TECHNOLOGY IN MARKETING

Representing and
Misrepresenting
Yourself on Social
Networks
A Cautionary Tale for Marketers
Amy Pospiech
12/16/2008

This assignment is an individual research paper on the topic of social and ethical
issues of technology. The issue is authenticity in social networks as it relates to
public policy and marketing. Includes a summary of different perspectives or
responses; conclusions and implications for marketers and public policy makers.
 Pospiech 2

Social networks are now a big part of mainstream culture in America and

throughout other parts of the world. Facebook, myspace, Flickr, blogs, YouTube, and

all aspects of Web 2.0 are now literally used by everyone and their mothers

(Elevenmoms 2008), in some cases even babies (Menscher 2008) and plants (Bray

2008) – sort of. Because of their ease of use and widespread adoption, many

creative uses of the internet and Web 2.0 have developed, not only by tech-savvy

individuals but by consumers, kids, artists, and marketers with a little time and

energy. However, amidst all this content, it can be easy to get lost, confused, or

frustrated. A user may begin to wonder, “How reliable or credible is the source of

this information?” “Who is actually responsible for the creation of this content and

what purpose does it serve?” “Is this content purely for entertainment or does the

author have some hidden agenda?” Sometimes, a misleading video, article,

website, or social networking profile may be seen as malicious, misguided, or

worthless, and the author is either condemned or ignored. Other times, a creative

case of misrepresentation may be praised and lauded throughout the community

even after it has been “discovered.” It seems that the issue is one of authenticity.

Especially now, with more marketers and businesspeople entering the Web

2.0 circle for professional rather than personal purposes, consumers are delighted

to point out when someone has failed to adequately disclose their purpose. Even

with proper disclosure, some users are upset by ideas like “Pay-per-Post” which

damages the “integrity” of a blogger’s personal and respected opinion. For

example, Chris Brogan’s “Sponsored Post-Kmart Holiday Shopping Dad Style” was

enough to set the tweet-o-sphere (via Twitterers) and the blogosphere (via

Bloggers) on fire, even though it clearly stated that it was a sponsored post in the
 Pospiech 3

title and first few lines of text, and it appeared on his Dad-O-Matic blog. Some

responses were along the lines of, “My beef is that I would rather hear from a real

shopper. Can’t Kmart find *someone* who’s shopped there for years who wants to

tell you and me why they like Kmart?”(Fialkoff 2008) and “I think he caught flack

due to the brand he chose to associate with.” (Singer 2008). So the issue here was

not just whether the post was sponsored, but whether it was solicited or “real,” even

though it was seemingly a favorable matchup for both parties.

Chris Brogan is a well-respected social media maven. He is “a ten year

veteran of using social media and technology to build digital relationships for

businesses, organizations, and individuals. Chris speaks, blogs, writes articles, and

makes media of all kinds at [chrisbrogan.com], a blog in the top 20 of the

Advertising Age Power150, and in the top 100 on Technorati” (Brogan 2008). It

made sense for Kmart to choose such a high-profile blogger to raise awareness for

their brand. But the approach may have seemed too market-y, as Chris Brogan was

only leveraging his status as “dad” for the brand which, perhaps, he had not

capitalized on before this sponsorship. To avoid this problem, analyst Jeremiah

Owyang states that when doing sponsored posts, “Bloggers will simply have to

ensure that they are delivering trusted content to their audience (transparent), and

it’s relevant to their current topics (authentic). If readers are going to a tech blog,

and expecting tech content, they may be surprised if the content shifts to a

different medium – like consumer goods… The good thing about the blogosphere is

that it self corrects, the community members will let the blogger know what they do

and don’t like – it happens every day” (2008).

Certainly, this is a case where the blogosphere shows its self-correcting

nature. In response to the negative feedback on Twitter and in the blogosphere,

 Pospiech 4

Chris wrote his own post, justifying his choice for doing the sponsored post. It

included his relationship with the sponsoring company, Izea (formerly associated

with the controversial Pay-per-Post), and his wanting to “experiment” with the paid

post system. His response to the buzz about the “purity” of the blogging platform

and the internet was, “My job isn’t to keep the Kumbaya chants going. It’s to equip

businesses (and that’s on the blogger side *and* the big business side) with

knowledge and actionable next steps” (Brogan 2008). This entry, entitled

“Advertising and Trust,” received 222 comments of its own in just over three days,

with the original paid post receiving over 400, as entries into Kmart’s holiday

contest. So the post exposed two things: First, a sponsored post must be a perfect

alignment between blogger and sponsor, or else it will come off as fake and

potentially weaken the reputation of both parties involved. Second, even a

misaligned sponsorship can generate some buzz about a brand or contest, and may

generate some excitement from those that aren’t upset over the whole sponsorship

idea, such as these bloggers: “Kmart was very smart at reaching out to Chris

Brogan. Far away from scholastic definitions of marketing and social media, Chris

