|
Number
31: December 3, 2003
If you think your friends and colleagues would enjoy this newsletter
feel free to forward it to them. If someone
sent this to you,
today. Outlook 2003 and AOL 9 users, please add us to your trusted or buddy lists, so you won't miss an issue.
This week in Katydid:
When
Flies Go Hunting for Spiders
While you wait for the U.S. Congress to finalize the CAN-SPAM
Act of 2003, it may be a good time to scan your list for spam traps.
With the possibility of high fines and punitive damages, companies may
find themselves deliberately trapped.
A spam trap is an e-mail addresses set up to catch web spiders. A
spider is a program that searches the web for specific information. Most
spammers use spiders to look through web pages to find valid e-mail
addresses. A webmaster might hide an address in the code of a web page
that will act as a flag for spider activity. They commonly use addresses
such as abuse@ or spam@ to attract the spiders.
When the company receives e-mail at these addresses they know they've
been found by spiders and that the e-mail is unsolicited. Therefore,
they can pursue action against the company. They also forward these
e-mails to ISPs who may use this as a reason to add the company's domain
to a black list.
However, some less scrupulous (or impatient) people might
deliberately give out these addresses in an attempt to draw spam. This
is like the insurance scammers who slam on their brakes in front of you
in traffic trying to force you to rear-end their vehicle and garner a
large settlement. The incentive for this kind of behavior will go up if
spam legislation creates hefty fines.
You can protect yourself by making sure you track where all your
e-mail addresses come from, but you should also scan your list for these
kinds of spider markers. You might even ask your list broker if they
check for spam traps. After all, it's your domain on the line.
Top »
The
Word for Today Is 'Celebutante'
As someone fascinated by etymology, I must draw attention to a word
undergoing a major renaissance – celebutante. If a debutante
is "a young woman making her formal debut into society," then
a celebutante is a young person making his or her formal debut into celebrity.
This trend offers insights into branding. The earliest reference I can find of the word, celebutante, is in an
August 12, 1994 Entertainment
Weekly article on Courtney
Love ("The Power Of Love") where it's used to describe
designer Anna
Sui, but it is certainly much older. Based on usage, the word seems
to have its origins in the rarified world of New
York society, moving to fashion design, eventually migrating to club culture,
and into popular use.
The word has been used mainly as a pejorative to attack the fake or
unearned celebrity of an individual. Today, though, the use of the word
has exploded and in a sense been redefined by the latest celebutante – Paris
Hilton.
Now, it is fair to say that Ms. Hilton is overexposed these days in
all senses of the word. However, in recent months, she has come to
define celebutante. No longer is she described in print
as 'millionaire heiress' and 'party girl;' she is now celebutante Paris
Hilton.
This marks a turn in the meaning of the word. Some journalists had
used the word in a kind way to describe actors such as Claire
Danes and Jennifer
Aniston in a positive light – a way saying 'it girl' without the
diminishing of gender. Other journalists used the word to show disdain.
Now, the word describes an entire class of celebrities whose fame has
come from anything other than personal achievement. It may evolve more
specifically to define those who use their parent's wealth to
manufacture careers for themselves as celebrities.
This desire for a coming out party on a grander scale than
metropolitan society, requires the stage provided by a hungry national
media. The celebrity cycle turns much faster as we watch with
fascination, disdain, and ultimately ennui. Those who fear it may create
a generation of Veruca Salts publicly proclaiming on national TV, "I
want an Oompa-Loompa Now!" can console themselves with the
eventual fading of popularity.
In fact, one of the more appealing factors of being a celebutante may
be the promise of eventual anonymity. While an actor whose career
depends on maintaining visibility may fear the fading of their star, a
celebutante has the resources to dabble in celebrity and return to
retirement with the illusion of accomplishment.
Here lies the object lesson for marketers. Do you want your brand to
be a celebutante or a true talent? You may have good reasons either way.
Being remarkable is critical for a brand, but you want to sustain your
remarkableness.
The producers of television shows such as Simple
Life, Newlyweds,
and Rich
Girls understand the short shelf life of the celebutante brand. They
have chosen a strategy of histrionic hype. However, imagine the strategy
they would employ had they decided to cast Julia Roberts (stay with me
now). While there would be much publicity, the tone would be markedly
more subdued.
Is your brand truly a talent, or a one-trick pony? If you focus on
features, you emphasize the tricks your brand can do. If you highlight
value and benefit then you underscore talent. Talent matures, while
celebrity fades. Just ask Ms. Hilton this time next year.
Top »
Thanks for Reading
This e-mail newsletter spreads mainly by word of
mouth. Please send it on to your colleagues. Also, you can
read other back issues.
If you have suggestions of web sites to review, writing that buzzes,
or a new way of looking at things, let me know. Send your suggestions to
.
If you received this newsletter from a friend, please
today. Our subscriber lists are confidential; we never sell or rent our
lists to third parties. If you want to
from this newsletter,
please let us know.
Kind regards,
Kevin Troy Darling
Top »
|
