9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 1:04 PM

@TheObserver: It's not going to occur to the average person to get mad at whatever third party a company hired to create an ad or promotion for them. If the ad was for Company X then it's company X's fault it was misleading, offensive, or in this case bat shit insane.

It even happens on this site. In those posts about the awesome billboards or the sexist print ads no one mentioned the name of any ad agency or asked who it was.

$\"user-pic\"$

windycity

October 20, 2009 5:44 PM

@Rectilinear Propagation: That's why you get a lawyer involved to employ the shotgun approach mentioned above. The average person might not think of all the possible parties to sue, but a lawyer sure will.

I can see Duick asking her attorney to not involve her friend, but why wouldn't the attorney want to name the ad agency as a party to the suit?

I thought this was a little fishy too - \"The alleged harassment lasted five days, according to the suit, and frightened Duick so much she contacted neighbors, friends and family, and the occupant of her former home about the man she feared was coming to visit. Her attorney declined to comment as to whether or not she called the police. She even made her longtime boyfriend sleep with a club and mace next to the bed for protection.\"

If she contacted the police, wouldn't you think the attorney would be blabbing about that? And if she didn't call the police, was she really 10 million dollars worth of scared?

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 5:53 PM

@windycity: 1) Don't assume that the ad agency is not a party or won't be a party later.

2) No, I wouldn't assume that she must not have called the police or her attorney would have said so. It's possible he doesn't know, or that the police blew her off.

$\"user-pic\"$

windycity

October 20, 2009 6:55 PM

@mythago: 1. You're right - my mistake for just going off the linked article which lists nothing about the ad agency being sued - they have been. As for your 2 - I'm not assuming anything, just throwing out a couple questions. However, I can't imagine that any attorney worth his salt, after getting all the info about her contacting friends and neighbors, wouldn't have gone the next obvious step and asked if she dialed the number for the police. Maybe she told the attorney she did, but he is verifying that she actually made the call before saying anything? Who knows - just found it interesting is all.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 21, 2009 5:48 AM

@windycity: It wouldn't surprise me at all if she did not call the police. It's not as though they're likely to rush right over and do something about it.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheObserver

October 20, 2009 2:28 PM

@Rectilinear Propagation: Yea I agree with all of you, it makes sense but still.

$\"user-pic\"$

fantomesq

October 20, 2009 2:02 AM

@TheObserver: Because Toyota is the deep pocket.

October 20, 2009 10:52 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

ospreyguy

@fantomesq: Bingo. Why sue a company with millions when you can sue one with BILLIONS!!

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:04 PM

@ospreyguy: Their insurance pays for it anyway. Thanks for providing us with the Daily Fail.

$\"user-pic\"$

rocketbear79

October 20, 2009 2:40 AM

@fantomesq: Actually first law of American tort is you shotgun approach your suits. You sue everybody and let the court dismiss it against each defendant individually. There have been many cases in the past where a plaintiff who had a legitimate case with legitimate damages and the court determines that the actual party at fault was not named, and the plaintiff got nothing.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:14 AM

@rocketbear79: Exactly. Whoever IS in the case will point the finger at anyone and everyone you didn't sue.

And the idea that Saatchi & Saatchi is a poor little company with no money is hilarious.

$\"user-pic\"$

CumaeanSibyl

October 20, 2009 1:41 AM

@TheObserver: The person who referred her presumably knew as much about the prank as Duick herself, i.e., nothing.

October 19, 2009 11:43 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

rdclark

@TheObserver:

Toyota's lawyers seem to have already acknowledged Toyota's responsibility by saying that the victim opted in.

And I'm sure Toyota has a lot more money than the ad agency.

But yeah, there's got to be more to the story.

October 19, 2009 11:40 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

@TheObserver: Toyota is ultimately responsible since it was their product being advertised. That being said, the ad agency who cooked this up should also be named in the suit.

October 19, 2009 11:38 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

legwork

Hey, don't sign up for The Game if you don't want to shoot Sean Penn.

Sorry, that's as close as I could get to blaming the OP.

Dumbshit Toyota, both their attorneys and marketers. What happened to their common sense?

$10mil is a bit much but they deserve a very large and painful slap for this one.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 20, 2009 3:23 AM

@legwork: Sorry, somehow my post responded to yours, but it wasn't really meant to.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 20, 2009 3:18 AM

@legwork: This whole thing reminds me of the stupid ads that say, \"Don't go to bed before the King\" by Burger King. I assume they are actors, but maybe they aren't. This prank advertising does NOT appeal to me at all.

