I came across this entry on the blog of a company called Conformal today. The company purports to specialise in open source security products and the blog entry was about the logo for their secure online backup product called “cyphertite”. Apparently the marketing discussions concentrated on “artfully applied make-up, designer clothes, and a narrative to match. There was a lot of back and forth about layering, defense-in-depth and secure storage.” i.e. the usual type of meaningless fluff that is common to marketing meetings. But apparently nobody noticed the way the logo looked to an outsider.
I was reminded of the OGC Cockup in designing its logo back in 2008. No-one in the marketing team noticed the problem until they printed it on mouse mats and distributed them to staff.
2 comments
To comply with the Privacy Rule under these circumstances, you must either describe these types of marketing arrangements in your initial, annual, or revised privacy notice and provide your customer with a reasonable opportunity to opt out or obtain your customer’s specific consent to such arrangements. Alternatively, you may structure the marketing materials so your customer knows that by responding he or she would be disclosing certain categories of nonpublic personal information about himself or herself.
Author
I have approved this message even though it is blatantly spam. I have, however, deleted the very dubious URL attached to the message. The only reason I have allowed this through is to give an example of the type of spam that is now appearing more frequently. The message is /almost/ in english, it is /almost/ believable as a comment, and it is /almost/ relevant to the blog post at which it is aimed.
Almost, but not quite. Nice try “Amanda”.