When writer, Jennifer Belle, was unhappy with the lack of coverage coming from her publicist for her new book, The Seven Year Bitch, she decided to take things into her own hands. According to an interview on PublishingPerspectives…
I put an ad in Backstage requesting actresses, aged 25-75, with compelling and infectious laughs, to read my book on the subway and at New York City landmarks for $8/hr….Approximately 600 actresses sent their headshots and resumes to my personal email address….
I’d let the New York Times reporter Corey Killgannon know about it and he arrived at the audition and filmed and took notes. ..
The week I started the stunt, I sent the girls out in teams of two to the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the steps of the TKTS booth in Times Square, Washington Square Park, and the 1 and L trains. I asked them to pick up a copy of my book from my doorman, meet their teammate at a particular time and place, and then take photos of each other with their phones and text the photos to me throughout their two hour shifts. They also called me when they were finished and reported that they’d had fun, that people had looked, asked about the book, ignored them, etc.
Corey Kilgannon at the New York Times wrote about it in the Metro Section in the Sunday column called Open and Shut and had a video he had taken of the actresses on the steps of the Met and some footage of me, without makeup, at the audition. Then Richard Johnson wrote about it in Page Six…
The best surprise was that other authors blogged about it. Elizabeth McCracken tweeted the New York Times piece. Other writers seemed to take it in the spirit it was intended and called me “their hero.” Judith Regan invited me on her Sirius radio show to talk about it, and I got calls from other shows in America, Germany, and Canada.
Here’s the video of some of the try-outs…
I love to see authors getting seriously creative about their book marketing campaigns, doing wildly-innovative things to raise eyebrows and get attention for their books. And, Belle’s stunt definitely qualifies. Hell, I’m writing about it and linking to it here, and lots of others have done the same.
But, is it right?
As a blogger, when I write about a book, if I have even the slightest potential for financial gain, the FTC says I now need to disclose that relationship on my blog. Testimonials and reviews for books, movies and other works in mainstream media are also required to be real. There’s a reason for that. Because if people cannot distinguish between a genuine opinion and an ad, anarchy breaks out and the world order falls.
Okay, so maybe that was a wee bit of an overstatement, I doubt any pillars of society will come crumbling down simply because Jennifer paid a handful of people to laugh. But still, people just don’t like to feel duped. It’s why so many people were so angry when the truth about A Million Little Pieces came out, even though people still loved the actual read.
So, I’m curious, how do you guys feel about this?
Get FREE updates:
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
Bold! I like it.
When you think about how slots on the NYT bestseller list can be bought…I say, more power to her. But, I’m not going to lie, she’s a woman with the tables and couches stacked against her and so it’s easy to cheer her on in this case. If it was a white, male, corporate America, I wouldn’t feel that way.
If Coke paid people to drink their product while simultaneously simulating orgasms, rapture, true love or lottery winning – I’d be pissed.
Hmmmm….
Really? You’d feel that way about a man doing it?
I’m surprised to hear that, especially if you’re combining white/male with corporate America as a general rule.
It’s not so much the man vs. woman angle – so much as the underdog vs. corporate vulture.
Still, don’t pretend that women are equal to men in this or any arena. As a whole the only place we have you licked is in our ability to reproduce.
I with you here, Nathan – I think it is a win. It’s incredibly creative in a time when gumption and doing it different are critical.
Is it a win?
The real question is, was anyone influenced to purchase her book because of the performances or was it merely a stunt to get publicity?
If the performances were successful in driving sales (which I highly doubt they were) we would begin to see more of it and THEN it might be a problem worth addressing. But if (as I suspect) it was only a ruse to get media attention then I say, what’s new?
People have been doing stunts to get media attention for ages and this was just that, a stunt.
It’s funny, as I read the description of what took place, I actually thought of “A Million Little Pieces” before even seeing you connect the two. It never really bothered me that the book was fiction, just that a deception had occurred.
Same here. It’s not different than fake testimonials on Amazon or paid endorsements from people who’ve never actually used your product. It doesn’t make me think less of the product, but it does make me think less of the person providing it. The rules should be consistent across the board; if it is illegal for a blogger to misrepresent endorsements for personal gain, it should be illegal for any deceptive advertisement to occur.
Perhaps a better approach would have been to have the women be honest about the fact that they were promoting the piece. People would have still noticed what was going on but not felt lied to when the truth came out.
This has win written all over it. Creative marketing, sometimes just having a good book isn’t enough.
I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing something like this. It would feel like lying to me.
But my story is more about authenticity, transparency and a great fast read. We each have to go with what works for us.
Our culture is moving towards a paradigm of “Get noticed or starve.”
And by “starve,” I am speaking literally.
This is fine when it’s limited to the arts and entertainment.
Not sure what I think about it when it percolates down to software engineering (which it has) and machine operators (I think we’re going there).
Can we all be rock stars, all at the same time?
What if we don’t want to be rock star? What then?
