Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 313
Results 301 to 303 of 303
  1. #301
    F34R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    South Carolina
    PSN ID
    Rep Power
    Quote Originally Posted by sainraja View Post
    I am not saying the campaign would have been successful in doing that (it already isn't, since it's not being run anymore, I mean, you have to realize that I understand that.)

    I am talking about the intent of the campaign and if it was successful; that was their goal. They wouldn't allow a group of people to participate and pay them if their goal wasn't mind share -- which is what it was [mind share was the goal.]

    You're entire argument has been that all they were simply asking people to do was saying they are playing it on the Xbox One. Well, duh! You are missing the big picture (either purposefully or you really don't see it.)

    If people participated and said they are using the Xbox One. What I said is exactly what would have happened -- how many people viewing the video with people using the Xbox One would know these people were paid to do it?

    You can look the other way. It doesn't take away from the point I am making.
    I'm not disputing that they wanted to get people to buy the Xbox One. I've never disagreed with that.

  2. #302
    Ultimate Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Down Under
    Rep Power
    Wait.... I think it moved.....

  3. #303
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Rep Power
    I feel this answer most of the points. So there

    Quote Originally Posted by AttackTitan View Post
    I am so tired of typical apologist typical excuses. So here is my counter to it, so I don't have to repeat my self.

    1. but I am sure other companies done it.
    Not even going to respond to this desperate excuse.

    2. But it does not specifically say you have to say positive
    No but contract is clearly worded so that the content has to have positive influence. The contract pays for positive influence through manipulation.

    3. Endorsement is common.
    Yes and endorser are required forced to say they are being paid by said company. This deal forces opposite and tricking consumers.

    4. It is not endorsement.

    Tell tiger woods he is not endorsing Nike.

    I mean he didn't do any of the following

    - He didn't freeze like that for 30 sec and made sure everyone saw Nike for 30 sec
    - He didn't stop half way and say I am playing golf in Nike gears.
    - He didn't stop and said "Hash tag Nike golfing"

    Nope. He is not endorsing Nike. Nope not at all. Apologist logic.

    It requires you to fake and create am illusion of independence and unbias while you are endorsing their product. A clear violation of Federal Trade Commission.
    So much defense that goes around in circle. I call it guerrilla defense tactic.

    You see, they bring up some unreasonable point to defend MS, you point out the clear flaws and kill that defense. They abandon that argument, come up with another one(that even contradict their previous points). Once you address and point out flaws in this one, they move on to next.

    You end up going in circle of endless argument. Fact that they readily and easily throw out arguments that conflict each other should tell you something.

    They do not care about the points or topic at hand, they care about the overall defense.

    If anyone disagrees, they can go back to read where I stopped the tactic and held them to their previous arguments.
    Last edited by AttackTitan; 01-26-2014 at 15:35.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts