I have to say – I agree with the likes of F. Patterson and Sanil Pansi. Being provocative, challenging the norm and garnering attention are old strategies that translate very well into this new media. Was it dishonest? No. It was a clever campaign that leveraged a play on words to communicate the truth as it stood with regard to the caribou.

Did you need to apologize? Not in my book and, unlike some other comments, I’m glad you only apologized for any possible offense and not for the campaign. Open and responsive in an appropriate manner.

Well done SMG.

@mjmclean

I have a question for you Maggie: why does the link for your campaign site refer me to the opening page on Facebook? I can’t find the campaign site nor the FB group? Has all of it been removed from the web?

Sincerely,
Jesper

P.S. I like the general idea behind your campaign very much, but I also understand why social media users are upset that they have given false info to their own network. The debate that followed is healthy and interesting however!

Name a company anywhere who does not use the media to promote their product and does so often in less than truthful ways. Does it work – YES.

In this case SMG and environmental organizations like Greenpeace and ForestEthics have used some trickery to tell you all a very important thing. It got your attention and broke through the racket of companies trying to sell you destructive and useless products. Sounds like it worked. So Kudos to SMG and the greenies for doing something smart and fun.

Had an interesting conversation yesterday with the folks from War Child who ran this very successful campaign last year, While the cause is very different, the approach was similar. Interesting to note that the reaction, however, was very different.