Intern-For-A-Day Series: Hack Is Wack … Is Wack

Posted by on Oct 26, 2010 in Entertainment, Fast Horse, Marketing Industry, Technology | 16 comments

Editor’s note: This is the third post in the Fast Horse Experience Intern-For-A-Day program series.

Earlier posts are here and here.  Stay tuned for posts in this series on Tuesdays here on the Peepshow and on Facebook. The first group of interns-for-a-day will be coming to Fast Horse in early November.

We’re pleased to introduce the next talented young writer in the series, Chelsey Johnson:

Chelsey Johnson

Hailing from Duluth, Chelsey is self-proclaimed Diet Coke and pug enthusiast, as well as a PR student at the University of Minnesota. Set to graduate in spring 2011, Chelsey is also minoring in new media studies — and cultural studies & comparative literature.

Chelsey recently traveled to Paris, and the picture you see above is her at the top of the Eiffel Tower. You can find her on Twitter, Linked in and her blog.

Now, the post that Chelsey submitted for the first open call in this program. You may want to cue up “Gin & Juice” on your iPod now.

Hack is Wack … is Wack

By Chelsey Johnson

Using a celebrity endorsement can be a really successful tool in achieving notoriety and media attention. However, in most cases, using a celebrity relevant to a product or service is a lot more effective in delivering a clear message than a completely random one.

For a reason unknown to me, Snoop Dogg is the new face of Norton’s antivirus software.

The campaign, called “Hack is Wack” is an interesting attempt at viral greatness. Users can create and upload a 2-minute rap song with an anti-cybercrime message – potentially a great idea, right? Uh, not so fast – here are a few things that greatly confuse me about this marketing campaign. Before you continue, check out the campaign’s site here.

A classic “chicken or the egg” situation

The odd combination of Snoop Dogg and antivirus software makes me wonder – did the celebrity endorsement come first, then the campaign idea? Or did Norton really want a rap star with an extensive crime history to sell its software? Research is inconclusive, but here are the far-fetched ties I was able to string together:

Supposedly – this campaign is a play-off of the “Don’t Copy that Floppy” anti-copyright infringement campaign of 1992. (See video below. Now.) Other than the fact that there’s rapping and a cutesy rhyming title, “Hack is Wack” couldn’t be farther from “Don’t Copy that Floppy.” It really makes me think Snoop came first, then campaign; and tradition was the way Norton justified its disconnected celeb endorsement. I really wish they would’ve made something closer to that because it’s completely awesome in a bubble gum 90′s hip-hop, “Saved by the Bell” kind of way.

Obviously Norton is more interested in making a fun viral campaign than a serious one, so they should’ve stuck to something in a so-bad-it’s-good, ironically funny way (think Old Spice guy). That’s a lot more fresh and would sit better with a younger demographic (and perhaps go viral!?). After all, the hipster movement made ironic cool with millennials.

If only Snoop was accused of a cybercrime, too –

Snoop Dogg isn’t known for being a model citizen. In fact, he’s been accused and convicted of a number of serious crimes. That’s why Snoop doesn’t make me want to buy Norton software. Snoop won’t protect me; he’ll bust a cap in my ass! (I hear that’s what gangsters do?) Maybe if he was known to be an anti-crime advocate I would be more inclined to believe he actually cares about antivirus software and internet safety. (Methinks his publicist nudged him to do this to improve his image. He clearly is not invested in the project, see next section.)

Norton should’ve used a superhero or something; stereotypical images are the fastest and most accurate way to get a targeted message across. This campaign also would work if he had been convicted of cybercrime, then he could participate in a PSA style campaign a la Winona Ryder with that whole shoplifting thing.

If you weren’t aware of Snoop’s troubled past (and present) here’s an infographic I made to sort it all out (Editor’s note: !!). Tell me if his reputation connects you with anti-cybercrime software – (click to download full size)

The contest itself

Plain and simple: the contest isn’t creative enough to go viral. Gangster rap spoofs weren’t even funny at my high school talent show. Not to mention there’s a bit of a conflict of interest among perspective participants – the grand prize is to meet Snoop Dogg!(‘s management team) and for Snoop to rap on the winner’s song. (Can’t Snoop at least take a minute of his day to meet the contest winner!?) Because of this, the contest is no longer geared towards fans; rap star wannabes are definitely dominating the entry pool.

Why would a regular fan care to meet Snoop’s management team? Contest entries are being used for shameless amateur rapper self-promotion. I guarantee none of those people care about the cause; they just want the potential opportunity for Snoop Dogg to hear their stuff and to maybe get some demos out to his management team to pass on to label execs. However, regardless of intention, at least people are talking about the contest on a rap forum somewhere – always a silver lining somewhere right?

Kapital A promotes his album before his overproduced rap begins

Maybe I’m crazy, but I just don’t get it. Snoop is a poor front man for anti-virus software, the contest is stale, and the entries have become too produced and specialized based on the grand prize. This campaign has not gotten a lot of press and is far from being viral. I can’t even find any tweets with the official hashtag. Whoopsies. Better luck next time, Norton.

First Snoop photo credit: Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images

Related posts:

  1. Video: Interns-For-A-Day Wow Us At Fast Horse
  2. Intern-For-A-Day Series: What Does It Mean To "Rule the Air"?
  3. We Want You: The Fast Horse Experience Intern-For-A-Day Program
  4. Fast Horse Intern-For-A-Day Program: Round Two
  5. Intern-For-A-Day Series: Drawn To Good Old Mount Rushmore
Buffer

Other posts by

  • Karl

    It has been awhile since I have felt the need to respond to a posting online. I read this submission from Chelsey Johnson and felt that I needed to respond. I will try to go in order and not get sidetracked from the submission, but that might be difficult.

    From the start I realized the writing had no direction and many times Johnson seems to contradict herself. It seems like the purpose of the post was to discredit Snoop Dogg and make sure everyone knew that she did not like him. The submission lacked any creativity and the writing didn’t seem to be college level at all points. “Supposedly…this campaign,” is an example of one piece. Let’s take a look at the rest of the submission.

    There is so much focus on Snoop Dogg’s criminal past that I almost lost what Johnson’s point was. Let me ask you a question do people buy Snoop’s records? His he one of the top rap stars in the world? Think about the target market, which is obviously not Chelsey Johnson. The market the campaign is going after is a younger market that might not be familiar with anti-virus software. Could it be a younger urban market? Sure it could and it could also be an 25-35 year old market who grew up listening to Snoop Dogg and enjoys his music as much as the younger group. If Chelsey Johnson doesn’t like the campaign that is fine but she should also look at it from a different perspective and take into account its purpose.

    Johnson mentions that Norton looked at tradition when deciding on the campaign. Tradition? Since there was another campaign about computers with a rhyming name that makes it tradition? She also mentions that going back to the “Don’t Copy that Floppy” campaign would have been better because she preferred the “bubble gum 90′s” rap. I don’t think many people, especially those with the demographics that Norton is targeting, would agree.

    Chelsey Johnson seems to think that instead of being original companies and their marketers should stick with, or copy something, that was successful. She mentions the Old Spice campaign and of course the Floppy Copy campaign. It is fine to criticize and put down advertising that you don’t like but you should have an idea that would improve it and not just copy others. Creativity is important and saying that a company should stick with proven winners like Old Spice’s ideas and not try new things stops creativity in its tracks.

    Again we come back to Snoop’s criminal history. It seems like every paragraph has to mention it somewhere. Johnson thinks that Snoop’s publicist wanted him to improve his image by doing a antivirus campaign? It is not to improve his image, it is to make money. He is a business person and a celebrity. His image is a rapper and I don’t think it can be improved by being a spokesperson for an antivirus software company. I especially don’t think his publicist said, “Hey Snoop everybody thinks you are bad. Even that pop song with Katie Perry didn’t help so we have decided to take it to the next level…Nortin Antivirus software! That will show people what a good guy you are.” Johnson mentions that she would trust Snoop more if he was an anti crime advocate and it would make her believe he cares about internet safety. Do celebrities who endorse cars need to be safe driving advocates for you to believe they care about the car? If they have a few speeding tickets do you think that they should not endorse cars?

    Again Johnson has more unoriginal thoughts including using a “superhero or something,” for the campaign. She even mentions that stereotypical images are more effective. Great, more stereotypical advertising campaigns that can put us to sleep.

    Once again we are brought back to how bad a guy Snoop is by an “infographic” showing what he has been accused of and arrested for. Marijuana, cocaine, firearm possession are all serious but they were all years ago. Also the most serious charges were dropped or he was acquitted. Should we look into every spokesperson’s backgrounds or just the rappers? I can think of a few celebrities that are spokespeople who have been arrested for cocaine, marijuana, gun charges, manslaughter, etc. You should mention that. An even better suggestion for Johnson would be to keep her views of Snoop in one paragraph instead of spreading it throughout the submission. Yes, we get it you don’t like him. Now move on and tell us more about the campaign.

