Comments on: That’s gonna leave a mark…

By: Bill Compton

Bill Compton — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:00:59 +0000

Hi Jim. Photos i received. Thanks

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:02:56 +0000

and New Yorkers probably would have reacted the same way on 9/10.

What seems lost in a lot of this anecdotal commentary is the full chain of events. Before the first device was reported, the police were busy dealing with 2 pipe bombs, one strapped to a bridge.

It’s easy to monday morning quarterback but I think we would all agree that when the events are unfolding and the consequences of getting it wrong are so severe, the police rarely have the luxury of “lightening up”.

By: vinnie mirchandani

vinnie mirchandani — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:21:15 +0000

To Damon’s point above … in a talk show I happened to catch, callers were 10 to 1 against Boston syaing the city needed to lighten up…

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:50:35 +0000

creating havoc and disrupting people’s lives is not effective marketing. Raising awareness and getting people to go see the movie when it comes out are two entirely distinct objectives. Furthermore, if it can be proven that the intent was to create a hoax threat as a way of generating publicity then the criminal and civil penalties could well prove to be crippling to CN.

It’s probably only funny to people who 1) watch the series, and 2) don’t live in Boston.

By: Damon

Damon — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:40:34 +0000

This is the best marketing stunt I have ever seen. Anyone who watches the show will think this is absolutely the funniest thing they have ever seen. Unwise, perhaps, but stunningly effective. If you have never seen Aquateen hunger force, you probably don’t understand how perfectly this story complements the show. If you like the show, I’ll bet at least a part of you thinks this is all hilarious.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:00:36 +0000

I hope there is accountability either taken or imposed at the right level. Should the artist have asked to see the written legal documents guaranteeing the city was on boad? Maybe, but I assume many people contracted by a large ad agency might assume they had their ducks in a row. I’m sure there is plenty of responsibility to go around, but I hope this guy doesn’t get stuck with the brunt of it should it prove there was someone orchestrating the whole effort. The people who controlled the go/no-go decision need to be held accountable.

What was more interesting to me around this whole case is that it is probably one of the best case studies about how Boston can respond. Drills are one thing, but false alarms actually put things through the paces at 100%. Emergency response always breaks down into three levels (1) preparation (2) response / execution (3) afteraction. Emergeny responders typically own #1 & #2. #3 is often owned by the political establishment to calm nerves, etc. I think Boston did fine on #1 & #2, my grade is still out on #3. Leaders seemed flustered, unsure and maybe even a little political. I’m sure the city of boston is running an after action study, so the only plus side to this is that the system got put through its paces and might be made a little stronger.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:52:13 +0000

1) it may be that Boston’s citizens are more vigilant about potential threats
2) It is not clear the schedule that TW had these distributed on, they have been up for about 2 weeks in SF but I would take that to mean much, SF is notoriously lax about security threats.
3) the bomb squad spokesman said “this had all the traits of an IED, a rudimentary circuit board, a taped d-cell battery pack that looked like the explosives, and some transmitting capability”. I paraphrased but that’s what they said, if you were law enforcement would you not think the same thing? If you didn’t think that, would you be doing the job you are entrusted with.
4) starving artist? If it were a starving bomber that put this together would you feel the same way. Remember, law enforcement had no way of knowing how many there were and if they were in other cities.
5) apparently, there was no labeling as to what the nature of the device was
6) Menino is someone I rarely find occasion to agree with but in this case he got it right.

I find it stunning that nobody at this advertising agency or Time Warner itself thought to consider the consequences of putting an unlabeled electronic device that even I though looked like it could be a bomb into major cities might not be a good idea. Considering the cost and disruption to Boston this stunt caused, someone is going to pay a price in terms of criminal and actual dollar costs. Being a “starving artist” in no way gives one immunity from the consequences of poorly thought out acts… especially considering that this starving artist was getting paid.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:27:03 +0000

I haven’t seen a photo of one of these installed, but weren’t they up for weeks in other cities? If so, why is it that Boston had such a reaction when other cities didn’t? Putting a starving artist in jail (Berdovsky) isn’t going to help anything. Fine Time Warner, move on. Plus, it seemed like Menino was more put out that he didn’t get his ass kissed, reacting negatively to getting a call from a ‘low level’ Time Warner press flunky. “It’s all about corporate greed,” Menino said. I can almost see him sitting in his chair, spitting out the word ‘profit’ with bile like it is a dirty word.

By: rob

rob — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:38:53 +0000

I’d be surprised if the subject of risk didn’t come up when the product managers were talking about putting hundreds of electrical devices in different cities … will be interested to see what comes out from Turner.

As for Boston’s response, I think the response was fine, while the after action hasn’t been stellar. I just posted about this, but the focus on the one guy they arrested didn’t really make me feel much better as a citizen. After action is all about instilling confidence and this hasn’t done it for me.