Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Internet Your Rights Online

FTC To Investigate 'Viral Marketing' Practices 299

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the take-what-ya-can-give-nuthin-back dept.
mcflaherty writes "The Federal Trade Commission has stated that it is going to investigate the use of 'Viral Marketing' by corporations. This is the type of advertising that seeks to start a word of mouth campaign for the product via consumers themselves. Previously, consumers themselves set the buzz. But lately advertisement firms are stepping up to the plate themselves, seeding the market with buzz that looks independent of the company, but is in fact funded by them. The crew at Penny Arcade contend that corporate generated buzz is not Viral Marketing, and perhaps Guerrilla Marketing would be a more apt term. Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC To Investigate 'Viral Marketing' Practices

Comments Filter:
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:50PM (#17229260)
    Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model.

    Of course it is, it exploits people's inherent trust for their friends' judgement: "if X says this and X is a nice guy, then X must be true". Only if X is paid by a corporation to spew out nice stuff about some product, it basically wrecks that basic principle of human communication.
    • by Possibly Malignant (933521) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:01PM (#17229442)
      "if X says this and X is a nice guy, then X must be true"

      There's a syntax error in your formula.
  • Astroturfing (Score:5, Informative)

    by duerra (684053) * on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:51PM (#17229280) Homepage
    It already has a name. It's called Astroturfing [wikipedia.org].

    Now we need to come up with a term for what will eventually prove to be its opposite. Corporate sabotage that seeks to inspire negative propoganda for another company. If Sony hadn't been repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with a sawed-off 12 gauge lately and inspiring all their own negative publicity, I'd almost suspect that of their vomit-inducing attempt at creating buzz for the PSP [alliwantfo...isapsp.com].
    • Re:Astroturfing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:56PM (#17229356)
      Speaking of that sorry psp astroturfing site, did you see the last entry?


      Busted. Nailed. Snagged. As many of you have figured out (maybe our speech was a little too funky fresh???), Peter isn't a real hip-hop maven and this site was actually developed by Sony. Guess we were trying to be just a little too clever. From this point forward, we will just stick to making cool products, and use this site to give you nothing but the facts on the PSP.

      Sony Computer Entertainment America


      Well, I must say, as much as I despite Sony these days, it takes balls to come clean and coldly admit to trying to con people, instead of simply pulling the plug on the site. Hats off Sony, for once you did the right thing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ShieldW0lf (601553)
        If I followed you around all day long whispering that you'd be sexy if you had that car, but you don't, so you're not, and that you'd be rich if you went with that accounting firm, but you don't, so you're not...

        If I followed you around telling you that you suck because you don't own this stuff, that you suck because you don't look like this...

        If I did it for days and months and years...

        Would it have an effect on you?

        Advertisers use invasive propaganda tactics to try to make you unhappy with your life for n
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by HTH NE1 (675604)
          Just say no to advertising and advertised goods and services.

          OK, so I'll just go by word of mouth then.

          Wait a minute....
        • by mfrank (649656)
          The alternative to advertising is paying more for things. No ads on TV, you'll have to get cable and the basic cable rates would be higher. Don't even ask how much a magazine or a newspaper would cost; the subscription price for a newspaper doesn't even pay for the newsprint, let alone ink and payroll. I've no interest in paying more because other people think drinking Bud will make the ladies like them.

          A better solution would be to teach children how to think critically, but that's not gonna happen.
          • Not necessarily... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by KingSkippus (799657) * on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @06:01PM (#17230232) Homepage Journal
            The alternative to advertising is paying more for things.

            My devil's advocate reaction to this is, "not necessarily." If company X didn't have to spend a billion dollars to counteract company Y's $900 million advertising budget, they could use that money to help save consumers dollars. Or they could put it into R&D and engineering to actually make a better product instead of just telling us it's a better product.

            Also, I (and a lot of other people) are more than willing to pay a premium for ad-less products. Does anyone remember the days way back when most cable channels didn't have ads? Now you have to pay the cable company for channels with ads, and the channels that don't have ads are very expensive. (Yet notice how they still have a lot of subscribers for that premium.)