    Johnson mentions how the contest isn’t creative enough except throughout her submission/blog post she only mentions stereotypical advertising and rehashing old ideas or using other campaign’s ideas. That seems to contradict her message. Where are Chelsey Johnson’s creative ideas? She focuses on Snoop being bad in every paragraph but where is a suggestion for an alternative spokesperson who will bring in the target audience?

    Johnson mentions that the contest has been taken over by “rap star wannabes”. That is who it is geared towards Chelsey. That is why they value meeting Snoop’s management team so they can get into the business. I know that Johnson would rather meet a celebrity like Justin Bieber and get his autograph but that doesn’t mean others don’t value different things and don’t mind not seeing Snoop Dogg immediately if they win.

    Johnson also mentions the “cause” in her submission. She says none of them care about the cause. What cause? Protecting computers is a cause? It makes it seems like a humanitarian crisis that people should care more about.

    Advertising should value creativity. Whether or not it succeeds is always a question. There will always be hits and misses but if you don’t swing with some creativity you will never know.

  • Rachel

    Wow. The previous commenter was out for blood and seemed to be personally offended that this random college student thought the campaign had a disconnected message and endorsement (which is true, it’s a really dumb campaign) Get a life, and leave this poor girl alone. She did a great job, I enjoyed reading it!

  • JorgP

    Karl: Thanks for weighing in here at the Peepshow. Clearly you read Chelsey’s post as a dig at Mr. Dogg. I didn’t. I thought she raised some valid points about the risks of associating a brand with a celebrity who has a controversial past. I also think it’s fair to question whether this campaign is really relevant to the antivirus software buyer.

    My take? I’m with Chelsey. I’m not sure I would have taken the client down this path. Norton is marketing a product that minimizes risk. Seems odd to me that they would take a risk with this sort of association. Could be a homerun. Could also be a big whiff and reputational black-eye. (Witness what happened when Tiger turned out not to be what his corporate partners thought he was.) I’d counsel against it knowing that there are far less risky ways to hit a marketing home run.

    As for the relevance issue? I dunno. I’d need some convincing that aspiring rappers are buying a lot of anti-virus software. And Chelsey’s right: meeting Snoop Dogg’s peeps is a pretty lame prize. But then I’m not the target audience …

  • Karl

    Rachel: You call her a “random college student” but then credit her with doing a good job. Is she relevant or not? I responded to her submission not her personally and yet you read into it as an attack and tell me to get a life. Kind of funny.

    JorgP: I think you missed my point. I assume you work with/for Fast Horse is that right? My point is that someone who wants to go into advertising/marketing writes a submission that is basically an attack on a celebrity (which I could care less about) and not a creative take on a campaign. She could say whatever she wants about Snoop Dogg or any other celebrity but instead of that being the focus make it creative. If you don’t like the campaign suggest alternatives. Also don’t say that stereotypical advertising is the way to go. Do you think that rehashing old advertising and just ripping off others is the way to go? Does Fasthorse see what other shops are doing and copy it or do you create and innovate?

    So here is an article written in August of this year in Forbes about Snoop Dogg http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/16/snoop-dogg-businessman-business-entertainment-hip-hop-cash-kings-snoop.html . Seems like his Manager is a Wharton Grad, he has endorsed numerous products including TomTomGPS, which uses his voice, and he even helps the NFL with community programs. If you know about the NFL and their marketing you know that they are very careful about who they partner with. So instead of looking at his past (years ago) look at his present and how he influences products all over. Also look at who his “peeps” are. I wouldn’t mind meeting with a Wharton grad who manages artists and other producers who could help me if I was an inspiring artist.

    As far as using celebrities with questionable pasts to endorse we could go down a long list of them some successful and some not. Tiger Woods would be considered successful until the companies he endorsed dropped him. So there really isn’t any evidence on what the impact would have been. Nike kept him and I don’t have the numbers but I assumed it didn’t hurt their golf brand too much.

    The campaign for Norton doesn’t rest on Snoop’s shoulders it rests on how it was put together. Whether using Snoop Dogg is a good or bad idea for that specific product isn’t proven yet. What has been proven is that it was a good idea for many other products and his brand is valuable whether Chelsea thinks so or not. He is a proven commodity to many companies. He was recently at the NYSE promoting entrepreneurship. If you want more examples I would be happy to give them to you.