We can all be rock stars, if…
You define a rock star as someone with 100,000 fans
Only 25% of the world WANTS to be a rock star
We take turns being a rock star for two days each
Just saying.
Hey Dave, I can say from personal experience that it’s not fine when “get noticed or starve” is limited to arts and entertainment. Sadly, highly trained and educated artists and musicians get wrapped up in the same old marketing smoke and mirrors as every wannabee pop star on YouTube because of this perception.
We’re all in the same boat, and it’s not ok for some and not for others. We all have to get noticed somehow but that’s not the point surely. It’s about *sustaining* the attention.
I look at what this author did and think *creative pr* but I wonder if there was something of substance to the book that developed a more lasting platform….
Jonathan,
I like the creative approach for certain. As you know – selling books has been a rigged system for years. Is this the best way? Hardley – but I do know that playing by the rules only benefits those who are in a position to make them.
Since her publicity “stunt” worked – I wonder how many others will think about fighting back with unique tactics like Jennifer?
Beyond lame. This is word-of-mouth marketing at its darkest.
Good for her! I like the idea a lot. I think it’s a funny way to promote a funny book.
I love the idea.
HOWEVER – to prevent such feelings of deception the actresses should have had to read the book as a requirement. Why? For a few reasons:
1. You wouldn’t have had 600 applicants, thereby reducing the time she wasted sorting through headshots and resumes.
2. It’d be obvious in an interview who actually read the book and furthermore, who actually enjoyed it.
3. You narrow your hiring list down to those who actually loved the book – then when they are asked about the book at their location they can be truthful – if they wouldn’t recommend it to their mother, sister, or friend, they shouldn’t have the job.
4. It gets you UNPAID marketing. How? Well if one of these actresses is reading the book to get the job and they tell one person about it, who then asks how she’s liking the book…dialogue has just been created that may not have occured ordinarily.
Either way, I love this out-of-the-box idea. Good on her!
Yes, they should have been required to read the book.
If they’re laughing at nothing, they’re just a paid laughtrack.
If they’re laughing at _something_ they’re only being paid to do it in a particular place at a particular time.
The difference for me is whether the laughing is sincere.
Kyla, I’m intrigued by your comments here and below. I get your perspective and I love your passion. I want to read more.
Have you no website? Twitter? Where can I get more of Kyla?
When something is a paid advertisement, it should be obvious to the consumer. Even though this might be a cute marketing idea, I think it’s unethical because it’s misleading. Is this what it takes nowadays to sell a book?!? As a fellow author, I think this type of theatrics is insulting to those of us who value honesty and integrity in our work.
Woman’s a genius. I am off to hire some gorgeous male models to promote my “120 Second Gut Gone Challenge”
Right away
It’s advertising, and that’s always been an attempt to trick us.
Is advertising always about trickery? I see it as getting the word out. Sometimes it’s an attempt to trick us, but I’d like to think sometime sit’s just to help those who would want it, be able to find it easier.
It is advertising tho – and like all advertising we won’t know how well it worked for sales for a while (or ever). And then it gets hard to even decide if it actually worked, or if it’s just the media attention it got that ended up working.
I’m curious if you truly think that all advertising is trickery.
You advertise products on your site, don’t you?
I love the times we live in – these morality of marketing questions n’ all. It was the right stunt for her, and I have to give her props for the cleverness, it’s amusing and charming. But it’s trickery, and at the end of the day, no one likes being tricked.
Publicity of this kind has existed for years, so I can’t see the problem at all. It would pique my curiosity and since curiosity is the best medicine for attracting people, I’d say she did well. I think this business of “FTC” is well over the top. All publicity is somehow linked to a company. And almost 50% of all our so-called news is publicity. I don’t see any “FTC” stuff there. So nope. She did well.
This is what publicity’s all about. And if it worked for her, it worked for her. Good on her, as we’d say here in New Zealand.
What she now has is actual news coverage and attention from all of us. I now know about her book and will look for it at the bookstore. If I like the jacket and the first page or so I’ll buy. She got over that first hurdle seeking out the book. Now the writing will seal the deal or not.
I’d say great work Jennifer!
I vote yes! Well, yes to the ethics — not 100% yes as a marketer, because the unresolved question is “How many books did this help sell?” But as Tyler said, it was an advertising campaign. The tactic was unusual, but the strategy has been around for a while.
By the way, my book comes out next month and I’m looking for a few non-conformists with facial tattoos to read my book at some hipster hangout spots. Anyone??
Chris, Tyler said that advertising has “always been an attempt to trick us.”
As someone who I respect, are you telling me that when you advertise your products you’re making the attempt at tricking us too? If so, how is THAT ethical? Or does the end justify the means?
Really curious if I’m misunderstanding you.
Two women reading from a book on the steps of the Met is like performance art. Anyone watching or listening would know it’s not real. If they found the words compelling and that interested them in the book, then great. It’s actually better than any blurb on a book jacket because it puts the words, the work out there for people to hear. They can then judge for themselves whether or not they want to spend the money to buy the book.