October 21, 2009 12:59 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: Agreed; advertising is bad enough without adding this pranking element. What really stings is I worked in advertising for five years and even I think things are out of hand.

October 20, 2009 12:36 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Coelacanth

@legwork: For that, $10 mil sounds about right...

October 19, 2009 11:40 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

junip

wait... how is this supposed to help toyota sell their stuff?

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ShadowFalls

October 20, 2009 6:03 AM

@junip:

Maybe they were trying to advertise superior trunk space or something?

$\"user-pic\"$

rickn99

October 20, 2009 1:02 PM

@ShadowFalls:

With extra-sturdy tiedowns and double-thick soundproofing.

October 20, 2009 12:17 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

veg-o-matic

@junip: Because the target demographic apparently loves this kind of thing:

Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.
The prank campaign, Saatchi creative director Alex Flint told the magazine, should gain the appreciation from \"even the most cynical, anti-advertising guy.\"

So really, it has nothing to do with the prank-ed, and quite possibly not even the prank-er.. but with idiot douchebags who might hear about it, think it's SWEET! and not realize they're being sold to.

$\"user-pic\"$

plumenoir

October 20, 2009 1:18 AM

@veg-o-matic:

That quote explaining the campaign reminds me of the old Bill Hicks routine about advertising and marketing:

\"I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, 'Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart.' Oh man, I am not doing that. You f******* evil scumbags!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

CarbonFiberFootprint

October 20, 2009 1:51 AM

@plumenoir: +9000 for the Bill Bicks quote!

October 20, 2009 12:02 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Coles_Law

@junip: Well, it looks like the Matrix can seat 4, maybe 5. If you have more friends than that, you can use this tool to alienate them so you don't have to take two cars whenever you go out.

October 19, 2009 11:52 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

magic8ball

@junip: That was my question. Apparently the target of the \"advertising\" was actually the person who pranked her, not the victim herself - but that still doesn't make sense to me. Giving me the means to punk someone of my choosing does not make me want to buy a car.

October 19, 2009 11:42 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

@junip: ...stalking victims buy Toyotas?

$\"user-pic\"$

TechnoDestructo

October 20, 2009 2:05 AM

@mralmostpopular:

That's only because EVERYONE buys toyotas.

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

October 20, 2009 8:06 PM

@TechnoDestructo: I don't.

October 19, 2009 11:52 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

joshuadavis

come on, does this lady believe every international who sends her strange emails? if she does she should also sue gmail, or aol or whoever her email provider is because she may have fallen for a nigerian scam too.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

nofelix

October 21, 2009 1:58 PM

@joshuadavis: We'd be suing and arresting 419 scammers too if we could get our hands on them. They're certainly not given a free pass on fraud because \"It's the internet, lol!\"

And nor are large automotive companies.

October 20, 2009 12:21 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

spanky

@joshuadavis: Read the article. The emails were purportedly from someone who was in trouble with the law and claimed to be coming to her house, and they also sent her a bill (by email, I assume) claiming to be from some hotel, billing her for damages he had done.

This wasn't like a 419 scam.

October 19, 2009 11:55 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

bigdandfw

So did she ultimately buy a Matrix?

October 20, 2009 12:10 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

TheCoolestGuyInTown

What did they think the \"best-case scenario\" of this promotion would be?

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

nofelix

October 21, 2009 2:00 PM

@TheCoolestGuyInTown: The cool person who originally pranked her is impressed by a cool car company that allowed them to execute a cool prank, and so buys a cool car.

No really.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Cynical Librarian

October 20, 2009 2:28 AM

@TheCoolestGuyInTown:
Step 1: scare someone into suing them.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit?

$\"user-pic\"$

TakingItSeriously is a Technopile

October 20, 2009 1:30 PM

@The Cynical Librarian: LOL

Damn that made me chuckle ... thanks!

$\"user-pic\"$

B

October 20, 2009 1:47 AM

@TheCoolestGuyInTown: She buys a Toyota Matrix with the money she wins in the lawsuit.

October 20, 2009 12:10 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Lucky225

Damn Toyota and it's accosting ways

October 20, 2009 12:26 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Cliff_Donner

I read the linked article and I still am completely not getting this.

I don't understand how this stunt is supposed to sell cars.