    I think using the right side of your brain is more important for marketing than copying or reusing old ideas and keeping static instead of moving forward. Would you agree?

  • Karl

    I just wanted to reiterate that it was not my intention to seem like it was a personal thing with my critique of Chelsea’s submission. I was interested in having a honest discussion.

    I admire Chelsea for going after the intern for a day at Fasthorse and congratulations on being chosen!

    Now let me know where I am wrong or maybe right…maybe.

  • John

    Karl-

    Don’t you have better things to be doing on a Tuesday night? It seems to me that you are simply offended by Chelsey’s article, because of your fanaticism of “The Snoop Dogg”. Twisting one’s words around and spitting out a lengthy and condescending “critique” of the article doesn’t help your case at all. It just makes you look like (for lack of better words) a weenie. I suggest you re-read Ms. Johnson’s article and realize it isn’t an attack on your homeboy at all. Her points are valid, yours are not. The bottom line is- anti-virus software and 90′s rap music simply do not mix. Unless, that is, you know many norton customers who also frequent the “Urban” section at their local Best Buy…

    John
    :)

  • Karl

    John,

    Thank you for your ignorant rant. You obviously didn’t read my posts or the article about Snoop Dogg that I posted a link to.

    I didn’t know Tuesday nights were happening nights. What are you up to? Wait…you just posted on here and it is Tuesday night.

    I didn’t twist any words I used them to make a point. That is called a discussion. I read her post twice, probably 1.5 times more than you did, and I understood what she was saying and I disagreed. The bottom line is you really didn’t add anything to this discussion.

    I also forgot that “urban” people (what exactly does that mean?) don’t use computers or anti virus software. I assume that you would think that since you still go to Best Buy to purchase music. Do you have a carrying case for your DiscMan?

    I think we can all agree the minute you said I should be doing something better on a Tuesday night than posting on here and then you post and when you used the word “weenie” as an insult you lost all credibility.

  • John

    Karl-

    You didn’t understand my last comment. All I am trying to point out is, you are an asshole. As far as credibility goes, you lost yours with your personal attacks towards Ms. Johnson. Then you go on and try to and cover your butt when members of F.H. defend the article by congratulating her after your points are challenged. If you are going to be an asshole, be an asshole. Don’t back down halfway through your argument. Get a sense of humor and lighten up a bit. And just so you know, this kind of stuff doesn’t get the attention of young college women…

    Cheers! :)

  • Karl

    John,

    I am not going to get into a name calling contest with you so you don’t need to try. It is pretty clear though that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about since you have to resort to “you are an asshole” and have nothing better to say.

    I never backed down from my comments. I disagreed with JorgP. Did you even read them? Not once did I personally attack Chelsey. There is no way you read any of my posts or you are drunk. Either way you are wrong.

    Good luck! P.S. You never told me if you have a carrying case for your DiscMan!

  • Chelsey

    In the interest in perpetuating discussion rather than going off on a tasteless defense for my blog post, I have a few comments in response:

    Karl,
    The one thing I will shamelessly defend is my writing ability. While I understand why you would think my writing is not up to a college level based on this post, but the fact that this is a blog needs to be taken into account. Blogs are typically an outlet for informal writing. Because I’ve had grammar (sometimes literally) slapped into me since my days in Catholic elementary school, I find it fun and refreshing to write in a colloquial manner (hence why I’ve come to enjoy blogging). I’ve written so many academic papers I’m blue in the face! Also, I used an ellipsis (…) to indicate a pause in sentence flow, as it applies to punctuation rules. Ellipses are also interchangeable with en dashes in some cases.

    Initially I did not feel the need to respond to the first comment, as that is just once guy’s long winded opinion, but once comments started getting nasty I figured I should intervene and bring the discussion back to the initial blog post. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think rude comments and name calling are what the Idea Peepshow is all about!

    I still stand by my ideas despite the vehement disapproval:

    ·The campaign’s message is confusing. Why is Snoop Dogg, the notorious pot-smoking rapper, selling me Anti-virus software!?

    ·I never attacked Snoop Dogg or discussed whether I disliked him or not (which was accused of me many times). I know he’s got people in high places, I’m not dumb! ;)

    ·The endorsement is comically ironic given Snoop’s crime history. I brought up this point a few times since it was an angle in which I analyzed the campaign.

    ·In no way was I condoning copying other’s work, I merely used the Old Spice campaign as an example of viral greatness. Norton should re-evaluate the components to a successful online campaign. Karl greatly misread my comment and ran with it.

