February 10, 2010
Login | Register Now

Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News


More from Ad Age:
Creativity
Ad Age China
Bookstore
Jobs
Ad Age On Campus
Sign up for E-mail Newsletters

Stay on top of the news, sign up for our free newsletters


Mars Sends Women Seeking New 'Fling' to Porn Site

It's Counting on Customers to Pay Attention to URL

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Submit to Digg Add to Google Share on StumbleUpon Submit to LinkedIn Add to Newsvine Bookmark on Del.icio.us Submit to Reddit


The site on the left
is where you would land if you read about Mars' new 85-calorie Fling chocolate bar, which is aimed at women, and -- logically -- typed in www.fling.com. Ooops!

The one on the right is where Mars -- whose agency and marketing people apparently didn't check to see who else might own a URL related to their product name -- means to send you. Ooops!

Fling.com Flingchocolate.com

Mars is not the first to make this mistake, and it won't be the last. When Dell launched its Direct2Dell blog, it called it One2One. But it failed to check the URL and learn that one2one is a scuzzy porn site.

The internet is not for practice, guys. It's for all the marbles. Use your head or lose the game.

~ ~ ~
B.L. Ochman is a marketing strategist and blogger and can be found Twittering, at WhatsNextOnline.com or with her newest venture, Pawfun.com.

17 Comments
Subscribe to comments on: Mars Sends Women Seeking New 'Fling' to Porn Site
  By password | NEW YORK, NY May 19, 2009 12:51:32 pm:
apparently you dont follow your own advice. you have your two images backwards and your article doesnt read right.
  By poolplyr27 | Fairway, KS May 19, 2009 12:58:54 pm:
No, it reads correctly... it reads "oops" as in, they accidentally sent you to the Fling.com site, when they really meant to send you to the site on the right, which is the correct site.

It says that if you read their ad, then you get the hook-up site, which is where they sent you because their creative was wrong and didn't have the full URL.
  By Bachir | OUTREMONT, PQ May 19, 2009 01:04:09 pm:
Actually the images are correct and the article reads right. You just have to read carefully.
  By BL | NEW YORK, NY May 19, 2009 01:06:08 pm:
The original post is at http://budurl.com/fl5w and while this one is prettier, it's not as clear. Sorry about that! I didn't do the layout here.
BL
  By BL | NEW YORK, NY May 19, 2009 01:07:31 pm:
Ooops! i meant the original post is here http://budurl.com/mlcq
funny to get the URL wrong in a post about wrong URLs.
  By MATSNL65 | LOS ANGELES, CA May 19, 2009 01:47:16 pm:
(shaking head)
Shall we say FAIL?!?

I think someone in both the brand marketers and the agency actually knew loud and clear about the fling.com because you have with both sites the same "suggestiveness". This "conspiracy" had to get past the Creative gateway, the account services gateway, the brand manager gateway, the testing gateways.... Yes, it's possible to have that many people not know about related web sites on the campaign you are pitching... just not likely giving the life cycle of developing one FLING and not catching other UH oh WOW! FLING.

Misses:
Lack of Search Strategy on "FLING"
Lack of Testing
Lack of insights on web culture being a place of interaction and not of digital push campaigns.

Langston Richardson, Chief Digital Brand Strategist
Twitter: @MATSNL65 @infuz @lazbro
URL: langstonrichardson.com
  By password | NEW YORK, NY May 19, 2009 03:08:53 pm:
they say this like accidentally landing on a porn site is a bad thing? If this was a candy bar for men, it would be genius!
  By nick rowney | Wellington May 19, 2009 09:50:21 pm:
I think the irony here is Fling is probably now getting greater exposure (pardon the pun) than they might have hopped for with their agencies original bland attempt.
  By BL | NEW YORK, NY May 19, 2009 10:10:42 pm:
Nick - more um, exposure, perhaps, but the wrong kind, dontcha think?

it's a schoolchild mistake to ignore such basic stuff, and not to think about all the women, including this one, who find the porn connection gross.
  By nick rowney | Wellington May 19, 2009 10:15:45 pm:
Hi BL, absolutely agree with you on the women-porn connection. I was actually referring to the exposure through this site.
  By BL | NEW YORK, NY May 20, 2009 11:24:47 am:
Nick - this is not the kind of exposure that sells candy bars. :>)
  By ROBERT | CINCINNATI, OH May 20, 2009 12:09:39 pm:
C'mon - this is very, very far from a "mistake". I think it's a stretch to think that more than a tiny handful of people who just read about the new Mars candybar will rush to a browser and type in "fling.com" - hoping to get more information about this amazing new product. And it's a further stretch to think that anyone of that handful of people will be shocked or angered at the brand that the owner of fling.com is not actually the brand.

If you use the bar of "product names that might have a porn-related URL" then we'd never have any new product names launched. Not to mention that those brands that have original names end up attracting porn sites that buy up URLs with misspellings of the brand name in hopes of a mistake in typing.

Let's get real here.
  By BL | NEW YORK, NY May 21, 2009 12:39:32 pm:
Robert - it sure is a mistake, and an avoidable one. If you read about a product online, and the promo is interesting, you are *very* likely to type its name into your browser. Much more likely to do that than to search for the URL. That's really URL 101 for brands.

there are still plenty of possible names for products that are not shared by porn sites, and there were lots URL options for Mars that were more logical than flingchocolate.com.

if someone wants to pay me to do it, i'll find a bunch of other available URLs that won't lead to a porn site. :>)

as the classic "Positioning" noted, only the first can get share of mind. so if a porn site picked up on the URL *after* fling candybar made its mark, it wouldn't matter so much.
  By nick rowney | Wellington May 21, 2009 08:43:43 pm:
HI BL- I wasn't referring to selling candy bars with the exposure rather gaining exposure for the company, no such thing as bad publicity.
  By BL | NEW YORK, NY May 22, 2009 10:33:30 am:
Rick - maybe there didn't used to be such a thing as bad publicity. but in the internet age, where what is online is here forever, and everyone has the tools to spread news, that's no longer true.
  By purplepeeps | CHICAGO, IL May 22, 2009 11:18:41 am:
I agree with Nick and perhaps we are both extremely cynical. After going to the site and finding the real url, which I find interesting was not included in the article above, I believe someone at some level someone had to know that this was a possibility and the look and feel of the site has an interesting connection to themes presented on fling.com. Flingchocolate.com? Who would think of that initially without seeing an other promotions? Naughty but not THAT naughty? Soft porn music in the back...come on. Just saying Nick has point...because now I am aware of Fling.
  By BL | NEW YORK, NY May 22, 2009 09:36:29 pm:
Peeps - email exchange i had with Mars PR firm indicated a very high level of cluelessness on their part. I think you give them way too much credit if you think this mistake was planned.
:

Note: Comments submitted to AdAge.com are posted automatically and will include the user name with which you registered. Ad Age reserves the right to delete comments that are insulting or personal in nature. Comments may be used in the print edition at editorial discretion. Comments are restricted to 500 words or less.




Stay on top of the news and stay ahead of the game—sign up for e-mail newsletters now!



Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News