Tepper, Duick's attorney, said he discussed the campaign with Toyota's attorneys earlier this year, and they said the \"opting in\" Harp referred to was done when Duick's friend e-mailed her a \"personality test\" that contained a link to an \"indecipherable\" written statement that Toyota used as a form of consent from Duick.
Tepper, said that during those legal negotiations, Toyota's lawyers claimed Duick signed the written legal agreement, which they said amounts to \"informed written consent.\"

I'm also not up on how clicking a link equates to \"informed written consent.\" I understand there does exist such a thing as an electronic signature but I thought there was more to it than that.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

October 20, 2009 3:11 AM

@Cliff_Donner: AT&T once told me that my answering machine answering the phone and saying in its robot voice \"After tone, record message\" counted as consent to their contract for a yellow pages ad to the tune of $800.

$\"user-pic\"$

stranger than fiction

October 24, 2009 9:04 AM

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Please tell me it wasn't for a lawyer-related ad?? Cuz, really, how stupid could THAT be? Slam lawyer, think you'll get away with it??

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

October 20, 2009 4:39 AM

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): that reminds me of long distance carrier slamming where companies would record you verifying your name and verifying other info and then composite it into a recording of you saying yes to their services

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

October 20, 2009 2:09 AM

@Cliff_Donner: Found a video advertisement for this \"Your Other You\" campaign and I still don't understand how it makes anyone want to buy a car. Like, I see the Matrix in the video—but then there's the part about signing your friends up for a hilarious stalking prank.

$\"user-pic\"$

wrjohnston19283

October 20, 2009 1:02 AM

@Cliff_Donner:

For my brokerage, I have to type in my name in a text box, check off a box stating I have read the whole passage, and click \"ok\" for an electronic signature.

October 20, 2009 12:42 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com

Sounds like an Alternate Reality game gone horribly wrong.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

JohnQPublic

October 20, 2009 1:17 PM

@RecordStoreToughGuy_IsBeing(pur)SuedByAMonster: Exactly, I thought it sounded pretty cool IF I knew I was playing a game.

October 20, 2009 12:43 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

TheWacoKid

I'm guessing that the \"informed consent\" she clicked on/agreed to said something like \"you agree to participate in Toyota's marketing and advertising efforts.\" I've been presented with things like this; they're on the back of most lottery tickets, for example. And most reasonable people assume this means they'd perhaps use your name and/or photo in an ad, or you'd be part of a focus group.

NOT that it gives the company carte blanche to do anything they want to you, and then just say \"Oh that? When that dude walked up to you and punched you in the face on the street? Yeah, that was our agency - it was marketing. You agreed to that, remember?\"

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

plumenoir

October 20, 2009 1:28 AM

@DGberg:

You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing: it was probably a check box that she agrees to me contacted and to participate in future advertising.

The thing that gets me is, did the email she received ever even hint it was from Toyota? If not, I can see her point. If she got these weird emails with all this info about her, I can see why she'd be freaked out.

Heck, if I had signed up for some marketing thing and started getting emails from some guy that is supposedly a criminal and he's coming to my house - and the email contained personal information about me the advertisers provided - I'd be a tad concerned, too. At the very least, I'd think it was a friend messing with me; but to find out, say, Microsoft was doing it because I agreed to Xbox advertising, I'd be pretty pissed.

No matter how you slice it, this sounds like a dumb idea from the agency. Maybe a $10 million hit will get some common sense into these companies' heads...

$\"user-pic\"$

econobiker

October 20, 2009 2:21 PM

@plumenoir: Maybe it had one of those light grey color, 4 point text size \"advertisement\" labels on the emails?

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

October 20, 2009 1:06 AM

If she went through the trouble of having her boyfriend sleep beside the bed with mace and a club, and didn't call the police, then she's a few fries short of a happy meal.

That said, consent to receive mailings is one thing. Threats from an alleged criminal are quite something else. $10 million is a bit high but I'd say this woman has her retirement plan all worked out.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 21, 2009 5:50 AM

@H3ion: No, thinking that the cops would do anything other than tell you to get a restraining order and leave them along is being a few fries short of a happy meal.

$\"user-pic\"$

SlappySquirrel

October 20, 2009 3:41 PM

@H3ion: A lot of people believe that the cops typically ignore this type of thing.

This is because the cops DO typically ignore this type of thing. At best, she could have gotten a restraining order, and those aren't worth much.