Brogan has a heart. His followers know it. What is the value of that? I think you -and

Kmart- will find out” (Hart 2008) and, “After all he is a blogger who works in the

business and marketing field, giving useful advice for free and never too busy to

reply to a serious email or tweet. He’s not some kind of anarchist grimly struggling

against authority and many of the usual suspects in Chris Brogan’s blogosphere

salivate over the chance to get paid to blog” (Cox 2008).

So, while some people feel slighted by the idea of paid posts and

endorsements, or even jealous that they’re not getting paid for their own opinions

yet, others don’t mind them and see them as a normal part of business (“you’ve got
 Pospiech 5

to live”)or a positive aspect of the blogosphere when executed correctly. Owyang

also mentions that “recent research shows that corporate blogs are not trusted, but

we know that consumers trust their peers, so savvy brands will want to benefit from

word of mouth” (Owyang 2008). Yet this case study shows that there is more to it

than soliciting “peers” to advocate a brand, as these “peers” must not only spark a

reader’s interest, but their trust. They must be seen as speaking from the heart, and

advocating a brand because of its application to their particular area of expertise,

adding value for the readers of the blog. Finally, a sponsorship must feel organic,

not contrived.

Another case where marketers have tried to use well-known figures to

promote their brand, to a mild degree of success, is with AT&T’s new campaign,

“Lost in America.” This campaign consists of a video series featuring two young

starlets being taken on random adventures throughout the country. Unlike the Chris

Brogan sponsorship, these characters were chosen based on their relevance to the

target market of the company. According to girls’ bios on the site:

Karen: Karen has a very healthy and normal obsession with social media,
fruit and "The Wizard of Oz". She is heavily involved in online social
communities like Facebook and Twitter and enjoys trying out new web
technologies. She continues to shoot and edit short videos whenever
inspiration strikes and regularly blogs on her site karenism.com about
technology, film and food.

iJustine: With a catalog of more than 300 videos and 3,000 photos published
online, Ezarik "is the Internet". A connoisseur of all things Internet, a gadget
girl and a comedienne; iJustine represents a new kind of media star.

Interesting to note, iJustine was first made famous by her extremely lengthy

iPhone bill, making her the perfect selection for AT&T’s campaign. There are

currently 16 “episodes” posted at attlostinamerica.com; the first one is titled

“Alaska Ep. 1 'The Drop-Off’” and described: “In the premiere episode of Lost In

America, our participants Justine & Karen are dumped out of a van in different parts
 Pospiech 6

of Anchorage, Alaska.” Similar episodes follow, with the girls using only their AT&T

phones to navigate their way around the country. While the sponsorship is clearly

evident, the campaign received some heat from an AdAge reporter, “The series is

heavy on AT&T, but light on storyline, unless you find it interesting that Justine

could be booted out of the competition if she drops her phone a fifth time”

(Learmonth). So, here is an example of a perfectly-matched partnership between

two social media mavens and a tech company, but because it is so overtly

promotional in nature and lacking real “content,” it has received little buzz and the

viewer stats aren’t as impressive as, say, iJustine’s own YouTube channel.

Moving from weak sponsorships and partnerships, there are some inspiring

examples of unsolicited brand advocacy which have generated some attention in

the Web 2.0 world. One to note is the Darth Vader character from Star Wars who

tweets regularly. Clearly, it is not Darth Vader himself behind the mask. Or is it? He

stays remarkably on-character and his tweets are entertaining enough, or strange

enough, to command a large following. An example of a tweet which does not

advocate a particular brand but jives with the current economy: “Tarkin says we

have to make cut backs. Stupid union clone troopers make $70 an hour and

naturally, there's like a million of them. 3:59 PM Dec 12” and one which apparently

does advocate a brand: “Totally had Tarkin convinced they named Black Friday after

me. He was waffling until I whipped out my Vader Master Card - http://bit.ly/UAeh

9:20 PM Nov 28.” The link takes the user to a Darth Vader Master Card promotion.

(Note: Tarkin is another Star Wars character).

While it doesn’t seem that Darth Vader receives any type of a compensation

for his work, he has over 20,000 followers and could drive significant traffic to

another site. The point is: here is someone who remains anonymous and takes on
 Pospiech 7

the persona of a famous character. His “followers” know it’s not really Darth Vader

behind the tweets as much as they know it’s not really Santa who delivers presents

on Christmas morning, but it’s the kind of thing people don’t mind seeing because it

is entertaining and even a bit inspiring. And it doesn’t even matter who the guy or

girl behind the tweets really is, or if they’re paid off or not. Of course, if some

individual was contracted to make a Twitter account and try to generate “buzz,” the

stream might not be as popular, seeming phony and scripted. Yet, if that individual

were James Earl Jones, well then you might have a quality social media

implementation. The point is not to try to “fool” users, but to use spoofs that are

highly-entertaining or obvious.

In previous years of Web 2.0, some marketers and public relations staff

misused technology, such as forums and review sites to post positive feedback on

their own products, generating bad PR and backlash from the community. This was

a violation of user’s trust and pitted them against the evil “marketers” who violated

their social spaces. In current years of Web 2.0, public relations staff has become

overly protective of their brand and brand image, and now the marketers don’t trust

the users, either. There is a concern over copyright infringement and of course, fear

that someone else may destroy a brand’s image through parodies and spoofs via

sites such as YouTube and blogging platforms. It comes as no surprise, then, that

when unsponsored “Mad Men” characters from AMC’s fading TV series set in the

1960’s started signing up for online profiles and gaining a large following, the

parent company AMC reacted.

The “characters” Don Draper, Roger Sterling, Joan Holloway, and Pete

Campbell were supposed employees of Sterling Cooper Advertising from 1962 and,

consistent with the television drama, their Tumblr.com and later Twitter.com
 Pospiech 8

presence maintained their characters’ voices. They offered advice to other users

and even a subtext to the television series. However, when AMC discovered what

was happening, they took a fearful approach. Twitter was contacted and the

offending accounts suspended. This attempt at controlling the “fan fiction” may

have caused even more damage than good; the company’s negative response was

the call to action for a website, WeAreSterlingCooper.com, with the manifesto, “Fan

fiction. Brand hijacking. Copyright misuse. Sheer devotion. Call it what you will, but

we call it the blurred line between content creators and content consumers, and it's

not going away. We're your biggest fans, your die-hard proponents, and when your

show gets cancelled we'll be among the first to pass around the petition. Talk to us.

Befriend us. Engage us. But please, don't treat us like criminals” (Caddell 2008).

Many blog articles and Twitter streams were created as a result of this. “As

lawyers often do, their threats had created far more controversy and negative

publicity than the fans could have possibly threatened” (2008). The website offers

links to many of them, as well as a downloadable 11-page .pdf documenting the

series of events, called “Becoming A Mad Man,” written by one of the Mad Men

named Bud Melman, real name Bud Caddell . His account was not one of the 9 shut

down by AMC because his presence was invented solely online and not in the series

itself. Caddell acted as a facilitator in the post-suspension phase, gathering all the

Twitter users and concerned members of the community together to create unity

and determine their purpose. He writes:

When I asked why each person had chosen to start twittering as a fictional
character from a television show, the answers were varied but shared a
consistent theme: love. Our strange new behaviors and identities were the
result of an advanced relationship to the world of AMCʼs Mad Men. It was our
appreciation of the subject matter, the writing, the acting, and the product as
a whole that spurred our expression. We were contributing freely, and no
conversation about compensation was had. We were operating under the
typical fan community “gifteconomy.” But regardless of why we got started,
 Pospiech 9

we all saw this as an opportunity to prove a model, that fans and brands
should work together and create together (and we all still hoped AMC would
respond to us). We were all very much invested in the success of our
characters as a new form of engagement and as a way to create more
meaning and relevance with fans.

