Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Toyota Claims Woman "Opted In" To Faux Email Stalking

If this story is true, she agreed to accept communications from Toyota, as many consumers do with companies they might want to buy products from, but Toyota's agency claims that also gave them permission to use a fake stalker to frighten her and then embarrass her.

That's a ridiculous interpretation of an opt-in clause. And how exactly will this help them sell her a car!?!?
 
Doctor Q said:
That's a ridiculous interpretation of an opt-in clause. And how exactly will this help them sell her a car!?!?
Click to expand...

Let alone the other sales they will potentially lose when a story like this gets picked up by national media who will love making this a much bigger deal than it really should be, not that it should be ignored if true.
 
Can you imagine the meeting where these brain surgeons thought this up? :rolleyes:
 
Does anyone think her loss totals 10 million dollars? I mean, working in psychiatric settings means I've seen some truly messed up people, and whilst it's impossible to quantify I'd class only a few as multi-million dollar cases. At a push (*cough*) I'd say her 'plight' isn't really worth $10m.

If it was that traumatic, she shouldn't re-traumatise herself by reliving every detail through a lawsuit. Or perhaps she could sue herself afterwards.

AppleMatt
 
To be honest, I think it should be handled in criminal law, but since there's no practical way to do that, a lawsuit with significant punitive damages is her only recourse.
 
Is it just me, but does everone want to buy a Toyota Matrix now?
</sarcasm>

But on a serious note, I wonder what the others got...
v44ef8.png
 
Jeez,

The worst part is I can't believe Saatchi & Saatchi (who my father worked for as a senior exec some 25 years ago in the UK) and Toyota are actually trying to defend their actions. If I was an exec I'd be paying the poor woman every penny she asked for and going for the hush-hush.

Toyota is a $300bn revenue/year company, so if news of this case spreads through the internet, and just stops 1 in 1000 sales, you've lost $300m revenue.

Even now, Toyota Japan will not be impressed.

I await to hear news of the Saatchi boys spending a few nights in County jail.
 
Well, it pretty much worked - lots of people will be talking about the campaign now. Cheapest advertising you can get*.

(* Assuming she doesn't get 10m, and also assuming she isn't part of a fake 'astroturf' campaign!)
 
iBlue said:
Completely stupid move on Toyota's part but $10mil in "damages"? Please. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

While I agree it's crazy for her to expect 10 million in damages, with a company the size of Toyota, they need a hand slap. Not sure that this is the best way to do it, but they need it right about now.
 
whooleytoo said:
Well, it pretty much worked - lots of people will be talking about the campaign now. Cheapest advertising you can get*.

(* Assuming she doesn't get 10m, and also assuming she isn't part of a fake 'astroturf' campaign!)
Click to expand...


Yes, they will, but this is negative marketing and will only hurt the brand. In my mind Toyota was a loyal and safe car. This paints them as uncaring and ruthless. Frankly, I hope she wins it all. They deserve a hard slap and I won't be buying a Toyota anytime soon.
 
AppleMatt said:
Does anyone think her loss totals 10 million dollars? I mean, working in psychiatric settings means I've seen some truly messed up people, and whilst it's impossible to quantify I'd class only a few as multi-million dollar cases. At a push (*cough*) I'd say her 'plight' isn't really worth $10m.

If it was that traumatic, she shouldn't re-traumatise herself by reliving every detail through a lawsuit. Or perhaps she could sue herself afterwards.

AppleMatt
Click to expand...

Does she herself deserve $10 million? No.
Does Toyota deserve a $10 million judgement against them? Possibly

However, these types of cases expose issues with the law, fines, etc.
If Toyota deserves the fine, but the person who sued doesn't necessarily deserve all of the money, then who should be the recipient of the difference?

As for Toyota, welcome to #1, sucks to be you as you are treated differently now.
 
jbernie said:
However, these types of cases expose issues with the law, fines, etc.
If Toyota deserves the fine, but the person who sued doesn't necessarily deserve all of the money, then who should be the recipient of the difference?
Click to expand...

Interesting idea..

You could have a 'fund', to which money from this case could go. On the other hand, when you have cases where a defendant deserves only a minor fine, but the plaintiff suffered greatly, the difference could be paid out of this fund.

Probably completely unworkable in reality, but sounds great in theory. :)
 
Who thought that was a good idea? :eek:

AppleMatt said:
Does anyone think her loss totals 10 million dollars? I mean, working in psychiatric settings means I've seen some truly messed up people, and whilst it's impossible to quantify I'd class only a few as multi-million dollar cases. At a push (*cough*) I'd say her 'plight' isn't really worth $10m.AppleMatt
Click to expand...

Maybe Toyota/the agency deserve a multimillion dollar punitive damage punishment, but I don't see why this woman should be financially set for life just because if this. Lots of people get stalked for real and get nothing.
 
I'm unclear how this has anything to do with advertising their cars to someone... did the guy ever even mention a Toyota Matrix (or cars at all) in any of his emails to her?
 
jknight8907 said:
Why? Because some goof in the marketing department pulled this stunt? That's kinda silly.
Click to expand...

The marketing department represents Toyota, if Toyota's marketing department feels this was a suitable promotion then people start wondering about the rest of the company....
 
jknight8907 said:
Why? Because some goof in the marketing department pulled this stunt? That's kinda silly.
Click to expand...

Marketing will never do anything without the consent of the company itself. As mentioned, you have to question the idiot that approved it thus making the company look very bad.
 
daflake said:
Marketing will never do anything without the consent of the company itself. As mentioned, you have to question the idiot that approved it thus making the company look very bad.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. As an example, I give you this ad:

HKbulletsBackwards.jpg


For you non-firearms people, the rounds are loaded in the magazine backwards. I'd go out on a limb and say HK did not consent to the advertising/marketing department making themselves look like fools.
 
Toyota seems to be dropping the ball on several fronts these days.

Noticed a few recalls too. Some of which they only want to do in certain geographical areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back