$\"user-pic\"$

JohnQPublic

October 20, 2009 1:20 PM

@H3ion: happy meal, eh? That reminds me of a song called \"Sandwiches\" by Detroit Grand Pubahs

You can be the bun
And I can be the burger, girl
I know you wanna do it
We can make sandwiches

$\"user-pic\"$

Krylez

October 20, 2009 1:09 AM

I don't have a lot of compassion for people who give their personal information to quizzes and personality tests. Yeah this is idiotic marketing, but folks are dangerously generous with their personal information these days.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

veg-o-matic

October 20, 2009 1:14 PM

@Krylez: It was her \"friend\" who gave away the most personal information.. and that's exactly what the promo advertised - give us your friend's info and we'll stalk them without their knowledge. I don't like stupid quizzes either, but in this case, it's hardly this woman's fault.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:17 AM

@Krylez: This is STALKING and harassing. \"Idiotic marketing\" is sending a poorly-written catalog.

$\"user-pic\"$

henrygates

October 20, 2009 1:12 AM

What does a psycho stalker have to do with a new car?

$\"user-pic\"$

NickelMD

October 20, 2009 1:16 AM

Wow. Spectacularly bad idea on Toyota's part.

Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?

October 20, 2009 12:23 PM

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Foneguy

@NickelMD: Agreed, this was a monumentally stupid marketing plan. Was the thought to generate publicity about just how stupid it was???? Any PR is good PR???? I thought I was pretty hip to what is happening in today's world, but this...just....wow, I don't get it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Amy Alkon

October 20, 2009 1:18 AM

Companies are not charities, and if they're giving something away, it probably isn't for nothing. Contests are usually thinly veiled data-grabs.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

stranger than fiction

October 24, 2009 9:47 AM

@Amy Alkon: ...which is why I have a domain to use just for email from contests, mailing lists, and the like. I create a unique address for each signup, so I can see where my mail comes from. I'm always amazed to see which organizations have leaky databases and/or outright sell to spammers. Some addresses are also far more likely than others to get the skeeziest spam (e.g. phishing) for some reason. If noise-to-signal gets too bad, I can just kill the address.

That said, I'm not sure how much protection that would offer in a case like this, where at least some info is coming from a (so-called) \"friend\" — but if they're going to the trouble to get the victim to take some kind of test and provide personal info, I assume that's the email they'd use...?? It would have added an interesting dimension if the emails had come from \"toyota@___\", you know?

$\"user-pic\"$

jamar0303

October 20, 2009 4:52 AM

@Amy Alkon: Data-grab is one thing. This is quite another.

$\"user-pic\"$

ZoeSchizzel

October 20, 2009 2:01 AM

I guess this isn't the proper thread to say how much I love my Toyota Matrix? Great gas mileage and enormous cargo room. LOVE!!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:51 PM

@ZoeSchizzel: Right, it isn't the proper thread.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

October 20, 2009 2:17 AM

Here's a description of the campaign (emphasis mine):

YourOtherYou is a unique interactive experience enabling consumers to play extravagant pranks. Simply input a little info about a friend (phone, address, etc.) and we'll then use it, without their knowledge, to freak them out through a series of dynamically personalized phone calls, texts, emails and videos. First, one of five virtual lunatics will contact your friend. They will seem to know them intimately, and tell them that they are driving cross-country to visit. It all goes downhill from there. The Matrix integrates seamlessly into the experience and you can follow the progress of your prank in real-time online. Each piece of the campaign assures that the experience is as Google-proof as possible. [tmspreview.com]

Downhill because, as we see here, it all ends in Toyota getting their asses sued. The fact that Saatchi and Saatchi said \"without their knowledge\" would seem to work against Toyota's consent claim.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 7:57 AM

@Michael Belisle: Especially because if you got the participant's informed consent, the marketing campaign would not work. The whole point of this crack dream was to get the victim to think they were being stalked. \"Psst, this is really Toyota\" doesn't accomplish that.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

October 20, 2009 4:43 AM

@Michael Belisle: fortunately my friends know better than to do anything like this to me. i would have to say anyone who read that and then signed someone up for it would not be a very good friend.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 1:11 PM

@catastrophegirl: I'd argue that it isn't friends doing this but enemies. They use the word 'friend' but they have to know that the people doing this are looking to hurt the other person.

$\"user-pic\"$

floraposte

October 20, 2009 4:14 PM

@Rectilinear Propagation: I think you've got it there. This is the thing somebody does to \"the asshole in the office\" not realizing they are themselves the asshole in the office.

October 20, 2009 12:57 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

@catastrophegirl: Or the most awesome friend ever. I'd totally sign my gf up for something like this.

... Probably explains my singularity...

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:07 PM

@MostlyHarmless: I guess you were trying to be funny, but really, no. Women get enough of this shit in real life that it's not funny. As a joke it's about on par with \"Hey, I'll give you $20 to go pound on my girlfriend's door at 2 am and pretend to be a rapist breaking into the house!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 20, 2009 3:32 AM

@Michael Belisle: Wow, that is even creepier than I thought.

$\"user-pic\"$

strathmeyer

October 20, 2009 2:25 AM

Stories like this always confuse me (like the rape tunnel,) since it's a pretty simple point of law that you can't give someone permission to commit a crime against you.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

October 20, 2009 2:55 AM

@strathmeyer: I'm just an armchair lawyer, but logic would suggest that if you give someone permission to do an act that's legal when consensual, it's not a crime.

You can't give someone permission to commit crimes like stealing and rape because, by definition, these crimes require a lack of consent. When consent is given, the underlying act is legal. So, if I consent to be \"raped\", I have not in fact consented to rape. That's an oxymoron. I have consented to intercourse. Likewise, if you give me permission to \"steal\" your wallet, you are, in fact, giving me your wallet.

Since entering the rape tunnel would have been consensual, it would be more appropriately termed the \"forcible and unpleasant intercourse tunnel\", but that's not as catchy.

$\"user-pic\"$

shepd

October 20, 2009 3:03 PM

@Michael Belisle:

So, if I consent to be \"raped\", I have not in fact consented to rape.

Unless you're 18 minus a day and you're in the US. Especially when the person asking just celebrated their 18th birthday.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:08 PM

@shepd: It depends on your state, actually.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 7:59 AM

@Michael Belisle: \"Forcible intercourse\" is rape. Or are you Whoopi Goldberg and it is not rape-rape, just regular rape?

You can also withdraw consent. If I agree to give you my wallet, then put it back in my purse and say \"I changed my mind,\" you do not not have the right to take it from me. If you walk into a \"rape tunnel\" (whatever the hell that is) and then say \"Look, I know I am in this tunnel but I don't want to have sex with you,\" you did not consent.

You really don't even need to be a lawyer to understand this.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

October 20, 2009 4:54 PM

@mythago: Sure, I never said consent was irrevocable.

The Rape Tunnel was a hoax art piece recently reported on Gawker, wherein \"at the end of the tunnel the subject will find [the artist] waiting in the project room [who will] try to the best of [his] ability to overpower and rape the person who crawls through.\"

For further discussion about whether the event at the end of the rape tunnel constitutes \"rape-rape\", \"regular rape\", or \"consensual rough sex\", see the Gawker threads.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 21, 2009 5:51 AM

@Michael Belisle: Hmm, go read a discussion of what a bunch of Gawker posters have to say about rape? Can I eat broken glass instead?

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 1:14 PM

...a \"rape tunnel\" (whatever the hell that is)...

@mythago: Lord, I hope no one answers that question.

$\"user-pic\"$

PhilFR

October 20, 2009 2:54 AM

So, Toyota is, what, the most successful car company in the world? Do they REALLY have to pull this s**t to sell cars?

$\"user-pic\"$

Scatter

October 20, 2009 2:58 AM

Is she going to sue her fiend as well for referring her?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

October 20, 2009 4:44 AM

@Scatter: i like your typo - that's what i'd call anyone who did this to me also! hehe

$\"user-pic\"$

Al Swearengen

October 20, 2009 3:00 AM

What the hell does a personality test even have to do with Toyota cars? Would anyone think that taking a personality test is going to result in Toyota stalking you? I certainly don't.

And if Toyota manages to win on the stalker opt-in, I know a few ladies I'm going to send a personality test.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

econobiker

October 20, 2009 3:02 PM

@Al Swearengen: Come on, we might be dealing with people who still think AOL is the \"internet\". And there are still some out there...