    ·Don’t even get me started on the creativity aspect of Hack is Wack. A rap contest for a rap star endorsement!? Talk about a stale idea. I couldn’t think of a less creative contest for a rap star endorsement.

    ·Like it or not stereotypes are the easiest ways to deliver a message. The fact that I suggested a stereotypical image for crime fighting like a superhero, should indicate just how disconnected the Hack is Wack message is. Yes, I could have suggested a worthy and creative alternative to Snoop, but the contest was just a critique of a marketing message, not to rework an existing campaign. Boring or not, at least a superhero makes sense! If Norton and the supporters of this campaign need to extensively defend and explain the use of Snoop to sell anti-virus software, that’s advertising FAIL.

    Per the Forbes article: it was probably a feature written by his PR rep. Learning about the PR industry makes me wary of any feature in traditional media outlets. If he’s really valuable for other campaigns and products, good for him; I’m only discussing Snoop’s involvement in this campaign. And Even though he’s currently involved in other ventures, he’s still popularly known as a druggie rapper. That’s just how it is!

    I really appreciate and value the debate on my blog post. That’s what’s great about blogging; it’s all about an exchange of ideas! However, there was one comment in particular I found vastly inappropriate and rude:

    “I know that Johnson would rather meet a celebrity like Justin Bieber and get his autograph but that doesn’t mean others don’t value different things and don’t mind not seeing Snoop Dogg immediately if they win.”

    Actually, the winner will never meet Snoop (as Jorg said earlier, that IS lame). How do you KNOW I’d rather meet Justin Bieber? Just because I’m young doesn’t mean I need to be discredited by being framed as a maniac Bieber lover. I mean c’mon, I don’t even like him! I’m almost 21, not almost 14!

    I wrote a tongue in cheek response to a campaign I found to have an ineffective message. It was not my intention to facilitate a discussion with name calling and rude comments. I’m just thankful to be chosen as a Fast Horse intern for a day and for the opportunity to be a guest blogger on the Idea Peepshow!

  • Andrew

    Boom.

  • Karl

    Chelsey,

    Thank you for the response. I want to keep this kind of short since I think all we will do is go back and forth on different parts.

    I want to apologize for saying anything about your writing skills. I agree that blogs should be more informal, creative, and not concentrate on punctuation, etc. I think that submitting a piece of writing is a brave and admirable thing to do but you have to be able to take some critique. People are not always going to agree or like what you have to say/write. Other than the writing comment I hope you didn’t take anything personally in what I wrote. It was meant to start a discussion.

    I think we will have to agree to disagree on many points. A major one where there is no argument however is the article in Forbes. It was written by Maureen Farrell who is a journalist, not a PR rep for anyone, and is a regular contributor. So please don’t brush off pieces of information that do show Snoop Dogg as more than a “pot smoking rapper”. You have to be open to information that might show you are wrong or give you a point of view you have to respect. I looked at what your response was and I took it into account.

    My point about you saying “use stereotypes” and your comments about the Old Spice was that you were giving examples of other campaigns that were better but never gave any suggestions or other celebrities that could endorse Norton’s product. Instead you just named other campaigns you liked and thought were better. In my opinion that is not creative. I understand now that you didn’t mean for them to copy it but instead to go in a different direction. The question that I thought you could have answered was: what direction was that? I think you need to expand and contribute ideas more than just saying how bad something is. Does that make sense?

    I don’t care whether you like Snoop Dogg or not (not matter what you think I am not a big fan of his) the point is not to judge or put things in a box. You keep saying he is a druggie, he has friends in high places, he is a criminal, and more. As a PR person you should understand that you can create an image and change it very quickly. You should also understand that there is a way to positively spin everything.

    Don’t lump me in with name calling and inappropriate comments.

    So I think we can agree to disagree on the majority but there are points that I think we are both on the same page. Again congratulations on getting the intern for a day with Fast Horse and enjoy writing and your PR. Just understand not everyone will like or agree with what you say but that is part of the fun! Take care.

  • Karl

    P.S. Sorry, I didn’t keep it as short as I wanted.

  • Adaobi

    I grew up with hip hop CULTURE. I am representative of that culture (not the consumer). I really took offense to this post, and I can see why Karl “put a cap in that ass” because that’s what blog commentators do.