So, with all of this Web 2.0 jumble of good-and-evil content, how do

marketers ensure the consistency of their brand image and message, while

promoting active user communities? It seems that the trick is a mixture of “listening

in” along with “guerrilla” tactics that make use of current user communities. If

consumers are creating positive fan fiction and it does not harm your own

company’s reputation, message, etc., then let it live. Promote it. Encourage the

authors. Feature them in a press release. Do an interview with them. Link to their

sites / content. E-mail them. Friend them. Whatever the case, if they already love

your brand enough to spend significant time developing content about it, it’s almost

guaranteed that they’d appreciate the recognition. If the number of self-help blogs

and articles written recently is any indication, and the number of replies many of

them receive (Chris Brogan’s included), this is certainly the case. So a starving

creative would most likely be thrilled by a contact from a real company that they

have a pre-existing passion for. Marketers, pay attention!

On the other hand, if negative content is created, a marketer should do more

of the listening before reacting like AMC’s representatives. Figure out what’s wrong.

Solicit opinions. Ask how the product / service can be improved. By asking to shut

down a popular user profile or by threatening to remove objectionable content, a

company representative will fuel the hatred that was brewing when the content was

being created. Do not upset the influential users of the Web 2.0 world, as they will

surely make it known to others and find a way around the obstacles being

superficially created for them. They can always set up a copycat website, create a
 Pospiech 10

new profile, etc. This is the gift and the curse of the ever-changing, constantly

updated, collaborative Web 2.0 revolution. In soliciting feedback rather than

attempting to remove some misrepresented facts or opinions, a marketer / PR

representative can act in a proactive, rather than a reactive or protectionist manner.

This will cast the company or brand in a much better light. The author may even

change their opinion, or reveal that they don’t even mind the brand all that much

anyway, as was the famous case where Starbucks attempted to sue comic-book

illustrator Kieron Dwyer for making a spoof of their logo.

Dwyer’s green-and-white siren carries a cell phone and coffee cup, and is

tagged with the text “consumer whore.” However, he didn’t really mind the brand

all that much – just the waste that came to his neighborhood once Starbucks moved

in. It was only after the lawsuit that he stopped drinking their frap’s every morning.

He writes, “as much as I was mocking Starbucks and their rampant consumerism,

there was also self-awareness and some irony to it because I was mocking myself

and everybody else who was making their way like lemmings off a cliff to Starbuck’s

every day” (Dwyer ). Sure, the logo was offensive, but a polite notice or initiation of

a conversation with Dwyer would have sufficed to have its circulation halted. At that

point, if Dwyer was unresponsive, a lawsuit may have been necessary, but not

before. From a public relations perspective, the approach of Starbucks was uncalled

for. After all, isn’t Web 2.0 all about engaging your customers with conversation?

Armando Alves, author of the blog A Source of Inspiration, writes about the

“brandjacking” phenomenon and how companies can prevent or control it. “Brand

Hijacking happens when consumers appropriate the brand for themselves and add

meaning to it… brands should act as facilitators, opening communication channels

and providing tools and materials (if you’re really hip, wrap it around a Creative
 Pospiech 11

Commons license) to consumers” (2008). He highlights the Mad Men story

described earlier and goes on to list some best practices for companies to prevent a

user from completely abusing the system, including:

1. Register your brand/product name early.

2. Define procedures for brand hijacking as one of your social media best
practices. A simple social media policy will do.
3. Get your voice. Is it a push model, or do you actually engage with the
users? Delegated or internal? Formal or Informal?
4. Provide aggregation mechanisms.
5. Track your brand buzz.
6. Have a consistent alias/nickname in different services.

These suggestions will help prevent such practices as cybersquatting, where a user

registers a domain name similar to your own brand, with negative intentions –

either for money or recognition. Even so, brandjacking may occur in obscure ways,

so companies must always monitor social sites to discover relevant discussions and

user profiles, whether intended for creative entertainment or not.

One realistic example of brandjacking which occurred this summer was an

“employee” of Exxon Mobil’s via a Twitter page. Janet’s completely unverified posts

went along the lines of:

• we are not an earth hating organization, and we’re working on hard to

improve how we drill for oil, these are difficult times.
• we used revenues as reinvestment into R&D. In 2007 we invested $21bil in
refining capacity to reduce the future cost of petroleum.
• Did You Know? ExxonMobil reduced its Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 5 million
metric tons from 2006 to 2007!
• ExxonMobil’s primary concern is to safely provide reliable and affordable
supplies of energy to people around the world

Within three days “Janet” was discovered to be a fake. Here is the response of Alan