$\"user-pic\"$

savdavid

October 20, 2009 3:04 AM

Yes, 10 million ought to solve that bothersome insomnia, bad appetite and work troubles right away!
It works like this: Woman is either stupid or, more likely, thinking how she can cash in on this.
Toyota, that was not nice. However, the woman is even worse.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

rosvicl

October 20, 2009 3:25 PM

@savdavid: So, where in the law does it say that crimes aren't crimes if the victim is \"stupid\"? In particular, is the intelligence required before it's illegal for someone to steal your car different from the intelligence required before it's illegal for a stranger to deliberately terrify you for profit? Remember, this was a fscking marketing campaign: the bastards who set it up did so for money.

The ten million has two purposes. One is, yes, to recompense her for her suffering. Work troubles often produce financial problems. The other is that punitive damages only work if the amount is enough to be meaningful for the company being punished. Otherwise, you might as well make the penalty for assault be that the criminal has to dye their hair blue for a week, and put murderers in jail for three days.

However, I look forward to supporting your campaign for real criminal liability for corporations: for putting the CEOs and head of marketing of Toyota, and the CEO of the ad agency, on trial for stalking.

$\"user-pic\"$

Smashville

October 20, 2009 2:16 PM

@savdavid: So...you're saying Toyota should get off with no punishment...despite the fact that stalking and harassment are both against the law?

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 1:16 PM

@savdavid: Yeah, it's just awful that a woman should expect someone to actually be punished for harassing her.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:19 AM

@savdavid: Money is how we settle scores in this country. If you don't like it, feel free to campaign to change the laws so that, say, a court would award this woman the right to stab Saatchi & Saatchi's CEO in the eyeballs.

$\"user-pic\"$

StanTheManDean

October 20, 2009 3:10 AM

Who the FARK thought up this STUPID arse prank?

Screw the law suit, I want jail time.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Slave For Turtles

October 20, 2009 1:57 PM

@StanTheManDean: I had to think it over. If it really was a stalker, then I'd want jail time, but since it's not really a stalker but rather a car company and its advertising agency, then a law suit makes more sense. Just my opinion.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sudonum

October 20, 2009 5:09 PM

@Slave For Turtles:
So I guess the law would say the \"stalker\" lacked intent to inflict bodily harm and therefore is technically not guilty of stalking. Yet he/she/they DID actually stalk her. And the victim certainly thought she was being stalked regardless of actual intent. I would like to see criminal charges just to make sure that nobody ever even thought of doing anything this stupid again.

$\"user-pic\"$

bombledmonk

October 20, 2009 3:19 AM

I don't mean to sound heartless, but three simple numbers could have cleared this up. Having two months of difficulty in your life for not calling 911. I'll let the court decide if this was stupid enough to award damages, but to not alert authorities is simply stupid when you believe your life is in danger.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Slave For Turtles

October 20, 2009 2:05 PM

@bombledmonk: I agree with the other replies. The police do nothing for stalking. When it happened to me, I was just told to record the calls, etc. It didn't matter that I already had been doing that. I was just told to collect even more stuff which they didn't do anything with because the stalker was out of state (and \"warrants cost money\" blah blah blah). It was a NIGHTMARE, and the police made me feel victimized again. I know what this woman was experiencing. 10 millions dollars? Seriously, what price terror? Nail their asses. At least she can rest a bit knowing now that her stalker was a fake. (My apologies for sounding heated, but this brings back so many horrible memories.)

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 1:21 PM

@bombledmonk: We don't know whether or not she tried to get help from the police. But it's not like she didn't tell anyone:

The alleged harassment lasted five days, according to the suit, and frightened Duick so much she contacted neighbors, friends and family, and the occupant of her former home about the man she feared was coming to visit. Her attorney declined to comment as to whether or not she called the police. She even made her longtime boyfriend sleep with a club and mace next to the bed for protection.

October 20, 2009 11:09 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

ailema

@bombledmonk: You do not call 911 for the nonemergency of weird emails. If she had called the police they probably would have taken down her information and told her to call back if the guy showed up at her house.

October 20, 2009 10:34 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Pink Puppet

@bombledmonk: Yeah, because the police are so well known for their aggressive, proactive response to reports of being stalked. Especially when one abuses the emergency number.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 8:00 AM

@bombledmonk: So you call 911, and the dispatcher is irritated that you are wasting her time, and tells you to go down to the police station or to hang up and call the non-emergency line....oh, you're being stalked? Sure, we'll get right on that. Real soon now.