Kudos to the Jennifer Belle for her creativity and daring!
I agree that the sincerity of the laughter is key. Having one of those big, infectious laughs myself, I know that if it ain’t funny, I can’t fake it.
Were I concocting this stunt for my book (and if I really, really thought it was funny from page 1), I would have the first couple of chapters posted on my web site, and make reading those a prerequisite to getting an interview; did the applicant laugh out loud? Does she think she will continue to laugh out loud as she reads in public?
But overall, it’s less disturbing a stunt than the ham-fight staged in the season premiere of “Mad Men.”
“The rules should be consistent across the board; if it is illegal for a blogger to misrepresent endorsements for personal gain, it should be illegal for any deceptive advertisement to occur.”
I’m curious how one would apply this standard to actors/models in commercials/print adverts professing a certain preference for the products they’re selling. Or are we to assume that because these are already standard and well-known venues for paid endorsement, that they wouldn’t count?
I really don’t see how two women paid to pretend to enjoy a book on the steps of a public venue is anything less than a live commercial, but I’d welcome someone enlightening me as to why they would feel differently.
Well, I think it’s definitely creative.
But, it still rubs me the wrong way. If I bought the book and figured out later that it was on the recommendation of an actress, I’d feel duped. Not a nice feeling for sure.
Happens in most creative industries! Has NOTHING to do with ethics!
– a Artist invites his family and friends to his Art Gallery Showing, they love the works;
– a Theater Producer (or the House Manager) “papers the house” with free or discount seats to the comedy that needs laughers & clappers & a full house for its review dates (and every performance thereafter);
– a TV-show tapes in front of a live audience who has been bussed in for free, fed, given prizes, told jokes between set-ups, coached when to interact, are photographed laughing — even shown the flashing light for when to applaud;
– Political stump speeches are packed with the donating supporters in the front rows to nod and applaud!
– Book reviews are often written by other Authors in the genre that want favorable reviews for their own books!
– An Author asks his friends to review his book “honestly” on Amazon to up his ratings —
– “Retweet clubs” — mailing list promoting of your colleague’s next launch — testimonials on products that earn the quoted a commission — and I’m only naming off the top of my head those industries that your readership may be familiar with — don’t get me started on how Congressional Aides get their jobs, how Judges’ Clerkships are assigned, or how Fortune 500 Boardrooms are staffed!
Yes,” just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it’s right” (where you got “ethical” is beyond me), but what do ethics have to do with Belle’s stunt?! Is it any different than an actor or a celebrity or a spokesman on TV saying “This is the best XYZ”? NO.
Do people feel “duped” if they believe a commercial?
Maybe, if they’re children, foreign to our culture, or morons. And what’s wrong with letting someone (absurdly) feel “duped” the first time? They learn from it — was there REALLY any complaint from angry book buyers feeling duped when they were forced to buy a book on the false promises those laughing actresses made them?
“False advertising” has legal definitions. None of these examples, especially not Belle’s stunt, come anywhere close.
The “Million Little Pieces” FRAUD has nothing whatsoever to do with this stunt, or this ethics questions you have. “Fraud” has legal definitions, too.
Find me an industry that DOESN’T do what she did — which has zero ethical implications — THAT would be news.
Wound-up fan of yours and of common sense,
~GIrlPie
Gee, why’d this hit such a nerve with me, Jonathan? Guess I’m still worked up over the MPAA board last night arguing that a kiss was inappropriate for a certain age but a beheading was not. Talk about ethics!
Ha ha, TheGirlPie gets her rant on.
Unless I’m misunderstanding it, there was no obvious way to know that the women were actresses and that’s where I think the deception comes in. But, when we watch a commercial or ad, we know it’s a commercial or ad….
At what age do we ‘know’ it’s a commercial or add? At what point do we really think Tiger Woods likes Nike because it rocks or because they pay him?
People believe what they’d like to. I can tell a close friend that a book is REALLY good and they won’t do anything about that. But they might overhear it in a store and go buy it (true story).
I think – if it works and translates to sales – why not. It’s not like we’re gonna get overrun with it. Fake people won’t be everywhere talking about every product. It doesn’t matter – if someone chooses to be snoopy and listen in on a strangers convo then it really doesn’t bother me if that convo is ‘fake’. And it may not be fake, it may just have started because money was involved.
Naomi, I think that the women were actresses may be a red herring. The impression I got was that she was looking for people with exceptional laughs to actually read the book, so that when they DID laugh at portions of the book, it would be obvious and get attention. (In other words, she didn’t want people who were just going to smile to themselves at the funny parts instead of laughing out loud.)
If they actually were faking reading the book, that’s one thing. But if they were paid $8 an hour to read a book that they actually found funny (and worth laughing at), then no, I don’t think there’s any actual deception involved.
Yes, this. Every word.
Well said.
