When Does "Marketing" Go Too Far? Your Views On This...

16 replies
Hey guys,

Was reading through on mu Iphone this morning and found a story about an Internet Marketer setting up a limited company as "Amy Winehouse Foundation LTD" and registering the domain as well.

This was all done on the 2nd August just days after the stars death.

The guy has nothing to do with the family and when asked about it he said:

""I'm not exploiting anything yet. I've just bought some domain names. Anybody could have. It only takes the click of a mouse. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed. Detach yourself from emotions and think business.""She's not the only Amy Winehouse in the world."

It then escalated to a Twitter row.

So what are your views on this?

When does simple marketing become heartless and just "business"?

If you have seen the Godfather you will recall the line that is said thousands of times:

"It is just business" - funny that in MY experience NOTHING is EVER just business.

Interested to hear your views.

You can read the full story here:

Internet squatter accused of hijacking Amy Winehouse Foundation web address | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au

Chris Jones
#marketing #views
  • Profile picture of the author dv8domainsDotCom
    If she didn't care enough about her own life, why would I care about somebody exploiting her death? She's not a martyr, saint or villian to me. The proverbial 'line' is crossed if/when that individual scams donations pretending to be official. Profitting from it (her death) ok in my mind. Impersonation? not so much. I think this d-bag just got busted before he could set up his paypal 'donate' button.
    Signature
    Support a Warrior, Save Money!
    Rock Bottom Prices on Domains and Website Hosting
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4526569].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      It's what I call "leech marketing" - but it won't be decided by a bunch of people tweeting one liners.

      Her name does not appear to be trademarked but attempts to profit from it will be countered by family and a court most likely.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Please do not 'release balloons' for celebrations. The balloons and trailing ribbons entangle birds and kill wildlife and livestock that think the balloons are food.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4526976].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author vickybabe
        Well, is it any different to people selling michael jackson apparel when he died. If they have good intentions then i say let it happen. Obviously though some people do not always have good intentions. There is definitely a line that should not be crossed though.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527011].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author euhlir
    This is nothing compared to what I saw after Michael Jackson passed away. Suddenly people were snapping up any domains they could think of with his name and authors were writing MJ biographies all to cash in on the moment.

    Check this one out: How to Make $120,000 in Two Days Off Osama’s Death - Affiliate Marketing Tips from Super Affiliate Zac Johnson | Affiliate Marketing Tips from Super Affiliate Zac Johnson

    That dude banked a year's salary in two days.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527084].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MarkJones
      Whilst the marking may be deemed as unethical, it's always going to be around because it's seen as a simple way to make quick cash, which it is.

      Everything in marketing is to do with exploiting something, be it people's need to be slim, have more money or the death of a well known star, it's all about exploiting something.

      Mark
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527148].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
      Chris,

      I'm looking at the thread title and wondering why you're equating marketing with tacky opportunism?

      It doesn't seem that this domain squatter has actually done any marketing yet.


      Frank
      Signature


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527166].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
    I don't see the issue with it. Just pay the man. He beat you to it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527211].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    Ask me again when there's some actual marketing to talk about.

    So far, all I see is an act of tacky opportunism. Last time I looked being tacky isn't illegal. If it was, cable would have maybe six channels...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527289].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chri5123
      Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

      Chris,

      I'm looking at the thread title and wondering why you're equating marketing with tacky opportunism?

      It doesn't seem that this domain squatter has actually done any marketing yet.


      Frank
      I agree - it does not look like they have done any marketing yet.

      However I would say marketing and opportunism are closely linked but agree just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you will use it.

      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      Ask me again when there's some actual marketing to talk about.

      So far, all I see is an act of tacky opportunism. Last time I looked being tacky isn't illegal. If it was, cable would have maybe six channels...
      I will be sure too.

      Purely made the thread to see what people's thoughts are?

      It looks as though it has been resolved and if the guy did end up selling the domain to Amy's family I would class that as marketing no?

      Chris
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527401].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Originally Posted by Chri5123 View Post

        It looks as though it has been resolved and if the guy did end up selling the domain to Amy's family I would class that as marketing no?

        Chris
        Nope, still cheap opportunism.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527480].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Chri5123
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          Nope, still cheap opportunism.
          I am not disputing this ^ I agree with you.

          But the guy HAS made money out of the venture whether it is cheap opportunism or not - is this not marketing - i.e someone wanted what he has and he sold it to them for money.

          The ethics that he has used and the fact that it is cheap opportunism are a given.

          Chris
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527509].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author 0oo0
            whats wrong with being an opportunist?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4527809].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Rashell
            Originally Posted by Chri5123 View Post

            I am not disputing this ^ I agree with you.

            But the guy HAS made money out of the venture whether it is cheap opportunism or not - is this not marketing - i.e someone wanted what he has and he sold it to them for money.

            The ethics that he has used and the fact that it is cheap opportunism are a given.

            Chris
            Chris,

            I wouldn't call it marketing either. Marketing is more... a systematic approach of positioning a product/message in front of people who have need or desire for it.

            If I may be crass for a moment... A woman standing on the street corner half naked is marketing. Performing her "work" is operations. And the rest is finance. (not sure why that analogy popped into my head but there you have it)

            This guy wasn't marketing... he was exploiting the possibility that someone else may want to use that phrase to position a product/service to others who are similar to Ms Winehouse and may have need or desire for a product/service.

            He was buying low to sell high. That's not marketing. At best it may be considered investing. I call it being a skeez.

            Rashell
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4529301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chri5123
    Originally Posted by Chris Kent View Post

    Hey Chris,

    I think the instinctive reaction is to think it's bad.

    But when you think about it, newspapers are 95% bad news. They profit from misery.

    And whenever anyone dies, a slew of biographies often result.

    If there's a market for it, let people profit I say.

    Now, using a death scam people is different e.g. phishing scam. But I don't see anything wrong with legitimate business.

    The fact she was a junkie doesn't even make any difference but it might help those who feel guilty to sleep better. Personally, I see no reason to feel guilt in the first place.
    Very good point about the newspapers.

    Yes can't really argue with your points - it certainly makes the whole issue interesting.

    I guess it is down to personal morals at the end of the day.

    Chris
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4528199].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeff Williams
    Poor taste, IMO. Not something I would consider doing myself. But this is really an ethics or moral issue, instead of a purely marketing issue. And these days, it can sometimes seem as though these two are mutually exclusive.

    But the truth is, moral bankruptcy comes in stages. If he truly believes this "business" project is acceptable and he ends up profiting from it, it will only serve to reinforce his notions. Imagine what his next project will look like.

    Here's what I used to believe:

    If you truly believe something is ok based on your principles, then for you - it is. Because each individual comes from different cultures and backgrounds.

    However, if you knowingly engage in activities that are questionable or wrong based on your morals, you only end up in corrupting yourself.

    The problem is, people always lie to themselves. And enjoy it.

    His words were:

    "I'm not exploiting anything yet. I've just bought some domain names. Anybody could have. It only takes the click of a mouse. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed. Detach yourself from emotions and think business.""She's not the only Amy Winehouse in the world."

    Pretty defensive. And prepared. As if he were expecting a little backlash. Who knows.

    The bottom line is, his response is something you would say to a reporter or third party. I doubt seriously he would be man enough to sit across from Amy's mother or father and use those same words. She was someone's child.


    Jeff
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4528725].message }}

Trending Topics