            I myself don't watch ads on television at all. Every show I want to watch, I either get via iTunes download for $2 a pop (or a season subscription), or by less scrupulous means that I don't want to go into if it's not available by any other means (wink, wink). I have a few small web sites I run for personal reasons, and I buy the hosting space at a reasonable non-free price so that I don't have to subject my visitors to a barrage of ads. I run Firefox with AdBlock so that I can avoid as many ads as possible while browsing the Internet.

            I still run across ads now and then, as they're unavoidable in society. The point, though, is that I still spend plenty my share of disposable income, companies still make plenty of money off of me, but they have to do it by actually having products of decent quality that I want or need, not by yelling in both my ears constantly.

            In other words, there is another way.

            Personally, I think the best advertising any company can have is virtually free. It's from friends who have products and tell me about them. It's from reputable website reviews that describe up-and-coming technology and products. It's from companies' own websites that provide as much real information about products I'm interested in as I need to make an informed decision. All of these things are dirt cheap compared to the billions that companies spend on radio, television and web ads that I never see or hear. Go figure.

            A better solution would be to teach children how to think critically

            Amen.

            • by nasch (598556)

              I still run across ads now and then, as they're unavoidable in society.

              That's just barely true! I browse with Firefox's adblocker so I can't remember the last time I saw a web ad. I watch 100% of television using a DVR, so I don't watch TV ads either. I don't go to the movies (2 small children) so don't see those ads. I listen exclusively to NPR so nothing there unless you count the sponsorship messages from the guy with the nasal voice. I don't live somewhere that has billboards, so I don't see those

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          The Sistine Chapel is an advertisement for the Roman Catholic Church.

          I agree with many of your points; but calling for the abolishment of any type of speech (even commercial speech) is a road we dare not walk down.

          The problem is that of transparency and honesty; I have no problem with an advertisement that honestly states what the solution to a problem you have is (although there's a grey area - see Freakonomics of how Listerine "invented" halitosis in America.)

          In the end, my big concern is that advertising
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ScentCone (795499)
          Advertising is evil, and shouldn't be permitted.

          Whew.

          OK, so now that we're all back to having to tell each other what building downtown contains what businesses (since, I presume, you wouldn't even want the Yellow Pages to exist)...

          How does your local farmer communicate the fact that, this week, he's got some really nice radishes? Let's see... he can't put up a sign (eeeek! advertising!). He can't stand on the corner and fill you in on his inventory for the week (gaaah! advertising!)... no, he has
          • In making the public aware of what is available to them, it doesn't serve any higher societal good than a global registrar of products and distributers aka the yellow pages would accomplish, and it does a good deal more harm.

            Do you know how to read?

            The point is that a global registrar, aka the yellow pages, in real time, with no flashy larger adverts available, just the facts with the option to delve further into relevant op-ed pieces is all that would be needed to find goods and services, and that if
        • by dave562 (969951)
          Advertisers use invasive propaganda tactics to try to make you unhappy with your life for no good reason at all, and present themselves as the only ones who can make it better, but they never make it better even if you buy their product. Advertising is an assault. And it uses scientific methodology to become ever more effective at making you and everyone else do stupid wasteful things for irrational reasons.

          I agree with what you have to say here. I cancelled my subscription to Maxim magazine a few years

    • by HTH NE1 (675604)
      It already has a name. It's called Astroturfing.

      Now we need to come up with a term for what will eventually prove to be its opposite: corporate sabotage that seeks to inspire negative propoganda for another company.


      Sodium tetrasulfating?
    • Re:Astroturfing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) <marc,paradise&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:59PM (#17229402) Homepage Journal
      It was no accident that site was 'discovered' as fake. How easy would it be for someone to use a privacy service on their registration? Personally, I think it worked very well - that site got more traffic than it ever would have if it had been legit.
      • [There] is such a thing as bad press... -- Tycho [penny-arcade.com]

        The publicity they're getting is bad for the PSP and the advertising company both. On the one hand, people know it's fake, and it's pathetic to have to pretend to have friends (which is what astroturfing is, at its roots). On the other hand, if they get bad press for their client, that's bad press for themselves. Who wants to hire an agency who gave someone bad press?