Moralizing about PR strategy is the ulitmate oxymoron;) Reading this I could only recall my former life working in a large PR agency/smoke & mirrors factory. We would’ve gotten some big bucks for dreaming up a stunt like this – and at the end of the day, it is indeed trickery, as Danielle notes. But MOST “innovative” PR strategy is just that. The fact that she got the NYTImes on board before she even went public is testament to her PR savvy (and the state of journalism today)….hats off, I say.
But I do think you have to be hip to your intended audience before trying a stunt like this. She’s an irreverent, kick-ass author (she did pen, Little Stalker, right?), so it worked because most of her target readers find the stunt to be funny and clever. But I wonder how folks would’ve reacted if it was an author who had hired a bunch of faux- evangelicals to read his book about the Bible on street corners while crying? Probably would prompt an uproar….which of course would help generate some press and sell the book;)
On audience: While this catered to her current tribe of followers, what about those who haven’t been “sold” on her work? This might keep the fans happy, but I seriously doubt it added a slew of new ones. Having no knowledge of her previous work, I wouldn’t have known this to be a snarky, clever way to get me to buy her book. And I wouldn’t want to take the energy to find out.
It’s a risk I wouldn’t have taken. Not worth the eye-rolls you could get from potential readers.
When I first read and ret-weeted this story I thought, how savvy. Her PR company failed doing all the institutional BS they probably learned about in “school”. And probably kept her money for the effort. I like @Karla’s perspective. Jennifer Belle (the author) will most likely get more mileage out of the press coverage of the marketing tactic, than the effect the models would have with their personal influence. The PR firm she hired will most likely be using this tactic in their arsenal before its all said and done. : ))
The other part of me thinks it is a bit deceptive. But, then again all new marketing tactics are rebuked as deceptive. Think back to infomercials when they were first deregulated by Reagan.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/index.htm?job=wt_investment_scams
Infomercials at one time were thought to be too effective.
@Stephanie…PhD, Actors in Hollywood have been getting paid for years to “endorse” products. This is no different. Just a bit unique for the book industry. “Value, Integrity and honesty” are judgment calls typically from people in positions of authority or influence. Jennifer acted on this idea after her PR firm failed, more out of desperation to try something new. Or perhaps you’d rather she keep her “values” in tact and starve? : )) But, I do see your point, where is the line drawn?
Sorry, wrong link (that was on fraud)
This link is about the general history on infomercials including the deregulation point I was try to make:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Federal_Communications_Commission
I think it’s a great way to get attention, but I don’t think it’s ethical if people don’t know that it’s an ad campaign.
Is it ethical for a seller to have accomplices raving about his products, and pretending to buy from him with enthusiasm and confidence, even though they’re not really buying?
Is it ethical for a business owner to post fake testimonials on his site?
I don’t think so.
Well most people are pretty darned smart these days. You can attempt to pull a fast one, but they quickly understand what’s happening. I don’t think that people are as easily duped when they see something so weird. Having ten women laugh in tandem is a bit over the top anyway. Just looking at it seems weird, and hence looks very promotional.
It’s perfectly ethical to do what she’s doing. It looks like an ad to me alright. One woman laughing is one thing. Many of them signals to everyone that there’s some sort of advertising. What’s smart is the way she went about things. That’s the smart stuff.
Her strategy was more important than anything else.
She didn’t have 10, she had teams of 2. Even 10 still feels slimy to me, but less slimy than 2.
Well…
It seems a lot of people seem to think “ethical” is synonomous with “fair” or having an “even playing field”. It isn’t.
As someone IN advertising, this isn’t unethical because people didn’t “know” they were being paid.
I assume the actresses were loud and behaved in a manner intended to draw attention; two girls sitting and discussing a book wouldn’t otherwise. Having said that, their behaviour might seem out of the ordinary – just as a flash mob in Central Station in Antwerp might. Do you watch the flash mob and feel deceived? After all, these people are PAID TO DANCE but are under no obligation to tell the viewers they’ve been paid. In fact, it’s done to look spontaneous…much like Belle’s innovative approach. (View said flash mob video here: http://bit.ly/bfoLUK)
You watch the video of the flash mob and you know it is staged because it is so out of the ordinary. Couldn’t the same be said for Belle’s method? Such behaviour isn’t of the social norm – couldn’t it to be staged? Those who feel “tricked” and “duped” aren’t upset that the actresses didn’t clarify that they were hired; they’re upset because THEY FELL FOR IT – the ad plan worked.
This strategy is not unethical. For it to be unethical is would have to misrepresent or mislead – not verbalizing that they were paid is NOT MISLEADING. I have done freelance work for people – both paid and unpaid – and at no point am I required to disclose to those who view my work (mostly ads) whether or not I was paid. I did it as a favour, and not even necessarily because I like the product but because I wanted the experience.
Misleading advertising relates to the message being delivered which, in this case, is “we think this is a good book”, not “we weren’t paid to do this”. To debate whether this is “ethical” or not because the actresses didn’t disclose that it was a paid advertisement in LIVE THEATRE is not only irrelvent, but completely misses the mark of what “ethics” is about.
