The blogosphere is abuzz with indignation and outrage over an article on the wikipedia.

In this article a fictional reality game character is presented as a factual person. It didn’t take long for the uproar to start. The BBC and the reality game they launched, Jamie Kane were imediatly implicated as having launched a “viral” marketing campaign through the use of the wikipedia article. Bloggers started blogging about it, news comentators comentated on it and general disdain was heaped on them.

It now seems more likely that a fan wrote the article. Some on has posted claiming to be the original poster of the article and states that there is no affiliation between himself and the BBC.

While much of the discussion seems to be centered on the idea that companies ought not to use such mediums as the wikipedia to run marketing campaigns, it strikes me that the real heart of what has upset people is that the information was presented improperly. Had the article presented the Jamie Kane character as a fictional character, rather than as a real live, erm… dead, pop star there would have been no fallout even if it were the Vice President of marketing that posted the article.

Indeed the wikipedia is no stranger to fictional characters. I found Dirty Harry, Josey Wales, Jack Ryan (the real and the fictional) and Harry Potter all listed. All offer opportunities for marketing exposure to those who stand to make money from sales of materials related to the characters, and all make it clear that the character is fictional.

So what is it that really upset people? Was it that a company injected their marketing into this grass roots knowledge base? Or was it that they injected inaccuracies into it in their marketing efforts?

A lesson to learn here is that wether this was done by a fan or by the BBC marketing team or by some one hire to market on behalf of the BBC. In all your marketing endeavours be truthful. Be factual. Be forthcomming. The BBC will absorb this negative attention rather readily, but most of us are not so well endowed and the stream of negative attention would not be a case of any press is good press, but could be the death of a home business.

Reference Lookup: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, & More
powered by PostRef

Dane Morgan wrote this mid-afternoon: