Friday, February 02, 2007

A question

Idle speculation, while pondering the "lite-brite" assault on Boston this past week...



  • We know that the devices were unauthorized billboards for a late-night cartoon show.


  • We know that they were placed as part of a marketing campaign.


  • We know that the marketing depended entirely on people talking about the billboards, because they carried no information other than the picture, therefore did nothing to increase the viewership. People had to talk about them and become aware of them.


  • We also know that these billboards were up in Boston and other cities for over two weeks with not a hint of an issue. And they became an issue in Boston on Wednesday at least in part because their presence on local bridges and overpasses was pointed out to the police on a day when 3 suspected pipe bombs were also located, at least one on a local bridge.


  • We know that ABC news has reported that the people involved were "asked to keep quiet as the stunt sent the city of Boston into chaos." A phone call or two could have significantly changed the actions of the authorities, and the marketing company allegedly tried to prevent that.


  • We know that saturation advertising of the sort that they got on Wednesday would be significantly more expensive than any fees or fines that are going to get paid.



Given all of that, the question that I'm pondering is this: If you are in charge of Interference, Inc., the "guerilla" marketing company that has planted these devices everywhere, and no one's noticed them for 2 weeks, and there's been no talk, no buzz, and no hint that any's coming, do you get someone to plant a couple of fake pipe bombs and then call the police?

|

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Comment?

<< Home

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link