whether a "buzz" is "honest" Some friends of mine have gotten in a tizzy over this WSJ article [I'm not a subscriber, and it works for me, so hopefully it will work for you too] about Sony Ericsson's new guerilla marketing campaign:

A second stunt will involve the use of "leaners" -- 60 actresses and female models with extensive training in the phone's features who will frequent trendy lounges and bars without telling the establishments what they're up to. The women are getting scripted scenarios designed to help them engage strangers in conversation. One involves having an actress's phone ring while she's in the bar -- and having the caller's picture pop up on the screen. In another scenario, two women sit at opposite ends of the bar playing an interactive version of the Battleship game on their phones. So far, so good. But do the actors then identify themselves as working on behalf of Sony Ericsson? Not if they can help it. The idea is to have onlookers think they've stumbled onto a hot new product.

This seems pretty clever to me, though I've heard it called "evil" and "dishonest." The Naderites hate it: "People will be fooled into thinking this is honest buzz." And even the ad industry hates it: "They are trying to fabricate something that should be natural." Advertising is unnatural. But who cares? People will see the new phones, and either they'll want them or they won't. I personally have no need for a cell phone that takes pictures or plays Battleship, no matter how attractive the girl demo-ing either. This is not to say that I'm unaffected by advertising -- lots of people (incredibly) claim to be, but I am not one of them. But what's the difference between actresses using cool Sony Ericsson phones in bars and the stars of Alias flaunting their Nokias? Where does the should in "should be natural" come from? Why does it matter whether a "buzz" is "honest"? Don't we have more important things to worry about?