TNF removes Wikipedia photos for their own product placement

[Wollemi]

https://www.diyphotography.net/the-nort ... wikipedia/

The North Face claims they were “collaborating” with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia flat out denies that there was any sort of collaboration at all...

[Aardvark]

When are companies going to learn that pushing ads in front of people who already think it is rubbish isn't going to result in a sale. To do it in an underhanded way is only going to confirm the brand is rubbish. Is that going to enhance their image to those who are on the fence.

[north-north-west]

I'm not surprised that a company would indulge in this sort of manipulation. They exist to make a profit and most will stop at nothing to improve their bottom line.
I am totally flabbergasted that they thought it was a good idea to brag about it. And they used a Canon camera, which is tantamount to blasphemy!

*Adds TNF to company boycott list*

[benoloughlin]

North Face pollution.
F#@k them.

[slparker]

If TNF really want to apologise to Wikipedia they could contribute financially, as Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organisation.
I help fund Wikipedia with annual monetary contributions and also occasionally research and submit entries into the corpus, so to see TNF smugly and cynically subvert the grassroots nature of the organisation for advertising really pisses me off. Time for my only TNF garment to be binned.

[wildwanderer]

Usually don't engage in boycotts but on this occasion I will make an exception.

Fu north face.
Also facebook and Google. Evil incorporated.

[ribuck]

Time for my only TNF garment to be binned.

I realise that sentence was probably rhetoric, but ... if you bin a garment that you paid for, you only harm yourself and the environment. You don't harm the vendor. Just remove, deface or obscure the branding and keep wearing it.

[Heremeahappy1]

In April, (the world) lost David Lama, a potent TNF partnered adventure advertiser/sponsored influencer as well. This is after David was with Mammut for 16 years. It appears that in order to be competitive and make $, companies strongly align marketing with people, human stories, principles and philosophies of those that they sell to.
The reaction on this thread is a great example of values-based consumer behaviour. A poor choice is made, rubbish, boycott etc
With only so much time and resorces on my hands, where do I direct my energy? Company advertising standards and manufacturing ethics which I have little real effect on and can choose to ignore? Or do I look to my personal, unsustainable gear-junkie benders, over-stocking a room full of outdoor effects at a greater cost to humanity and the environment?
If we are a TV viewer or farcebook user, our engagement is a commodity and our use is informing said companies as to how to market their products to us, the end user. Yep, our online habits do count.
Immediate outrage and one-off comments represent instant gratification, short term highs. Go the distance and look to behavioural changes that there is a degree of control over - ours.
Cheers

[slparker]

Time for my only TNF garment to be binned.

I realise that sentence was probably rhetoric, but ... if you bin a garment that you paid for, you only harm yourself and the environment. You don't harm the vendor. Just remove, deface or obscure the branding and keep wearing it.

yep, I get that it was illogical but it was a14 year old garment and quite threadbare.

[Petew]

Pretty bad behaviour.

Realistically it was probably a couple of marketing 'geniuses'that made such a stupid decision.

I certainly won't buy any of their stuff.

[davidm]

I am totally flabbergasted that they thought it was a good idea to brag about it.

I thought the video was a spoof, taking the *&^%$#! out of their sneaky marketing?? You saying it's actually put out by TNF? WT *$&#??