Well, it was bound to happen. It happens to most record labels sooner or later…that annoying creature called the Internet rumour mill where an erroneous snippet of incorrectness snowballs out of all control.
Once upon a time there was a Bold Infusions 2 in1 telly advert. It’s the one featuring Bold 2 in 1White Diamonds (sorry, do Diamonds even have a scent!?!) and Lotus Flower. There’s a nice bit of ethereal and floaty music to accompany the advert. People liked the music and they wanted to know two simple things 1) who produced it and 2) where they could get it if it was available for sale.
While there have been posts/comments on YouTube and other sources claiming the music was produced by a company called Aardvark Sounds, the numpty who is responsible for claiming it was Aardvark Records (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080722081358AAwAxyy) unfortunately seems to have generated the greater exposure.
Every day our email inboxes are blitzed by two types of emails regarding this matter: 1) Where can people buy the music and 2) Do we realise we’ve stolen a song from The Cocteau Twins and 2b) That we’re a bunch of tw@ts for stealing it?
Now about the whole ‘stealing’ business. The advertising agency that produced the advert is a highly respected and creditable one. So I’m willing to bet they did the standard provenance on the music before releasing the advert for broadcasting. While I’ve never heard of Aardvark Sounds before, I checked out their website and they too come across as highly creditable and respectable people. Honestly? I don’t care if the music is from the Cocteau Twins or merely sampled from one of their tracks or is an original piece of music that just sounds vaguely like a Cocteau Twins track. I’m sure that if a Cocteau Twins song was used that Aardvark Sounds got the requisite licensing permission from the relevant label and publisher.
All I really care about is that it has absolutely nothing to do with Aardvark Records.
Naturally, we’ve repeatedly asked said numpty to please amend his entry to reflect that it is indeed Aardvark Sounds that is responsible for this particular piece of music – and that Aardvark Sounds has nothing to do with Aardvark Records. Has he done so? No.
So we’re left with having to reply to quite a staggering number of emails which is a complete waste of our staff’s time. Personally, I feel like billing the guy for all the wasted man hours his post has caused us.
Well, I suppose I should look on the bright side. This is proof enough, if ever it was needed, that people will go to great lengths to track down a piece of music they hear on a telly advert.
I just wish people who posted erroneous information on the Internet could be as diligent in reporting facts correctly – and immediately amending the information when it’s proven to be incorrect.
06 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The potential for misinformation to cause serious damage. Misinformation online assumes myriad forms, such as phony business rumors to spur stock activity, bogus quotations or actions attributed to public figures, fabricated medical breakthroughs citing names of respected or nonexistent researchers, social statistics citing anonymous government reports, malicious rumors designed to defame individuals, vengeful flames against companies from disgruntled customers or employees, urban legends, and so on.
-----------------
Samflutch
seo
Thanks for those other examples. e-Misinformation isn't a topical subject - which really surprises me.
Post a Comment