$\"user-pic\"$

SnoopyFish

October 20, 2009 3:57 AM

Well, I could see this being a haha funny you got me prank (advertising campaign) if it was only an email or 2 and not 5 days of torture. Do they even watch Punked? The people on that show are only subjected to 20 - 30 min of hell. Not 5 days!!

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:21 AM

I have to admire the people who are so desperately trying to blame the OP for this. They're probably the ones who sneer that they 'don't have any sympathy' (it's always about sympathy, isn't it?) for women who were raped because they were stupid enough to leave their homes without an escort.

What pantload at Saatchi & Saatchi thought this was a good marketing campaign? It's like they played Majestic and then watched Jackass and then did a whole skullfull of cocaine before showing up at the pitch meeting.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 1:28 PM

@mythago: Yeah, it's always that line of bullshit that if you don't do every cynical, paranoid, ridiculous thing possible and impossible then you deserve to have crimes committed against you.

Then there are the people who say they agree that Toyota was wrong but that they shouldn't be punished for it. WTF is that? Is it suddenly OK to harass people?

The worst part is that had they gone so far to actually have someone show up at her home to terrorize her in person they'd still be calling her stupid for falling for it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Meathamper

October 20, 2009 4:34 AM

Don't they have to put little disclaimers saying stuff like \"This is an ad\" or something? Isn't that like, the law?

$\"user-pic\"$

NancyCpants

October 20, 2009 8:24 AM

Wow, Toyota, smooth move. Instead of going with the old standby of decent, reliable cars, let's scare the shit out of our customers and make them think they're being stalked.

This would have terrified the living hell out of me.

October 20, 2009 11:46 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

Josh_G

That's right, if someone hits in the face with a camera, don't sue them, sue the camera maker!

Seriously though, this was a supremely dumb promo idea, short of each of the people being \"pranked\" winning a Matrix, or winning something you are just asking to be sued with something like this.

October 20, 2009 12:13 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

JessicaJessica

And how does this promote Toyota exactly?!?!

December 29, 2009 1:38 PM

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

o-line

I don't think it promote Toyota, but I bet pepper spray and taser companies are grateful

October 20, 2009 12:43 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

VagrantRadio

Is this what they're teaching the kids in marketing class these days? Idiots.

October 20, 2009 12:54 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

Bridonik

Simply input a little info about a friend (phone, address, etc.) and we'll then use it, without their knowledge, to freak them out through a series of dynamically personalized phone calls, texts, emails and videos.

Sounds like it's all the friends fault. If this is true, then the woman who was stalked did not know it was a prank! How can you give your consent to something you know nothing about? And when is it legal for someone else (the friend) to give consent on your behalf?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:54 PM

@Bridonik: The \"friend\" is not the one who did the actual stalking. Your argument is like saying if I hire a hit man, the hit man is blameless for committing a murder.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

October 20, 2009 2:06 PM

All details aside...did it not occur to anyone in Toyota that such a marketing gimmick could turn really sour really fast like this?

I don't know how this mess will end legally or why, but generally speaking it reminds me of the old saying, \"If you play with fire you are going to get burned.\"

Toyota, you really ought to consider the fact that there are tons of creative ways to market your products efficiently. Don't risk dumb crap like this.

$\"user-pic\"$

zandar

October 20, 2009 2:06 PM

To sum up, it's not going to sell cars, it's completely unappealing... and my own take on it: it is completely fucked up. Whoever decided this was a good idea is desperate, idiotic or a sicko. or all of the above.

$\"user-pic\"$

ellemm

October 20, 2009 2:23 PM

Jesus, not even the dimmer bulbs at Sterling Cooper would have pitched that as an ad campaign! Though I would pay to see Don Draper hand them their asses in a basket for trying.

$\"user-pic\"$

nstonep

October 20, 2009 2:49 PM

Sh mst b n f ths dts wh grs t nln ffrs t gt fr tns dwnld...gh.

Sh's sng tyt bcs thy hv MNY. slly ppl s bg cmpns bcs thy'r mr lkly t sttl thn t ctlly g t crt.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

SaraFimm

October 21, 2009 1:02 AM

@nstonep: I hate text-speak. I get tired of trying to figure out what they're writing/saying. I don't even bother reading such things anymore.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 21, 2009 5:49 AM

@SaraFimm: That's disemvowelling, which is the site admins' little way of telling someone \"STFU, asshole.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

Kajj

October 21, 2009 2:44 AM

@SaraFimm: That isn't text-speak, it's disemvoweling.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:15 AM

@nstonep: Big companies are more likely to go to court and settle. Thanks for adding some extra stupid to the internet!