    Are we seriously using Snoop’s criminal past as justification for why he shouldn’t be a spokesperson for Norton? How many years ago were these offenses? Snoop is no more a danger to Norton (or society) as Mike Tyson is to boxing. Now, I agree that I don’t see a logical connection on why Norton would select him as their spokesperson, but it’s not based on his criminal history.

    I would first want to know who is their target market and what is the goal of this campaign, and what correlation does that have with the Snoop’s current audience. What is Snoop’s buy-in with today’s society? Who does he influence? Who is buying his records? We could do a simple online scan of Snoop, research consumer history of gangsta rap music, review released efforts of the campaign, and read-up on a couple of blogs to try to answer some of these questions.

    Do you know the number one consumer of “gangsta rap” music in America is suburban white male youth? Could this have possibly had some influence for why Norton selected him?

    This man has obviously moved on since his menacing criminal days. He came out with reality TV show series called “Fatherhood,” which showed his interactions with his family and the youth football league he coaches. Let’s not forget the mad dangerous song he has out with Katie Perry. This dog has been neutered a longtime ago. In fact, I wish they would put him to sleep.

    I hope future post are more insightful than he’s a druggie and a criminal.

  • JorgP

    Ada — I appreciate your perspective. Let me offer a bit more of mine.

    I can assure you that marketers investing millions in a campaign will take a prospective spokesperson’s criminal background into consideration. They have to. We routinely do those sorts of background checks, and are then asked to assess the reputational risks associated with a spokesperson’s criminal past. I can tell you it’s never an easy call.

    In the Norton case, when the “simple online scan” you suggest reveals my potential spokesperson boasting in Rolling Stone that he was a pimp in 2003-04, I’m going to move on even if he’s harmonized with Katie Perry since. That can’t be dismissed as a youthful transgression when millions of marketing dollars are on the line.

    Snoop’s criminal past and recent statements are absolutely proper justifications for his disqualification no matter how many youth football games he’s coached since. Please don’t be offended by that. It’s just business.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/aokolue Adaobi

    Hi JorgP,

    I love a good marketing and communication debate that’s based on insightful thinking, so no offense to your point. I must say that it’s really nice to see leadership have such high engagement with its blog readers. Now, the secondary research suggestions I was offering were directed to the author of this post to employ to provide her argument more depth. I’m aware of the extensive primary and secondary research that companies/agencies employ before associating their (or their client’s) brand with a particular person or image. To me that’s the obvious–Branding 101.

    Look at Charlie Sheen. Before his most recent craziness in the news, he was the spokesperson for Hanes. Prior to becoming the spokesperson for them, he still had a very controversial past. Nevertheless, Hanes still chose him as their spokesperson. Why? I would say that public forgiveness of Sheen’s controversial past played a role, or there was something about Sheen that Hanes thought their audience could relate to, even with the controversial past. Whatever be the case, Hanes felt it would not hurt their brand image. And then we have 50 cent, who is the spokesperson for Vitamin Water. He has a healthy criminal/controversial history. Yet, Vitamin Water still went forward with him.

    Norton chose to go with Snoop. I would assume that Norton (or their agency) took into consideration Snoop’s criminal history (such as you’ve suggested) before coming to the conclusion of making him their spokesperson, just as Hanes and Vitamin Water probably did as well. Thus, as an experienced communicator, I would want to go deeper. What about Norton’s target market and Snoop’s audience or influence connected with Norton? What is the goal of this campaign? Who do I think they’re trying to target with this campaign? What are consumer reports saying about computer purchasers or anti-virus software? Does the emerging trend of downloading free anti-virus software have something to do with Norton’s target audience or campaign direction?

    This where my attention would have stayed focused on. I wouldn’t expect the author to have full access to such sophisticated information, but I would expect her to do some simple background research (e.g. PC World, Searching online tech blogs) to make an informed conclusion. The author began a healthy run down that road and made some good assertions before veering off in the “If only Snoop was accused of a cybercrime too” paragraph.

    Overall, I’m not saying that the author’s conclusion that Snoop is a bad choice for a spokesperson is incorrect. I just disagree with the introduction of Snoop’s outdated criminal background as a dominating point to why that is so. If the criminal history was recent, then yes. But, it’s not. Six to seven years ago in pop culture is light years these days. The public’s perception of what’s controversial has since elevated. The public has moved on, and so should the author’s point.

    Ada

    P.S. I’m not Karl reincarnated. I am not defaming him nor discrediting him. I just want to make it clear that I don’t know him, nor have any relation to him. This opinion is that of my own.