        • In advertising, any press is good press. It's about name recognition -- at least that's what friends in the business have told me.
          • That's what I hear, too. I think it's more a rule of thumb, though -- with exceptions.

            Not to invoke Godwin's law, but Hitler has a bunch of name recognition, and I doubt anyone would consider it good publicity.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by EzraSj (993720)

            In advertising, any press is good press. It's about name recognition -- at least that's what friends in the business have told me.


            Sony already has name recognition. Name recognition is not what they're trying to get here, what they're trying to get is positive association - and they've gotten the exact opposite.
          • by HTH NE1 (675604)
            In advertising, any press is good press. It's about name recognition -- at least that's what friends in the business have told me.

            Sure. Why just be famous when you can be infamous with a plethora of free publicity?
          • Re:Astroturfing (Score:4, Insightful)

            by cptgrudge (177113) <cptgrudge@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:53PM (#17230136) Journal

            I'd be willing to bet that most people in the demographic they were aiming this for know what a PSP is already. I was halfway thinking of getting a PS3, but all these little things continue to turn me off to it. The chances of me purchasing a PS3 are closing in on the chances of me buying a PSP - that is to say, No Chance.

            In the end, this isn't just some "bad press" I'm hearing about; I've been insulted. Sony seems to think that the demographic of people that will buy their PSP product, of which I'm a part, is both illiterate and unable to spell properly. Granted, Sony hasn't insulted me personally, but doing this has nonetheless lowered my view of them even further.

            They have sacrificed their target demographic's goodwill for gaining a token amount of mindshare outside of the demographic. And the thoughts associated with that mindshare may be: "Golly, those gamers sure are pissed at Sony. Maybe I'll get little Timmy a DS instead of a PSP."

          • Michael Richards, is that you?!
    • Re:Astroturfing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pimpimpim (811140) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:02PM (#17229456)
      Well, at least viral marketing can be killed instantly by the negative karma that comes about when the blatant lies of this being an 'enthusiast's user opinion' are uncovered. I really like that aspect of viral marketing, the message will be accepted if the cooperation is fair about it, and just couldn't use original channels for an advertisment (for example a car advertizement that would be too shocking to show on TV, but is artistically interesting anyway.).

      However, if the cooperation is trying to screw us, and someone finds out (as will eventually happen anyway), the viral marketing works just as viral against the cooperation that started it. Therefore, viral marketing is playing with fire!

      All in all this must be the most fair form of advertizing, we the users can directly respons to it and decide if we like it or not.

      • Re:Astroturfing (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:15PM (#17229622) Journal
        If we all stop trusting each other, and keep it in the back of our minds that everyone we talk to might be trying to decieve and manipulate us for some third parties benefit, then we'll be ok.

        Seriously, this sort of thing should be punished by summary execution. It's a huge assault on the very fabric of our society, trying to create a world where we're afraid to participate with our neighbour with trust.

        It's not the little thing you're trying to make it out to be. People that perpetuate this sort of thign should be shot in the head and buried in a shallow unmarked grave.
    • Now we need to come up with a term for what will eventually prove to be its opposite. Corporate sabotage that seeks to inspire negative propoganda for another company.

      Wouldn't this, too, be astroturfing? Astroturfing, I thought, was any fake grassroots campaign, negative or positive.

    • by Turken (139591)
      Now we need to come up with a term for what will eventually prove to be its opposite. Corporate sabotage that seeks to inspire negative propoganda for another company.

