[Gnu-arch-users] On PR and 'community building'

[Andrew Suffield]

There's a fascinating post on Penny Arcade today, which includes the
following text:

[Begin Message]

Wanna know about marketing, ask a Marketer. Here's a couple nifty bits for ya:

1) I have in my possession a marketing plan for NBA LIVE 2004 (don't
ask how I got it...  ). This marketing plan actually refers to "Hiring
viral specialists to advocate NBA Live online via chat rooms targeting
gaming fan sites" and "Placing offensive, defensive and PR shills into
common gaming chat arenas." It goes on to outline a full page of
tactics for said "Guerilla Online Marketing for Core Gamers."

2) I actually hired a company called Hype Council
(http://www.hypecouncil.com). These guys do a TON of gaming related
stuff -- I actually wouldn't be surprised if it's the company referred
to in your news post. Their technique is quite insidious. Let's say
they were hired to pump up PA (not like you need the buzz, but
whatever...). Using one of the hundreds of shill accounts they have
across the net, they post a new thread that says something like "hey
guys, I've been looking for some new web comics to read. Anybody have
any recommendations?" This is non-threatening, and gets the community
engaged. They then wait a couple days and post again, this time with
"Well, I asked some friends and they suggested I check out Penny
Arcade <insert link>. I thought it was pretty funny, although I didn't
like all the cuss words. What do you guys think?" Again, seeking
engagement, they now have stealthily inserted the client's link,
thereby encouraging trial. It's all very measurable and very
effective. You should see the monthly reports you get from these guys:
everything is detailed. Spooky.  It's all very insidious and, I'm
sure, widespread. So much so that I don't trust anything I
read. Unless it's a board where I "know" the posters, I always assume
everyone on the board is a shill.

[End Somewhat Terrifying Message]

These are real people whose paying job is to be an actor, presenting
themselves as a community member, while pushing the agendas which are
on their sheet today. The contracts change, but the people don't - so
you'll see the same people pushing different agendas at different
times, making it almost impossible to identify this behaviour. I would
expect them to show up at conferences, and perform other "identity
building" activities, as part of their job. When you start from the
knowledge that such companies exist and pay people to do these things,
the methods they would have to use are pretty obvious.

And with hindsight, it's expected behaviour. Once somebody has had the
idea of doing it, there will inevitably be companies performing this
service for a fee. Why wouldn't there be? It's cheap, compared to most
advertising costs, and (apparently) very effective.

I cannot imagine why this practice would be limited to gaming when it
is so blatantly applicable to free software. It is the natural
technique for 'community building' and there are several companies who
provide that service.

So I consider: how can you tell that a given person is *not* employed
by such a company? Unless you know them personally, well enough to
*know* what they spend their time doing (rather than just believing
what they claim), I can't see any way it could be done. Such people
would be paid to make themselves valuable and trusted members of the
community. They can afford to expend considerable time doing this,
because it's their job.

And I can't help but wonder how many revision control systems have
paid for this service. I think it likely that bitkeeper did, and
there's a fair chance that this service is part of collabnet's product
line, to pick the two most obvious.

I have to concur with Tycho. This is somewhat terrifying. It means you
can't trust *anybody*.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature