« boingboing sorts out Ford Mustang Club social media confusion | Main | What's the diff? »
February 06, 2008
Oh, no, Target, you didn't
By Charlie Kondek
When a blogger wrote to Target complaining about imagery in an ad, Target replied:
- “Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets."
The New York Times had the story recently. Target's stance in this instance is a mistake both in media relations and in influencer marketing. That's no surprise, since blogging is sometimes a combination of both journalistic reporting and consumerist word of mouth. In this case, Target is simultaneously making bad press for itself and alienating customers and potential customers.
Speaking of kerfuffles...
I recently used the word "kerfuffle" in a sentence. Spell-check asked me if I meant "kafuffle." I had to admit I usually only use the word verbally and wasn't sure how it was spelled, so I looked it up using various free online dictionaries.
Kerfuffle is a word, according to World Wide Words and Merriam-Webster's (which points out it's original Scottish spelling, "carfuffle"). But sources like Urban Dictionary claim "kafuffle" is a perfectly valid word, too.
Setting aside the interesting and thorny problem of tracking the use and shaping of British expressions, I think it's interesting to note that in this day and age of free, user-driven information sources, incorrect spellings, abbreviations and slang will become just as valid as, or at least compete with, canonical interpretations of words and concepts. Certainly, we've seen this with Wikipedia and the like, and we're also familiar with the pros and cons of this approach.
Wottapalava. Or do I mean "what a palaver?"
Posted by Alicia Dorset at February 6, 2008 12:21 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogworks.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/623