Jeffers, a real an Exxon employee: “There are only people that are authorized and

not-authorized, even people with the best intentions, may not know what the

appropriate position is or the facts, we think that there’s a problem, as we don’t

want to be misleading people and there’s a lot of errors what the person is posting
 Pospiech 12

even if it was something that had the best of intentions could be misleading. It’s our

perception that social networking is based on honesty, transparency and trust, it’s

important that they become forthcoming about who they represent” (Owyang

2008). While this brandjacking only lasted for three days before it was discovered, if

it had gone on for longer it could have caused some real damage to the company,

since she had most of the Twitter community’s belief and support behind her. When

she was discovered, she even refused to take down her account and give in,

claiming she was in fact “an employee of ExxonMobil, who has decided to put

forward her pride in her own company” (Diaz). But since verifiable Exxon executives

denounced any relations to her, the feed has since been removed. This case

highlights a slightly scarier view of social media: that users blindly trust certain

content, such as this Twitter page, because it offers them opinions that they want to

hear.

Perhaps this “Janet” was just a means to reassure a failing economic

landscape that someone is there to help, or perhaps “Janet” is a huge nutcase who

actually just thinks of her lying self as an Exxon brand advocate. But comparing that

to the Chris Brogan case and the other “brand advocacy” cases where sponsorship

was involved, and the situation becomes even more interesting. A fully-disclosed

sponsorship agreement from two credible sources received a lot of negative heat,

even though both brands were well-liked and respected in general. An undisclosed,

unverified brand advocate for a generally un-liked brand (i.e. Exxon Valdez) receives

more “hmm, stinks for Exxon” reactions than “how dare she/they!” And if she were

an actual employee, doesn’t that necessitate her payment for this undertaking? So

it can’t be about the paid / unpaid thing. This whole “social media networking”

seems to be a bit finicky.

 Pospiech 13

People weren’t sure whether the Mad Men were sanctioned by AMC, but they

didn’t care as the accounts were not representative of real people, but characters

playing a role in a fictional drama set in the 1960’s. They were entertaining. Darth

Vader uses a similar setup where he plays a role, regardless of whether he’s backed

by the Star Wars creators or not. Fellow Twitterers don’t expect him to be a real

person and follow him simply for amusement. No one really criticized “Janet” for her

blatant misrepresentations, but instead wishes that Exxon would get involved in

conversations with consumers in the future. No one can even criticize iJustine

partnering with AT&T, because she was essentially made famous with the iPhone, so

her approach is totally on-brand and in character, albeit a bit tired and dull. But

Chris Brogan, Pay-per-Post, used car salesmen, and salesmen in general appear

“unauthentic,” receiving plenty of criticism and negative attitudes. Sure, they get

some sales sometimes. Overall, the best idea for a marketer: don’t stick your brand

where it doesn’t belong, and where it already exists, find the most enthusiastic

supporters and listen before acting. Figure out what’s working. Find the right

community, find people who already love your brand, and foster that community to

promote the brand equity that is already growing there. Don’t get too “market-y” or

“sell-y” with users, or it will deteriorate the authenticity of that blog, forum,

partnership, brand, etc. That doesn’t mean every “fan fiction” or derivative work

must be removed: on the contrary, if something is authentically enthusiastic, on-

brand, or otherwise engaging in a positive way, it should be cultivated and nurtured

like a little plant who tweets. Something as “false” as a talking plant can still be

“authentic” if done correctly.

Pospiech 14
 Works Cited
Alves, Armando. “Social Media and Brand Hijacking.” September 3, 2008. Accessed
December 12, 2008.
<http://www.asourceofinspiration.com/2008/09/03/social-media-and-brand-
hijacking/>

AT&T. “Lost in America.” <http://www.attlostinamerica.com/all_episodes.html>

Bray, Rebecca, Rob Faludi, Kate Hartman, and Kati London. “Botanicalls >> Kits.”
Botanicalls.com. Accessed December 14, 2008.
<http://www.botanicalls.com/kits/>

Brogan, Chris. “About.” chrisbrogan.com. Accessed December 12, 2008.

