consumerist.com — There is probably nothing more pathetic in the world of marketing than watching a big corporation try to do something "viral"—usually they end up looking like Elaine dancing. But sometimes, they're so cynical and soulless about it that they don't just come across as incompetent, but as exploitative cheapskates as well. In 3M's case, they...
Sep 16, 2008 View in Crawl 4
mrskellingtonSep 17, 2008
Anyone with creative experience knows that he wasn't asking for much considering how popular the image was. Toss in how much the company wanted to use it, and thats the ideal formula for profiting from one's creative ideas. 3M is lame for not just thinking up something else. Also, its not like the photographer is the one drawing attention to this, its the Consumerist and other blogs.
jenseitsSep 17, 2008
Who cares... the whole debate about whether they *legally* had to get a license is a total red herring. They f****ed up - it's a marketing/PR issue, not a legal issue. So many people weighing in with their interpretation of IPR law when they clearly can't even tell the difference between a patent and a copyright - ya'll have your heads stuck where the sun don't shine, frankly - but y'all are still completely missing the point, which is this: 3M tried to orchestrate a viral marketing campaign and fubar'd it. End of story.
seohackSep 17, 2008
yeah, isn't there something about for every ten bad things someone says about you there's only one good thing said?
seohackSep 17, 2008
why is he an idiot? he was offered some money. he consulted a photographer. he came back with a counter offer. they didn't even give him a thank you or **** you response and went off and did their own thing. Their own thing that was trying to ride the coat tails of his success. How is he an idiot again?
Closed AccountSep 18, 2008
9/11