Comments | bellatrys: A fandom example of Paid Comment Spam?

bellatrys

A fandom example of Paid Comment Spam?

Jul 13, 2007 12:16

The phenomenon of paid comment spammers, who pose as Real Live Commenters with more or less success to leave "cleverly" camouflaged advertising in blogs, recently came up again at ML, and by a curious coincidence I dowsed up a probable instance of it going on in the wild, concerning the movie (which I didn't know was being made) of Susan Cooper's ( Read more... )

stupidity, legerdemain, pop culture, capitalism, fandom, propaganda, media

Comments 14

furikku July 13 2007, 18:44:33 UTC

Do they really think we're dumb enough that a generic plug from some random person is going to outweigh the reasoned opinions of other fans - or our own judgments based on the primary source materials of producer/director/actor interviews?

Most likely. Spam works for a reason, sadly.

But does it? bellatrys July 14 2007, 02:11:54 UTC

Do you actually know anyone who's bought Viagra as a result of spammage? *I* sure don't. Proportionately, spam is probably the least efficient form of marketing out there, bar none - and that's not even taking into account the actively-repels-potential-customers aspect, given the white-hot thousand-suns visceral hate that everyone who has email has for spammers ( ... )

Re: But does it? lyorn July 14 2007, 20:05:26 UTC

On the price of spam: Some anti-spam-efforts try to make e-mail not-for-free, with 0.1 cent or roundabouts per mail (I do not remember the exact numbers), but it would have to change anything we know about e-mail, and spammers could easily avoid that by using zombified senders.

The pseudo-spammers just do not understand that they are spamming. If they happen to leave a valid e-mail address they are going to find out pretty soon, but with blog spam they don't get that kind of instant feedback which seems to be best for training puppies and marketing drones away from making messes. They do not bother to learn about what they are doing, or to whom, much less check for effectiveness, and probably believe that their masquerade is not only working, but is really clever.

Sailing in out of cyberspace to say... henchminion July 13 2007, 20:15:43 UTC

Those comment spammers did one good deed: they gave me an evil idea. I've been surfing blogs lately, looking for Susan Cooper fans who are squeeing over the movie and haven't heard yet about the way it's been mutilated. Then I'm leaving comments linking them to this page.

Walden Media is going to have to pay a lot of publicity flacks to keep up with me. >:-) Come join the fun!

hisreasons July 13 2007, 20:53:46 UTC

I've seen the trailer, and the young protagonist does seem very proactive and in-your-face. He has everything except a skateboard.

You know what Walden Media is? It's the Touchstone Pictures of our time. They specialize in making generic 'hit movies,' only with a bigger budget and a rather smug cultural agenda.

If they ever fuck with David and the Phoenix there's gonna be some bloodshed.

hisreasons July 13 2007, 20:55:22 UTC

I should say 'of this decade.' Touchstone was of 'our time' as well.

sajia July 13 2007, 21:08:19 UTC

What crimes against art/nature did Touchstone commit? Haven't had a chance to see that many Hollywood flicks, so I'm only familiar with Miramax and Jerry Bruckheimer jokes.

hisreasons July 14 2007, 02:21:59 UTC

Well, Sister Act for one. Three Men and a Baby. Cocktail.

Actually, some of their movies have a certain charm now. (Adventures in Babysitting, for example.) Back then, though, they seemed like the triumph of bad sitcoms over cinema.

I know I shouldn't be deiseach July 13 2007, 23:06:40 UTC

But I am constantly surprised when film makers adapt popular books, target them at the readers of those books in their advertising, completely change everything about the book, and then are left shaking their heads in wide-eyed amaze that (1) people notice the changes (2) they don't like them better than the original ( ... )

raincitygirl July 14 2007, 17:21:20 UTC

Ugh. And the most wretched part of all is that Cooper already WROTE that guy. You know, the angry, rebellious teenager who doesn't fit in and feels unloved. By shoehorning aspects of Bran Davies' personality onto Will (while leaving out Bran's valid, canonical, PLOT-RELEVANT reasons for feeling like an isolated freak) the adaptors are both sandbagging Will Stanton as a character, and weakening Bran's impact as a character if they ever make The Grey King into a movie. Not that I want this lot of incompetents anywhere near The Grey King, but hey, it's a book series. Presumably when they pitched the idea, built-in sequels in case it was a hit were part of the attraction for the suits.

morchades July 18 2007, 01:52:28 UTC

You're absolutely right. I loved Bran, even though he was a jerk. His friendship with Will worked so well because they were different, and it added to the charm of both characters.

Yeesh, I sincerely hope they don't get to Grey King. I want this baby to flop so that a real production company can try it again someday and do it right before they bring in Bran.