<http://www.chrisbrogan.com/about/>

Brogan, Chris. “Advertising and Trust.” chrisbrogan.com blog. December 13, 2008.
Accessed December 16, 2008. <http://www.chrisbrogan.com/advertising-and-
trust/>

Brogan, Chris. “Sponsored Post-Kmart Holiday Shopping Dad Style.” Dad-O-Matic

blog. December 2, 2008. Accessed December 14, 2008.
<http://dadomatic.com/sponsored-post-kmart-holiday-shopping-dad-style/>

Cox, Darren Daz. “Should Chris Brogan get paid?” The Fine Art and Design blog of
Darren Daz Cox. December 14, 2008. <http://99daz.com/should-chris-brogan-
get-paid/>

Diaz, Sam. “Internet brand-jacking: What can be learned from Exxon Mobil?” August
7, 2008. Accessed December 12, 2008.
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9602>

Dwyer, Kieron. “Kieron Dwyer.” Artist bio at stretcher.org. Accessed December 14,
2008. <http://www.stretcher.org/reviews/images/2004/illegal_art/dwyer.htm>

“Elevenmoms.” Walmart.com. Accessed December 16, 2008.

<http://instoresnow.walmart.com/Community.aspx?id=100>

Fialkoff, Josh. “Why Kmart is Wrong to use Chris Brogan.” Josh Fialkoff: Online
Marketing, Wordpress & GTD blog. December 13th, 2008. Accessed
December 16, 2008. <http://www.nooozeguy.com/chris-brogan-kmart-are-
wrong/>

Hart, Ana. “Why Kmart is Wrong to use Chris Brogan.” Comment on Josh Fialkoff:
Online Marketing, Wordpress & GTD blog. December 13, 2008. Accessed
December 16, 2008. <http://www.nooozeguy.com/chris-brogan-kmart-are-
wrong/>

Learmonth, Michael. “AT&T's iJustine Web Series Doesn't Exactly Go Viral.” AdAge.
November 24, 2008. Accessed December 7, 2008.
<http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=132817>
Menscher, Corey. “Kickbee.” December 13, 2008. Accessed December 15, 2008.
<http://portfolio.menscher.com/itp/kickbee/> and
<http://crackblur.com/post/64705244/a-response-to-some-kickbee-
comments>

Messina, Chris. “Twitter hashtags for emergency coordination and disaster relief.”
October 22, 2007. Accessed December 16, 2008.
<http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/10/22/twitter-hashtags-for-emergency-
coordination-and-disaster-relief/>

Owyang, Jeremiah. “Understanding Izea’s Sponsored Blogging Service.” Web

Strategy by Jeremiah blog. December 14th, 2008. Accessed December 15,
2008. <http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/12/14/understanding-izeas-
sponsored-blogging-service/>

“How “Janet” Fooled the Twittersphere (and me) She’s the Voice of Exxon Mobil.”
Web Strategy by Jeremiah blog. August 1, 2008. Accessed December 15,
2008. <http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/08/01/how-janet-fooled-the-
twittersphere-shes-the-voice-of-exxon-mobil/>

Singer, Adam. “Chris Brogan's Sponsored/Paid Blog Post for Kmart.” Comment on
The New Advertising blog. December 14, 2008.
<http://thenewadvertising.blogspot.com/2008/12/chris-brogan-blogging-for-
kmart.html>

Vader, Darth. Profile on Twitter. <http://twitter.com/darthvader>

Works Referenced
Anand, Geeta; Basu, Abhijit; Beckett, Paul; Sircar, Subhadip. “Dozens of People
Killed in Mumbai Attacks.”November 27,
2008.<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122772417126260231.html>

Alexander, Bryan; Levine, Alan; “Web 2.0 Storytelling: Emerging of a New Genre.”
Educause Review; Nov/Dec2008, Vol. 43 Issue 6, p40-56, 11p. EBSCOhost.
<http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/Web20Storytelling
Emergenc/47444>

C, Omar. “Map of Mumbai attacks.” November 26, 2008. Accessed December 15,
2008.
<http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=18.922445,7
2.832242&spn=0.007054,0.007864&z=17&msid=105055855763538009401.
00045c9d8b16af3ad1008>

“Cartoonist Kieron Dwyer Sued By Starbucks.” Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. New
York, NY. November 30, 2000. <http://www.cbldf.org/pr/001130-
starbucks.shtml >

Godin, Seth. “How to tell a great story.” April 2006.

<http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/32/how_to_tell_a_great_story/>
 Appendix A: Images

11 moms Walmart campaign Kieron Dwyer’s Starbucks spoof

Darth Vader’s idea of a joke

Mad Men Season 2 – likely to Tweet?
“Brandjacked” Exxon Mobil