      How about "Astroturding"?
  • Investiage (Score:3, Funny)

    by HTH NE1 (675604) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:54PM (#17229312)
    Investiage: an investigation employing the triage method.
  • About Time (Score:5, Informative)

    by Slipgrid (938571) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:55PM (#17229338) Homepage Journal
    60 Minutes covered this [cbsnews.com] about two years ago. It's a good segment if you can find the video.
  • Fitting story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wile_e_wonka (934864) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:55PM (#17229344)
    IS slashdot trying to redeam itself after being conned into an instance of viral marketing [slashdot.org]?!

    See particularly this portion [slashdot.org] of the comments/story...
    • by Spaceman40 (565797) <blinks@acm.oMOSCOWrg minus city> on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:23PM (#17229740) Homepage Journal
      [Is] [Slashdot] trying to [redeem] itself after being conned into an instance of viral marketing?

      No. Let me remind you how our system works:
      1. Person finds something they think is cool.
      2. Person submits link and story to Slashdot.
      3. Slashdot editors do a quick read to see if it's not blatantly inaccurate or uninteresting.
      4. Editors put the story up.
      5. Readers check the story out.
      5. a. At least one reader looks into (or already knows) the background of the article.
      5. b. At least one reader looks into (or already knows about) the subject of the article.
      5. c. At least one reader looks into (or has already speculated about) the ramifications of the article.
      6. We discuss.

      That's the point: the community decision for the article you linked was that it was a guerilla campaign. When I read that article, I didn't realize it was such, I assumed the same as the editors. Fortunately, there's a large community here, several of which commented that not all was as it seemed, and I was enlightened.

      Yay for community discussion. Articles aren't generally statements that the community makes [digg.com], they're statements that the community responds to. That's why us old timers (and I'm a young'un, at that) are still here.
    • Heck, they get accusations of slashvertisements already.
  • by Intron (870560) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @04:57PM (#17229372)
    Why are they investigating? Is it illegal, or is the FTC overfunded?

    If they want to investigate deceptive advertising that has cost Americans billions of dollars, then I would prefer that they investigate the Iraq war.
    • by devilspgd (652955) *
      Ahh, but that would cut their budget... This is better, they can pretend they're doing something for the consumer, probably without actually hurting any corporations donating heavily to the current batch of congresscritters.
    • by honkycat (249849)
      They're investigating because it may be a deceptive trade practice. Good luck with the troll, though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It is in fact in the FTC's domain and is already regulated. The fuss is that the FCC has, after years of appeals, roused itself enough to talk about the idea of doing something about it.
  • by needacoolnickname (716083) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:00PM (#17229420)
    Whoopee! The advertisers found out what the kids like and decided to use that to try and get more eye balls.

    How about just dealing with it when the compaines lie and that whole false advertising thing?

    Do people really think places like youtube and myspace were created for the community to use? No, they were created so they could get bought out by the big corporations and those corporations could put advertisments up.

    Oh, and having a link in your signature to something you are trying to hock and replying to this article that this should have been looked into a long time ago... yeah, kinda hypocritcal.
  • Wii (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Laz10 (708792) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:00PM (#17229426)
    I think that in the future the way we (slashdot/digg/bloggers) marketed the Wii will be a textbook sample of how viral marketing is done.
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      Not really. The Wii is doing well for a couple of very good reasons.
      1. Nintendo has had a lot of success with the DS and DS Lite.
      2. The Wii is more available and costs a lot less than the PS3 which is the other new console on the market.
      3. Sony has been creating a lot of negative press all on their own. UMD movies where where a huge flop, Sony was really hoping that the PSP would take the number one spot in handhelds like the PSONE and PS2 did in consoles which it has not. Rootkit and exploding batteries fi
    • by Vellmont (569020)

      I think that in the future the way we (slashdot/digg/bloggers) marketed the Wii will be a textbook sample of how viral marketing is done.


      And what exactly is that process? From what I've seen it's:

      1. Develop product that people want, does something new and interesting that no other product has done before, and at a reasonable price.
      2. Produce that product in adequate numbers so people can actually buy the product.

      See, the hard part is accumplishing step 1. Most companies would give their eye teeth to be ab
      • by Sunburnt (890890)
        "The only thing new about "viral marketing" is the name "viral marketing". You could say the same thing about television when it first came out, but no one called having their friends over to watch Milton Bearly "viral marketing"."

