[CM30]

Well, it's certainly creative. Which is probably a good thing if you're running a marketing company like these guys are, especially given how packed the field is right now.

But to say it was a risky move would be the understatement of the century. Delivering mail to companies that didn't ask for it, and in person? Using dead people to advertise? AI created deepfakes of the people targeted as a persuasion tactic? This could have easily gone very poorly for you, and lead to all sorts of criminal charges. Remember, we're in a world where a few glowing lights for a TV show ad caused a bomb scare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic

Where harmless packages caused buildings to get evacuated, and Facebook had to change its ad settings because people were using it to target specific individuals.

The fact only one company sent a cease and desist, and no one got scared enough to get the police involved was probably a miraculous stroke of luck. So, points for creativity, though you got incredibly lucky the end result was so positive here.

[wrasee]

I have a hunch that one of the reasons it may have worked where it did is because they tapped very quickly into the ego of the executive they were targetting. Even the outside of box came with a picture with their (nicely stylized) face on it, which I wonder might have flattered and disarmed more than it should have.

Then inside, more personalized photos to keep them engaged.

Move the focus away from the individual to some brand message and I think the outcome could have been much more like you suggest.

In that sense, this is more a demonstration as to the effectiveness of social engineering than anything marketing related.

[amelius]

Isn't most marketing basically social engineering, but on a wider scale?

[wrasee]

Yes i suppose it is. Good point! But there's something very personal about their approach that couldn't scale to a wider audience, almost by definition. When you present something to even a precise demographic, but an anonymous one, you are in some sense still presenting something to the market. When you do the same but target a specific individual you're no longer addressing the market. I'd say that has more parallels with hacking than marketing.

[johnnyanmac]

It's simply goodheart's law taken to the nth degree.

- People see that LinkedIn meme of some college student sneaking into a company o deliver pizza and attaching their resume to stand out

- People praise its creativity

- Someone desperate enough falls into Poe's law and tries to +1 that.

Maybe companies should properly utilize their "boring" pipeline if they don't want candidates to start getting "creative".

[bombcar]

The “fake delivery” trick is so old it’s in a 1950s Donald Duck comic.

What’s going to happen is something like this admittedly well-executed version goes viral, and then you get fifty thousand incredibly crappy imitations.

[johnnyanmac]

Old tricks with a new generation of dogs. Novelty comes in waves just like any other trend, and we have new technologies to work with as well. And yes, it's all in execution. Apple shows how you don't need to be first, just the first to do it really well.

>goes viral, and then you get fifty thousand incredibly crappy imitations.

Very likely, yes. But you only really to do it once if you're the one trying to get a job. You're not responsible for any imitations