In Sleaze-Land, lies rule

This week I met a woman who could have been the female version of Bill Clinton. The US president’s line “I never had sex with that woman” will go down in history as cynical spin in the face of facts.

Marketer Chantal Holtzhauzen told me she didn’t think a press release she issued on behalf of dating and affairs website AshleyMadison.com was false.

With breathless outrage, Holtzhauzen had claimed that the website’s “controversial” TV commercial, titled Bedroom Frolic, had begun airing on Top TV “after several other major broadcasters refused to sell advertising space for it”.

When I pressed her about the other broadcasters, it turned out that only DStv had turned down the ad. Holtzhauzen said she had left messages with both e.tv and SABC, but that her calls had not been returned.

Didn’t that mean, I asked, that her statement about several broadcasters refusing to sell airtime was false?

Her reply: “I wouldn’t say it is false, as we had a decline from DStv, and the other two stations just never responded to messages that were left.”

Pressed about whether she and Ashley Madison were not deliberately trying to mislead the media, she said: “We are in no way at all trying to mislead any media, we are asking the question as to why it is that this kind of advertisement is deemed unsuitable, and if a broadcaster does not revert after leaving messages, then I have to take it that the message was not felt important enough to return, or the query was one which they did not want to respond to.”

Bill would have been proud of that one. Sadly, it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it must be one… it’s a lie.

Of couse, it is clever spin-doctoring to put out releases like this, knowing that media often don’t ask questions. And good spin is way more cost-effective than plain advertising.

Talking of which, I had a look at some of the advertising rates. TopTV charges just over R5 000 for a 30-second spot in prime time, compared with between R30 000 and R180 000 on e.tv and SABC’s three stations. Could it be that Ashley Madison never intended to run ads on these broadcasters, but did enough to be able to put out a release then spin it?

The site and its PRs and marketers worldwide do exactly this all the time. They asked an airport to rename itself Ashley Madison and, not surprisingly, were turned down. Result: big press release, big coverage. Then they offered Tiger Woods $5 million to be their spokesman. Again, why would he even reply to something like that? But lots more publicity by journalists all over the world who don’t ask too many questions.

That has also happened to so-called “research” done by the site which supposedly identifies the most promiscuous towns in a given area or country based on the site’s questions to its clients. If you believe that stuff, I’ve got an ostrich farm in the CBD you may be interested in.

Looking at the site is interesting, because although the owners say they are not encouraging adultery, if you purchase the top-of-the-line $249 package they will guarantee you have an affair. People can sign up for free and create a profile, and communicate via messages (winks) which are free. But somehow not much happens until you start spending money – and even then it is debatable.

A number of journalists investigating the site have pointed out that at least some of the “winks” clients receive are fake.

And, sure enough, when you look in the site’s terms and conditions (who ever does that?) you’ll see this:

“From time to time this service may include, offer, or initiate winks, collect messages or instant chat from Market Researchers (Online Hosts) simulating attached or single men or women. These efforts are conducted for market research and/or customer experience and/or quality control and/or compliance purposes. Market research information is used to provide analysis, feedback, trends, patterns, social commentary and information in the aggregate and aids in the process of monitoring our system for compliance of our operating standards and code of conduct. Accordingly, Market Researchers (Online Hosts) will NOT be conspicuously identified.”

But who’s going to complain? You’re on a site like this to do something wrong – have an affair. Not a subject you’ll discuss openly. It’s a bit like a married man who gets robbed by a prostitute’s pimp in a red light district… is he going to make a fuss?

Even more interesting is this paragraph, also in the terms and conditions, dealing with material submitted to the site: “You waive absolutely any and all moral rights to be identified as the author of the content, including your photograph and profile, and any similar rights in any jurisdiction in the world. By submitting any content (including without limitation your photograph and profile) to our site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to us, and our licensees, affiliates and successors, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free right and licence to use, reproduce, display and modify such content or incorporate into other works such content, and to grant and to authorise sub-licenses of the foregoing.”

That should be enough to wake you up to the smoke-and-mirrors world you are entering into.

However, AshleyMadison.com and Chantal Holtzhauzen get Onions for trying to deceive. And I don’t think that statement is false.