I'm weary of hearing how market success is demonstrative of genuine value. Parrot Secrets may be a valuable resource -- we don't know -- but a snake oil salesman can also be quite successful, and his success does not validate his product.
This is where Cringely's article falls over. The Parrot Secret's book is comprised entirely of information collated by a 'ghostwriter' from purchased books. Is the information accurate? Are pet owners causing their pet's unnecessary duress or training them poorly due to faulty information? The site claims that the author is a 12 year parrot 'lover' -- as a potential purchaser, you may use this information to determine the likely veracity the information.
Unfortunately for the purchaser, "12 year parrot lover" is a lie.
So, by that token, would you consider the latest Microsoft ads scammy (maybe even fraudulent)?
They feature Lauren, apparently a real person, looking for a laptop under $1000. Turns out she is an actress, which would also affect the likely veracity of the ad as well.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/165113.asp
Advertising, by its very definition, is only meant to promote a product. Just turn on your TV, you will see plenty of misleading advertising that's not really illegal.
Would you be OK with Parrot Secrets if the owner paid for a real American girl who owns a parrot to be a spokesperson? I just don't see the reason for the outrage when an Indian guy is the marketer instead of a multibillion dollar conglomerate.
Advertising, by its very definition, is only meant to promote a product. Just turn on your TV, you will see plenty of misleading advertising that's not really illegal.
Ignoring the fact that there are various degrees of misleading, from the mild to the outright fraudulent, are you suggesting that people have no good reason to be disgusted with it because a lot of companies do it?
Disgusted is too strong a word, but I think people should be bothered. I know I am.
I was just trying to draw a parallel between false advertising on the internet by individuals, and false advertising we see through mainstream channels every day. I don't think we should give the latter a free pass because it's been around longer.
They feature Lauren, apparently a real person, looking for a laptop under $1000. Turns out she is an actress, which would also affect the likely veracity of the ad as well.
I don't think you read that article properly. She might be a member of the SAG, but the article doesn't say she was acting in that commercial. Actors are real people most of the time, you know.
This is where Cringely's article falls over. The Parrot Secret's book is comprised entirely of information collated by a 'ghostwriter' from purchased books. Is the information accurate? Are pet owners causing their pet's unnecessary duress or training them poorly due to faulty information? The site claims that the author is a 12 year parrot 'lover' -- as a potential purchaser, you may use this information to determine the likely veracity the information.
Unfortunately for the purchaser, "12 year parrot lover" is a lie.