In response to Haider who asks (rhetorically – but I’m gonna give a response regardless) if it is ethical for a business owner to post fake testimonials: ethics doesn’t matter in the case as it is actually illegal in advertising. It violates advertising law. “Legal” and “ethical” are not synonomous and they can both exist without the other.
Love TheGirlPie’s response – someone clearly has done her research! The ‘Million Little Pieces” author wrote a book and tried to pass it off as an autobiography and stated that it was FACTUAL when it wasn’t. That is NOT the same thing. THAT is deception.
It’s not about whether or not deception has taken place, it’s about how those deceived feel about it, and particularly if it was for personal gain, or some other reason.
If I went to a movie opening in a crowded theatre, then later found out most of the audience were friends and family of the producer, I don’t think I’d care.
If I walked past a sidewalk cafe and overheard two people in raptures over the crepes, and then after I’d ordered them found out they were acting, I’d be annoyed at the deception.
I’m also appalled at the apparent general acceptance of the use of deception for personal gain. Really? Since advertising is all lies, that makes it okay?
Deception for personal gain is wrong. Always. If you believe otherwise, post a note saying so on your business website and see how it helps your business. (Or maybe just condone it publicly in the comments on a popular blog, and see how your clientele reacts when they stumble across it.)
Know this: if you’ve stated above that you like this idea, that deception for personal gain is just part of our current business society, I’ll not be doing business with you in any way, shape or form.
“It’s not about whether or not deception has taken place, it’s about how those deceived feel about it, and particularly if it was for personal gain, or some other reason.”
You just contradicted yourself. You can’t be “deceived” if deception hasn’t taken place.
It is NOT deception. No one, at any point in time, is required to notify whether or not they have been paid for work.
Again, the situation wasn’t done with people EAVESDROPPING on a private conversation. It was made to call attention! They ATTRACT people to the scenario. What you choose to take away from it is on you, and if you choose to feel deceived one could easily assume – and many psychologists would – that you’re insecure and have trust issues.
Again, you’re not mad that you’ve been “deceived” because you haven’t – for them to deceive you they’d actually have to tell you they WEREN’T paid. Does anyone know what the proper definition of deceit is here? It’s to mislead or falsely pursuade others – and they didn’t do that as an opinion on a book is open for differences – it is not fact or truth. They weren’t persuading people it’s a good book, but they were persuading people to talk about it!
That is NOT the ethical standard at all, but I’m not surprised you think so. It’s OK to lie to someone as long as they don’t care? That is a pure rationalization. The act of deception is unethical, and whether or not people put up with it is 100% irrelevant. Is spousal abuse Ok if the wife says she doesn’t mind or deserves it? Absurd, and ethically obtuse.
What she did was indeed clever; it’s a shame that her agent didn’t come up with a better technique – so I can’t blame her. So many marketers are quick to point out that there are no guarantees for results – and yet they want to be paid a lump sum as opposed to be paid BASED ON ACTUAL RESULTS. Not sure how she was deceptive; a large majority of us are subjected to ads, whether they include paid actors or family members. Everybody has something to sell these days – the trick is being effective, standing out from competitors, having a USP and getting free publicity whenever possible.
–Joe Breunig
Reaching Towards His Unbounded Glory
Jonathan First of all, thanks for taking me on your trip. How many times have we bought something we think is unique wonderful and our own idea – just to find it really is the latest “style”. The trends are planned two seasons ahead of time. Most of the time we have no clue that we have been getting the message about what will be in style. Kudos to creativity and doing your own marketing.
Unless you’re Dan Brown, Nora Roberts, Stephen King or James Patterson publishing houses don’t put much (read: NONE) effort into promoting their authors. This leaves authors with having to write and market their books in between everything else they need to do. Most authors are still in the ice ages when it comes to marketing themselves or their books. I say good for her for having the balls to put herself out there and get the press she needed. I think she set up some clever ‘live ads’ and got attention for her book.
Think of yourself at a park etc. and you find someone laughing out loud at what they’re reading. Would you really blindly run out and get that book or would you read the back cover blurb to see if the read was a good fit for you?
Questioning the ethics of this and comparing it to the fraud of A million Little Pieces seems ludicrous when the two have no bearing on each other. The fact is you’re playing into her marketing strategy by writing about what she did and questioning the right or wrong of it. You have readers commenting, getting intrigued by the book(maybe, maybe not) and perhaps running out to buy it. Unethical? I don’t think so.
Call this what it is – a marketing strategy to get her face time, get her book press time and build awareness of her latest project. Book reviews are opinions and could be considered trickery too.
There are any number of writers online who have participated in stunts to sell their books. They have people they know and who are fans interview them re: the book in question. Does anyone ever do a negative interview and post it on their blog? No! They rave and goo-goo ga-ga over how wonderful the author and their latest project is. Is that unethical?
I think the whole FTC’s a crock of poo anyway. No one can force anyone to buy anything so I say good on her. However, it’s a bit sad that writers have to stoop so low to get attention to their writing. It would be great to think that if you write a good book it will be a best seller even if you don’t go for such desperate measures.
It’s good to see that questions of ethics can still be raised and provoke such a lively on-line dialogue. As a professor of religious studies in-class conversations often turn to questions of ethics. As a an author (of Yiddish Yoga: Ruthie’s Adventures in Love, Loss and the Lotus Position) I have sales challenging, exciting, and frustrating all in the same day . If I go ride a unicycle down Broadway half naked giving away free martinis and free yoga classes will my book get more attention? Maybe. Will I lose dignity? Who knows?
Her actions appear to be desperate and deceptive, treating those actresses as pawns in her larger, selfish scheme. But we are a country that gives Sarah Palin a lot of media attention.
I will be on a panel discussing Social Media this Sunday, August 8th at the JCC in NYC on Amsterdam (at 76th). I’d love to discuss further.
I mentioned this in an earlier reply to Naomi Niles, but I wanted to expand on it because I think it’s an important point: that the women were actresses may be a red herring. We assume that “actress” (and “actor”) means “someone who plays a role”. But “actress” could carry a secondary meaning here: “someone who’s comfortable being around people, who’s actively looking for work, and who knows that she has certain characteristics”.
People are, I think, assuming that the actresses were paid to hold the book and laugh, and I’m not at all certain that that’s necessarily true. I think it’s just as easy to draw the conclusion that the actresses were paid to sit on the subway and read the book and respond naturally to the content, and the audition – and request for “compelling and infectious laughs” – was to make certain that a) the actresses actually thought the book was funny, and b) the actresses’ natural response was to laugh in a way that got attention.
To use Joel’s example from earlier, it’s the difference between the manager saying, “sit outside with these half-eaten crepes and talk them up” and the manager saying, “sit outside, order your favorite dish, and discuss the food so bystanders can hear you.” Both of them are, functionally, paid advertisements – but the latter is the expression of the diners’ actual opinions. They’re just getting paid to give them.
I’ll expand the thought experiment: let’s say you were out to eat at a restaurant with a friend, and the manager came up to you while you were in line and said “Do exactly what you were going to do anyway, but sit at one of my outside tables, and I’ll comp your bill.” Would your sitting at the outside table and otherwise going about your meal normally constitute unethical marketing?
She called a NYTimes reporter and told him about the stunt. She NEVER tried to hide what she was doing. So how is this deception? She told a huge media outlet exactly what she was doing, and why, and encouraged coverage by as many sources as possible. To accuse her of being deceptive is just… bizarre.
If she had denied coming up with the market campaign, denied hiring the actresses, refused to talk to anyone about it, and insisted that anyone seen laughing and talking about her book were doing it entirely on their own – THAT would have been deceptive – the equivalent of a fake testimonial. But from what I can see, she was completely honest about what she was doing.
What do you expect her to do? Have the actresses hand out notes to everyone passing by explaining the whole stunt to them? Please. People aren’t that stupid (unless they’re the FTC – they apparently need everything spelled out in large flashing letters).
Finally! Someone who fully understands what it is to deceive!
People should be more pissed with the archaic way bestseller lists are compiled than with this publicity stunt. Would I do this? No. But I applaud her for her creativity in an industry that insists on continuing to rely a broken bestseller system.
And for those who bought the book, loved it, and then found out about the stunt and felt duped… c’mon! Get a life. If you liked the book, be happy. Let it go.
Creative, clever, aggressive, pro-active—and obviously unethical. The actress/readers are being paid to “enjoy” the book and representing otherwise: a lie. What is actually a live promotional stunt for the book is only effective because people have been made to think it is spontaneous: deceptive.
Imagine a restaurant that pays an actor to eat its most expensive meal at a table while exhibiting ecstasy in the superb taste of the food, and telling every table within earshot how wonderful it is. Fakery, plain and simple—and it doesn’t matter whether the food is really good or not. The Frey comparison is a good one. The story was compelling because people thought it was real.
This is unethical. No doubt about it.
What is disturbing is the rationale that says: “Well, if corporate America does it then why shouldn’t we?” or even more disturbing: “If it works why not?”
If I must deceive to sell my product, is my product worth selling? It doesn’t matter whether it works or if everyone else does it (last phrase almost sounds adolescent, doesn’t it?)! At what price am I willing to sell my integrity?
And in regard to just doing what corporate America does: I believe Nietzsche once said, “Beware when fighting the dragon, lest you become the dragon.”
Am I missing something here? I don’t understand why it’s trickery. If I saw two women reading a book out loud in public, taking pictures of each other and laughing heartily, there is NO WAY I would think it was just two gal-pals having a good time with a book they both love. I would definitely assume it was some kind of performance/promotion. AND I would be immediately curious about the book. Did I miss something about this? Where is the trickery?