$\"user-pic\"$

nstonep

October 20, 2009 9:33 AM

@mythago: check your eyes there genius.

$\"user-pic\"$

JohnQPublic

October 20, 2009 1:16 PM

@nstonep: Troll troll troll.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 20, 2009 4:15 AM

@mythago: *THAN settle.

October 20, 2009 12:47 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

absentmindedjwc

@nstonep: read it again chief. She took a personality test that opted her in for this. And it could have just said something as simple as \"by clicking this link, you opt-in to receive promotions from toyota in the future\" - Which would cover this...

When you are done playing \"blame the consumer\" and decide to join us here in the real world, I am sure you will agree with me.

$\"user-pic\"$

vladthepaler

October 20, 2009 3:21 PM

Hard to believe anyone thinks this is a good idea. I wish the woman great success in her lawsuit.

$\"user-pic\"$

HogwartsAlum

October 20, 2009 3:54 PM

Jeez, that's sick. There is nothing funny about stalking. Ask anyone who has ever been stalked for real. Did no one at Toyota even LOOK at this before it went out?

$\"user-pic\"$

dj-anakin

October 20, 2009 5:16 PM

\"I'm driving cross country in my Toyota Matrix to come kill you. Then i'm going to put your body in teh 30 cu feet of cubic space my luxurious Toyota Matrix offers. While in the trunk of my Toyota Matrix, your body parts won't move due to the Toyota Matrix's smooth riding suspension and patent pending deathstalker steering system.\"

*shrug*

$\"user-pic\"$

bagumpity

October 20, 2009 8:48 PM

They're already had enough free publicity from the outrage that the cost of the lawsuit is trivial.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

October 21, 2009 5:52 AM

@bagumpity: $10 million vs. convincing millions of people that you're a pack of assholes and they should buy somebody else's cars? Yep. Priceless.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Kohne

October 21, 2009 1:56 AM

I generally like Toyota (we currently own a Prius and a Scion xB), but WHY did they think this was a good idea? There are times when I wonder what these marketer types are smoking. They might get away with it from a legal standpoint, but from 'WTF is wrong with you?' standpoint, they are totally in the wrong here.

October 21, 2009 11:30 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

DovS

When did Toyota get the idea that stalking someone is a funny prank? Whether it was a publicity stunt or not, it WAS stalking and that's a criminal act. As absurd as it might sound, this woman should consider filing a restraining order against Toyota.

$\"user-pic\"$

oldwiz

October 22, 2009 6:59 PM

Advertising agencies see nothing wrong with frightening and scaring and threatening people. Companies like Toyota should have more sense. If Toyota wants to sell more cars, they would do well to tell their dealers to be nice to potential customers and stop dirty tactics. One Toyota dealer I went to said I needed to pay an extra $2500 for a new Camry for mandatory dealer installed options. Wouldn't you think that in a recession they should be trying to encourage people to buy their cars? The dealers seem to still think they can add whatever crap markup they can to sell cars then they wonder why the cars are not selling.

$\"user-pic\"$

Cantras

October 25, 2009 5:42 AM

I'm late to the party here, after trying to think of exactly what was bugging me about this. Clearly unethical, but what about it is setting off my no-no alarm?

This, the end-of-the-world movie with so many web sites set up to make it look legit up to the point that NASA has had to issue a statement about the planet that is not about to collide with us, the blair witch project -- anyone remember the advertising for that? It was brought up in an article about the 2012 thing, and then I remembered, oh yeah, a girl in my class being dead on convinced that this was a real documentary/real recovered footage. All this effort to make it not google-able what's going on. There's all this bad shit happening and I know there's *one thing* in my mind that's trying to complain --

OH RIGHT. I was a sociology student, and I did various research projects (both as a researcher and as a subject) while I was attending school. And they all had a notice about the human subjects review board -- that this had been approved, but with xyz caveat: These questions may make you feel uncomfortable. This is entirely confidential, unless we believe you may be a danger to yourself. Thank you for testing cookies with the food science department, artificial sweetener may cause allergic reaction.

These ads would not pass the human subjects review board if they were experiments in the pursuit of knowledge-- knowledge that could save other people the future, could find a cure or a treatment or an answer. And the ad department springs it on someone for a quick buck.

Why is there no human subjects review board for advertising?