Comments on: A High Value Flirt is Not The Same as Cheating http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/ Walter Naeslund. Founder and CEO of The Advertising Agency Honesty. Professional Speaker. Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:17:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anders Andersson http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/comment-page-1/#comment-2430 Anders Andersson Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:38:30 +0000 http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/#comment-2430 In an interesting twist, Nils Enlund appears to have been misquoted by DN (on the issue of whether last year's campaign against the Signals Surveillance Act was created by a PR firm) to such a degree that <a HREF="http://olofb.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/hej/" rel="nofollow">Enlund himself objects</A> and claims he holds a view diametrically opposed to the one ascribed to him in the DN article. As a result of this revelation, anonymous comments appear on a few critical blogs claiming people are misreading <EM>the article</EM>. Now, regardless of whether the critics can read or not, shouldn't at least the objections of <EM>the interviewee himself</EM> be given some merit? If he was misquoted to prove a point, can the point still be proven by resorting to a discussion of semantics (like whether some PR firm may have been at least <EM>partially</EM> behind the campaign)? My immediate impression is that I'm witnessing a small astroturf campaign, trying to cover up an obvious error (even if the error was unintentional). How ironic, when the article itself aims to illustrate similar tactics. In an interesting twist, Nils Enlund appears to have been misquoted by DN (on the issue of whether last year’s campaign against the Signals Surveillance Act was created by a PR firm) to such a degree that Enlund himself objects and claims he holds a view diametrically opposed to the one ascribed to him in the DN article.

As a result of this revelation, anonymous comments appear on a few critical blogs claiming people are misreading the article. Now, regardless of whether the critics can read or not, shouldn’t at least the objections of the interviewee himself be given some merit? If he was misquoted to prove a point, can the point still be proven by resorting to a discussion of semantics (like whether some PR firm may have been at least partially behind the campaign)?

My immediate impression is that I’m witnessing a small astroturf campaign, trying to cover up an obvious error (even if the error was unintentional). How ironic, when the article itself aims to illustrate similar tactics.

]]> By: Matthieu http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/comment-page-1/#comment-2418 Matthieu Sun, 31 May 2009 21:55:43 +0000 http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/#comment-2418 We, as consumers, citizens, individuals, make no distinction anymore between the way we experience the marketing of a brand and the experience that the product delivers. Cynically lying about your brand or product is like trying to take the consumer as hostage against his/her will. It's just as smart as shooting yourself in the foot. It's not only going morally bankrupt, it's also counterproductive, even so in the very short term. Anything that is not bringing any real value should be eliminated. It's as simple as that. Basic. And if you don't agree, well... hard times ahead for you, dumbo. Mon cher Walter, i agree with you, as usual. This is even getting kind of boring. Can't we find any subject of disagreement, to make the discussion a bit more spicy? We, as consumers, citizens, individuals, make no distinction anymore between the way we experience the marketing of a brand and the experience that the product delivers.
Cynically lying about your brand or product is like trying to take the consumer as hostage against his/her will. It’s just as smart as shooting yourself in the foot. It’s not only going morally bankrupt, it’s also counterproductive, even so in the very short term.
Anything that is not bringing any real value should be eliminated. It’s as simple as that. Basic. And if you don’t agree, well… hard times ahead for you, dumbo.

Mon cher Walter, i agree with you, as usual. This is even getting kind of boring. Can’t we find any subject of disagreement, to make the discussion a bit more spicy?

]]> By: Kortbloggat/digitalpr.se-31 May 2009 — Niclas Strandh digitalPR, creative planning och sociala mediestrategier http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/comment-page-1/#comment-2416 Kortbloggat/digitalpr.se-31 May 2009 — Niclas Strandh digitalPR, creative planning och sociala mediestrategier Sun, 31 May 2009 20:01:22 +0000 http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/#comment-2416 [...] A High Value Flirt is Not The Same as Cheating [...] [...] A High Value Flirt is Not The Same as Cheating [...]

]]> By: Walter Naeslund http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/comment-page-1/#comment-2413 Walter Naeslund Sun, 31 May 2009 19:09:54 +0000 http://walternaeslund.com/a-high-value-flirt-is-not-the-same-as-cheating/#comment-2413 Please note that comments containing profanity (such as "Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit!!") will be deemed spam on this blog and removed. This blog is very liberal and welcomes critical comments, but please dispense of mean comments and profanity. Kind regards, Walter Please note that comments containing profanity (such as “Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit!!”) will be deemed spam on this blog and removed.

This blog is very liberal and welcomes critical comments, but please dispense of mean comments and profanity.

Kind regards,
Walter

]]>