You’re not missing a thing, Valerie — except maybe the answer to “who felt duped?” You’re just seeing a smart blog topic do what a smart book author intended to have done about her completely kosher PR stunt to win attention for her business (her book): get people talking.
Some of the talk is knowledgeable, like that from Belle and Killgannon themselves (if you’ve read more than the overview question originally posed in the post), and from other people who know, understand, and work with the legal (and societal) definitions of ‘false advertising’, ‘fraud,’ ‘unethical,’ ‘deception,’ and ‘theater.’ (Or even ‘commerce,’ ‘advertising,’ ‘marketing’ or ‘personal responsibility.’)
And some of the talk is personal opinion, misplaced moralizing, wishful thinking, emotional reaction, naivete, or misunderstanding of the terms in use in this post and comments. Plus some knee-jerking at buzzwords.
The only thing really missing from this post or discussion is any evidence whatsoever of unhappy book buyers. Which book buyer reports being tricked? Who complained of being duped after they read the book? (The can still return the book for a refund if they’re upset about feeling like the patsy they may be.) Who reports being treated “unethically?” Who reported a scam? Did sales even get a bump? Somehow, those facts are missing in the threats here to never do business with anyone who likes Belle’s proactive approach — which was all out in the open — to make a living selling her book. There was no fraud; no scam, this is not an ethics issue. Those accusations have legal definitions. There is no support for the indignation. You didn’t miss anything.
Now — maybe there IS a woman who bought the comic novel on the sole basis of hearing two strangers enjoy it — then read it and felt it unworthy of a stranger’s laugh on the street, and therefore felt unhappy with herself for making such a purchase… and maybe, if there IS such a woman, unhappy with a $20 purchase made on the sole (?!) weight of two strangers’ laugh, she discovered this PR stunt that mesmerized her into the unworthy purchase — she’d be delighted to have now someone to blame her purchase on rather that take personal responsibility for buying said book… from a previously published author… with rave blurbs on the cover… carried by major booksellers.
Have there been returns of the book? Have there been letters or posts or outcry reporting being tricked, duped, misled, or any other personal problem the buyer could have with their book purchase?
There’s something missing here, all right. But it’s not you. Thanks for joining the discussion.
More of the same rationalization. So its OK for a seller to tell lies about a car, a piece of real estate, any commodity, if the purchaser who was tricked into buying it convinces himself that it wasn’t such a bad deal? All your posts are down-the line “the ends justifies the means” rationalizations.
My last visit here, Mr. EthicsAlarms.com, just to correct your misunderstandings and broad-strokes accusations that really miss the point of the post, of most of the comments, and specifically, of my comment you chose to reply to — read slowly, okay?
a) My comment to Valerie was not rationalization, just fact — (which you don’t have to like, and I respect that you have a strong opinion about the facts, but they are just facts);
b) I did not talk about or condone “lying” — nor is anyone talking about selling cars, real estate, or selling anything, we’re talking about a marketing stunt — (the post did not even have sales figures for the book); my comments are factual about one (completely common, accepted, legal, understood) stunt to market a book by the book’s author — see? Nothing about lying;
c) You only assume that there was a book buyer solely as a result of witnessing this PR stunt, and you assume that there was a buyer who “was” tricked — but that’s not a fact you have, is it? (When we assume we make an… oh, you know that one, don’t you?);
d) “All of” my 2 comments (not posts) are not in any way “down-the line ‘the ends justifies the means’ rationalizations” — and I should know, I wrote them. You can state that you think they are; but you can’t state your opinion as fact, right?
I sorry if you misunderstood my sharing facts about the PR (public relations) method, or didn’t like my asking for facts of any outrage that the book’s buyers might have had (I can’t imagine it being even close to your reaction though.)
I’m sorry if you determine that actresses you’ve never met must be lying if they laugh at a funny book or enjoy their work… although, calling people liars, with no factual basis, seems a little un– oh gosh, what’s the word — ?
And while I’m sorry you make these sad, negative presumptions, it’s so great you have such a passion for it. Really, I understand passion, it’s good for the soul, good for comments, good for bloggers.
But around here, Jack, we might share facts and opinions and ideas and feelings and questions and solutions about an issue raised in a post — even share presumptions — but we don’t attack our fellow commenters’ position, their expression of it, nor their useful, civil, factual content. There’s this whole respect thing we rely on in social media.
That’s what keeps it social, yes?
Yes~
It’s nice to be able to define away the facts, which is what your post does. FACT: “Actresses” were recruited to read a book in public and laugh realistically. That IS deception. If the intent was not deception, then, actresses would not be recruited and auditioned according to which was more convincing conveying faux enjoyment.
