wikimedia's resources

      How? Wikimedia are no better or worse off as a result.

    • Not sure how that passed the ethical "go" at corporate headquarters.

      Marketers don't seem to have ethics. That is, they do think some techniques are unethical, but they are all techniques others are using. As soon as it becomes effective/practical enough for them to use it, it becomes ethical.

      That is my observation from talking and working with marketers. They have different incentives, and follow their incentives. And there is no IRB.

    • It's not like the company has copyright on these images, though, right? Wikimedia can replace and reuse them for whatever purpose they want, right? Seems like they're contributing to the resource pool while taking a risk on any liability to their brand that they could incur through free redistribution of their brand image.

      On the other hand, North Face. It's not like these people are in the business of encouraging people not to engage in risky behavior in the first place.

  • Ego was their undoing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday May 31, 2019 @02:30PM (#58687022)

    Like any evil James Bond villain, their mistake and eventual undoing was an inexplicable desire to expound on what exactly their great plan was and how they did/planned to do it. And, just like any James Bond villain, their carefully thought out, meticulously executed plan blew up in their face as a result.

  • An SEO service that isn't snake oil!

  • There's an outlet mall about half an hour so from where I live that has a North Face store. Last year I stopped in to look around, just to see what was there (I wasn't looking for anything to buy).

    They had a fleece jacket/pullover/whatever which was price X. Across the parking lot was a Columbia outlet store. They had what looked like the identical fleece jacket/pullover/whatever for half the cost of the North Face one. Both items were manufactured in the same country.

    From what I could tell, the only rea

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      Fashion.
      It's all about fashion: Nike, Hollister, Abercrombie, Prada and all the others . People under 30 still feel that pressure that began in 5th grade to try to one-up their peers. They proudly wear those brand logos on their shirts, shoes, purses and I wouldn't be surprised to see tattoos ... And they don't even get paid to wear those logos, unlike their favorite sports stars.

      Fortunately, people in their 50s tend to outgrow that foolishness and look for more than just a heavily marketed brand name.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      They used to offer good quality products at a premium price point that were decent value for money.

      Now they're all about the brand, and competitors are providing better value for money.

  • It’s too prone to abuse like this and it drowns out the reliable sources that Wikipedia claims to be based on. Wikipedia has been abused like this since the formation of mywikibiz in 2006. Due to the SEO race on the internet i don’t think we will ever get a reliable source not corrupted by commercial interests put first on the internet and thats a real shame since the internet was supposed to be for the public good.

    • I disagree. We shouldn't be throwing out a very useful source of information just because a few people are abusing it.

      In other news people shouldn't have the internet. They can get malware on their computers using it.

    • It’s too prone to abuse like this and it drowns out the reliable sources that Wikipedia claims to be based on.

      Problem is that Google has no good way to find the reliable sources. Websites that are experts on cancer are generally not experts on SEO.

  • This is one of the only examples of marketing I've ever seen where I am actually impressed.

  • "Our mission is to expand our frontiers so that our consumers can overcome their limits"

  • The best Google "hack" of all time was the image you got when you searched for "who created Kirby?".

    For YEARS Google thought Masahito Sakurai was this guy: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/i... [kym-cdn.com]
    (Know Your Meme incorrectly states that it started in 2018, and also incorrectly states it was fixed quickly. It was showing that man for me just a few months ago.)

  • Google's rankings of Wikipedia and similar content should be based on the individual items, not the fact that it's hosted "on Wikipedia."

    Also, they should be wise to gamesmanship and when they spot manipulation, change the rankings accordingly.

    The same goes for any other search engine with the money and resources to do search intelligently rather than naively - Yahoo, Bing, and some others, but not necessarily search.yourmommasbasement5393.com.

    --
    Just crystal-balling things, but it will probably be a matter

  • ... Photoshop the North Face logo on photos of dead Everest climbers.

  • If the photos were better than whatever they replaced, then good on 'em, I say. If the photos were inferior, then they're scum, and I hope they DIAF, IYKWIM. Not literally, but still, fuck those fucking fucks, and the fucks they fucked in on.

  • "Our mission is to expand our frontiers so that our consumers can overcome their limits. With the 'Top of Images' project, we achieved our positioning and placed our products in a fully contextualized manner as items that go hand in hand with these destinations,"

    This is a perfect example of meaningless corp-speak bullshit if I ever saw one.

    • Try this:

      "Our mission is to expand our {strike}frontiers{/strike} profit margins so that our {strike}consumers{/strike} executive team can {strike}overcome their limits{/strike} suck the life out of the working class swine"

  • This would motivate Wikipedia to get better moderators. But, I think their response will be limited to expressing outrage. Maybe Deepmind could train avatars to edit Wikipedia pages. Since the criterion for becoming a moderator is based on the number of edits, the avatars should be able to supplant the human moderators in fairly short order.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jdavidb ( 449077 )
      I used to patrol Wikipedia getting rid of self promotion and spam. But I got tired of dealing with Wikipedia policies being so ridiculous.

  • There is a very easy solution to make sure product placement like this doesn't become common: Vandalism.

    Any time in the future when a company puts product placement on a Wikipedia page, the image should be vandalized in ways to make the company look bad. When the image is uploaded it's licensed CC. So, enjoy internet. Do your thing.

  • But now, I definitely won't.
    It's a subtle negative. In my mind, they'll be that "company that gamed Wikipedia to sell coats", and I'll look at another brand. Based on the assumption that advertisements are more important than quality to them.
    If this goes wide, expand that idea by thousands.

  • Why not give a fuck you to NF, crop out people, and still use the images? I mean they look like nice images, and they probably cost a fair bit.

  • Wikimedia should blur out the brand logos on pix, just like ESPN does, and Gstreets does w/ license plates. Those commercial entities seem to do it cause they're not getting revenue for it, or so not to get sued for something.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close