Me, gullible? No.

NoScruf Logo Hmm, let’s hire a bunch of models, slap some fake hair in their pits, and create a crappy looking website ostensibly to get boys to shave (and presumably buy razors in order to do so). You had me for a minute there. Not!

Now who in the world would go and do a thing like that?

whois noscruf.org

Domain ID:D107690721-LROR
Domain Name:NOSCRUF.ORG
Created On:03-Oct-2005 22:20:01 UTC
Last Updated On:24-Apr-2006 18:07:33 UTC
Expiration Date:03-Oct-2011 22:20:01 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:10219001a3ecc997
Registrant Name:Procter & Gamble
Registrant Organization:Procter & Gamble
Registrant Street1:2 Procter and Gamble Plaza
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Cincinnati
Registrant State/Province:OH
Registrant Postal Code:45202
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5139459168
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.5139459497
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:piregistrar.im@pg.com

I thought so.

More here:

Procter & Gamble’s Braun has launched an unbranded viral campaign from Digitas, Boston, that aims to jokingly scare men into being clean-shaven by showing them the consequences of growing hairy stubble

And here:

It seems Boston’s Digitas has been busy creating a Geocities-like site for Gillette called NoScruf. … The site is purposefully designed to look like crap and just like Geocities sites of yesteryear, there’s broken links, cheesy graphics and really bad typeface.

I guess I’m only doing them a favor by posting this. No such thing as bad publicity and all. Just call me a fan of truth (in advertising).

Friday, June 9, 2006 7:22pm
Tech

relatedposts

10 comments

name
blog (optional)
comment
Sauj
6/9/06 10:36pm

Really interesting post. But how does one find out who owns the site, when they eventually hide their DNS register information.

I hate marketing.

John
6/10/06 7:12am

Actually, the marketing company in question [full disclosure: who I work for, though I don't speak for] did a really good job of not being sneaky, in my opinion. “Astroturf” sites typically obfuscate their DNS listing, but that’s not the case here. One visit to http://www.whois.sc/noscruf.org, and you get a big fat clue about what’s up.

To answer your question, though, try googling “who owns noscruf.org” :) Not exactly the riddle of the ancients.

Come on, you guys, didn’t the rawkin’ dhtml mouse-comet tail give it away? That’s how we ROLL… in 1997.

John
6/10/06 7:16am

Whoops, that seems to be a bum link. Try this one:
http://whois.domaintools.com/noscruf.org

Sauj
6/10/06 2:41pm

While I accept in this case Proctor and Gamble didn’t obfuscate the fact that they own the site…it really leads us to the same conclusion: You can’t trust everything you read on the net.

justin
6/10/06 3:40pm

John, I don’t think the average computer user should be expected to run a whois query to get the domain name registrant information. I know how to do it (as you can see from my post) to at least put that information out there for the person who does think to google for “noscruf”.

Everything about the site is engineered to make the average web surfer who stumbles across it believe that it’s a genuine (or at least genuine circa 1998) organization or movement (complete with banner ads on other sites, which is how I found out about it, on time.com).

Doing a “really good job of not being sneaky” would be owning up somewhere on the site to who created or paid for it, even if doing so in a slightly Onion-esque, tongue-in-check manner.

Brian R.
6/11/06 12:40pm

Why doesn’t Procter and Gable put their logo on the site right now? What do they have to hide? If nothing then there is no reason not to own up to it ASAP. It’s a conflict of interest not to.

Sauj
6/11/06 11:11pm

I think advertising should be obvious and not surreptitious in its nature.

This kind of clandestine behaviour is really under-handed and I agree with Justin; it’s too much to expect most end users to run a who is to find this stuff out.
I don’t believe it’s a conflict of interest, it’s just deceitful.

I’m Jack’s complete lack of surprise.

John
6/12/06 8:02am

Well, fair enough — I respect your guys’ opinion on that [though just to be clear again, I don't speak for this company, or for the team that put this together.] Justin, I didn’t mean to impugn your “whois” skills, either! I just wanted to point out that you don’t have to be a command-line guru to get a peek behind the scenes.

Ruby Sinreich
6/19/06 4:51pm

In addition to the marketing subterfuge of which they should be ashamed, I just want to say a big fat fuck you to P&G for insinuating that it would be the end of the world if women didn’t shave.

justin
6/19/06 7:07pm

Heh. Yeah. For reals.