FACT: the ethics of dishonest conduct does not rest on whether the dishonest conduct actually deceived anyone, or whether those deceived end up happy anyway. This was the fallacy Oprah initially adopted when she too a “who cares?” approach to the revelations about “A Thousand Little Pieces,” which is why that was an apt analogy in the original post..FACT: deceptive marketing is deceptive selling and a deceptive consumer practice. In real estate, it is considered unethical for a broker to have friends crowding into an open house (and, worse, making positive comments about the space) to make honest buyers feel that the property is desirable. In theater, it is unethical to have claques of friends laughing and applauding at a comedy to convince reviewers that the play is funny. FACT: communicating the staged enjoyment of a book by a hired actress posing as a genuine reader is dishonest communication and therefore a lie. That is definitional; it is not opinion, it is not abuse.
Your concept of what is acceptable appear to consist of… “other industries use unethical tactics” (Rationalization); it did no harm (rationalization); the lie was intended to draw attention, not to deceive. (rationalization) and “It worked.” (And that’s the ends justify the means.)
There’s a lot of self-serving cheating and lying out there already, and shrugging off a dishonest practice, even one as relatively trivial as this, just defines conduct down more. You seem to think being archly dismissive—”misplaced moralizing,” for example—I’ve heard them all; “sanctimonious” is another favorite, and they all mean “how dare you call me on my unethical behavior?”—of legitimate ethical concerns is less offensive than being direct. It isn’t.
Um, no. It’s acting, and it’s the crucial distinction you’re missing here and why I (and many of the other commentators feel you’re way off-base.
The fact that you might not be deceived doesn’t change the fact that the objective was to deceive.
…And the fact that she admitted what the stunt was is irrelevant to those who happened to witness it, unless she was present at every sham reading. “What was she supposed to do?” Are you kidding me? How about: “Not scam the public”? Every potential book buyer in New York doesn’t read the minutiae in the Times.
Meanwhile, saying the tactic is despicable for Coke but OK for her defies reason. Cheating is OK to get to the top, but once you’re there, you’re supposed to stop? Yeah, that’s worked well. Unbelievable.
Jack, your entire argument rests on the notion that the laughter was falsified.
Would you please point out, for the class, the exact line in any story about this incident where anything even remotely like “the laughter was not genuine laughter” was uttered?
Also: I appreciate that you’ve emotionally invested in your position and you want to defend it, but you’re coming very close to leveling attacks at people who disagree with you. Take a couple deep breaths before you come back to the conversation, please.
This is a stretch, Chris. Really. She recruited actresses with infectious laughs. Why not audition readers who genuinely found the book funny? Why hire an actress if she isn’t supposed to “act”? This isn’t exactly a new tactic you know—sending out people to ohh and ahh about a product for pay. It’s a well-established form of consumer fraud, Why go to such lengths to pretend its OK?
Yeah, I get cranky when people use “everybody does it” to excuse dishonesty. Look around us and read the news, and you should be cranky too.
It seems to me that her main goal was to get the author from the NY Times to write about her publicity efforts and not necessarily to generate buzz just from the people standing around the City. Because she let the reporter in on the “secret” from the beginning, I don’t have much of a problem with what she did. If she had misled the reporter — or brought him in after the actresses had already been cast — then I would have a problem with it. She paid some actresses to do some performance art, got a great article in the NY Times and generated a ton of buzz for her book.
Hey gang,
Love the healthy debate, it’s clear many of you feel VERY strongly about this issue and are willing to share your views. I love that! Have at it!
Just a quick note on tone, though – the comments here are a wonderful place for conversation, and you’re welcome to agree or disagree with me or any other fellow tribesters as strongly as you like,
BUT…I do have rules for the comments section, the main one being…PLEASE KEEP IT RESPECTFUL! Personal attacks or hate-speech won’t fly here (not that this is happening, just offering this quick reminder, as this is such a heated topic).
Failure to honor this rule will find your house surrounded by an army of paid actors, reading ramdon books and laughing like loud, wild hyenas through mega-phones for 72 straight hours. Capiche?!
Thanks, and rock on. : )
Um, no—Michael, actually “acting” outside of a an announced or disclosed performance IS lying, regardless of what you and some other commentators might erroneous maintain to make the unethical look swell.. And “acting” on the stand as a witness is perjury. Go ahead—try it. Or try impersonating someone at a bank and argue that you’re “acting.” This is just spin and deceit to avoid the obvious verdict on the PR stunt, which is that it was deceptive, hence dishonest, hence unethical.
I actually understand acting rather well, as i teach it, am a professional stage director and run a theater company. I know lying well, too, as I am a lawyer. The distinction you are trying to make is as transparently wrong as it is laughable.
If only the FTC knew that even unbiased opionions are actually biased and emotionally driven, right
… (as long as we’re humans and not Vulcans)
Skilled thinking and truly objective reviews against criteria is a bit extreme for typical rants and raves which are the frailty and beauty of blogging.
I like how the Greeks did it — the onus was on the citizens to perform critical thinking and flex their rhetoric skills and evaluate the merits of a speaker’s claims (even then it was always a combo of ethos, pathos, logos.)