        Sorry, that analogy doesn't apply. If individuals specifically paid money by Berle's producers to extol his comedic virtue, without disclosing this business relationship, were among these friends, then the term "viral marketing" is accurate. As far as we know, nobody was doin
  • by TheWoozle (984500) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:04PM (#17229476)
    I mean, how else are people going to be programmed to buy overpriced, useless crap? Won't you please help a hard-working advertising executive (who has enriched our culture with priceless works of art like this [google.com]) afford his third Mercedes?
    • by RexRhino (769423)
      Um, actually the hard-working advertising executive hates viral marketing, and prefers rather traditional (and very expensive) TV commercials.
    • by Ranger (1783)
      I just watched that Emerald Nuts commercial and all I can say is: What the fuck was that?
    • News flash, that hard-working ad exec cannot afford his third Mercedes...he's probably still working on his first. The average account executive makes about 40-60k/year. If you're talking in terms of upper management, then you're talking closer to 80k-120k. There are of course exceptions, but please do not go spreading false rumors about the industry. Advertising does not pay very well in general except for those who own agencies, or directors/producers who can demand a lot for their work.

  • by noidentity (188756) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:05PM (#17229488)
    Some companies have taken this a step further and are attempting to manipulate the customers themselves into giving good reviews. They are using a technique of improving the quality of their product, causing any sane customer to be unable to respond negatively. These coercive practices must end!
    • by devilspgd (652955) *
      It's cheaper to just convince people they like a product then to make a product people actually like.
  • The Sony Strain... (Score:4, Informative)

    by creimer (824291) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:06PM (#17229502) Homepage
    Does this mean that Sony will get a marketing flu shot?
  • by Toreo asesino (951231) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:09PM (#17229532) Journal
    One such example was when Virgin attempted to get Internet humour website B3ta.com to come up with something for their "say yes" campaign [theinquirer.net]. Virgin got rather offended in fact over what was being produced and pulled out. It did however generate a storm of publicity (The Inq. wasn't the only site to report this cock-up), so it was successful in some respects.
  • by Toby The Economist (811138) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:09PM (#17229542)
    > Either way, it appears to be a profitable advertising model.

    So is putting crack cocaine in your cola drink.

    Which brings us neatly onto cigarette sales.
  • Ha, I'm immune (Score:5, Informative)

    by StikyPad (445176) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:13PM (#17229598) Homepage
    since a) I don't talk to anybody, and b) even if I did, I wouldn't trust what they said.

    Sigh.
  • You mean? (Score:3, Funny)

    by BCW2 (168187) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:15PM (#17229624) Journal
    I've been wrong when I thought all advertising was viral?

    I was 15 hours short of a marketing degree when I realized i wasn't qualified, I have a conscience!
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:15PM (#17229626)
    Were all Slashdotters born yesterday, or just the original poster?

    Previously, consumers themselves set the buzz. But lately advertisement firms are stepping up to the plate themselves, seeding the market with buzz that looks independent of the company, but is in fact funded by them.


    For Christ's sake, this has been the way the world has worked for thousands of years. (Remember the story about John the Baptist starting the buzz about the "one who comes after"?)

    "Consumers" have NEVER "set the buzz." If you think otherwise, I'd like to meet you, because there's a good chance you'll be buying whatever I'm pitching in 3-6 months. (And you'll think it was your idea too.)
    • by cptgrudge (177113)

      Remember the story about John the Baptist starting the buzz about the "one who comes after"?

      To be fair, John the Baptist wasn't getting paid for his zeal, and he was eventually beheaded by Herod Antipas, at the request of Herod's wife.

      I don't think the execs of the company that made this "blog" would be quite willing to die for Sony.

    • If you look at the following many dead (or unpopular) products have recieved you'll see that consumers quite often produce buzz for a product themselves. Star Trek, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and Nintendo's Earthbound series all developed cult followings in North America without any encouragement from the companies that produced it; in fact there have been several attempts to get the (already completed) translation of earthbound games released in North America, since Nintendo has been unwilling to peopl
  • by gosand (234100) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:16PM (#17229658)
    My friends have long considered me to be a cynical bastard, because I always question the validity of everything. Nothing is ever what it seems, there is always some kind of not-so-well-hidden advertising, product pushing, and damn-near lying. It has turned me off of a lot of TV and music, and I generally get very irritated when I come across sneaky marketing and/or advertising. It makes it pretty hard to believe anything anymore, and really shows the power of how we present things. (not to mention the gullibility of most people) I don't shop and Wal*Mart because I think they are scumbags, I don't partake of anything Disney. But it seems that it is almost unavoidable these days.


    Hell, I don't even know what my point is in posting... I guess I just wish that more people would question these things and take a stand against them, because that is the only way they'll go away. But most people just don't seem to care.

    • by oGMo (379)

      My friends have long considered me to be a cynical bastard, because I always question the validity of everything. Nothing is ever what it seems, there is always some kind of not-so-well-hidden advertising, product pushing, and damn-near lying. [...] I don't shop and Wal*Mart because I think they are scumbags, I don't partake of anything Disney. But it seems that it is almost unavoidable these days.

      Hell, I don't even know what my point is in posting...

      Your post is probably some kind of not-so-well-hidde

  • ...And let me tell you guys: This new program from the FTC is excellent. Don't listen to what those Capitalism(TM) and Free Speech(TM) fanboi's tell you.
  • Yeah. Look for updates to this over on TechCrunch - here [techcrunch.com].
  • by Ranger (1783) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @05:30PM (#17229828) Homepage
    I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to find that deceptive advertising is going on. I mean it's not like they, as in the ubiquitious they, think people are malleable [jesuscampthemovie.com], easily led astray [hannityisamoron.com], brainwashed [xenu.net], etc [perkel.com], etc [wikipedia.org].

    De Beers [theatlantic.com] has the longest running viral marketing campaign in history. It started in the 1880's and is still going strong today.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sunburnt (890890)
      That Atlantic article about DeBeers was brilliant. Paying thousands for a chunk of cut carbon always seemed ridiculous to me, and its a fascinating reading abut how the whole consumer perspective on diamonds' value is a tenuous marketing scheme, successful for almost a century.

      Another despicable instance of top-down commercial culture having actual material consequence. Tragic.
  • I thought viral marketing meant that you use your product to advertise your product. For example, Yahoo mail always has a link at the bottom allowing the recipient to sign up for their own yahoo mail account. If you get a geocities webpage, it will have a link for your website viewers to sign up for a geocities account. In other words, the service provider is using you to advertise their product as you move around in your online world (via email, or websites, avatars, or whatever. It is the electronic e
  • I'm torn.

    Part of me wants to think this is a good thing. That consumers don't deserve to have products shoved down their throats and be saturated by advertisement all day long. This part of me also thinks that if companies could, they would advertise directly into our dreams ala that one Futarama episode: http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/1acv06 .shtml [futurama-madhouse.com.ar]

    Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?
    Leela: Of course.
    Fry: But, how is that possible?
    Farnsworth: I

  • by ml10422 (448562) on Wednesday December 13, 2006 @06:03PM (#17230274)
    I'm a grown-up. I don't need the Federal government to protect me from viral advertising.

    For my entire life, I've been exposed to celebrity endorsements, and the only effect has been to fine tune my bullshit filter.

    Please refund the portion of my taxes that is going to paying these guys salaries.
  • by oGMo (379)

    Because when Microsoft, who funds SCO [slashdot.org], makes shady deals [slashdot.org] followed by spurious claims [computerworld.com] engages in viral marketing [wikipedia.org], it's OK.

    But when Sony, who delivers Linux on their console [ign.com] does it, it's BAD.

    Yeah must be Wednesday again.

  • This new term will catch on like... like a... a bacterial infection.

CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...

Working...