-
-
There's no way that wasn't some low level dba/data entry person already leaving. Call me a cynic, but Walmart is better at business than that. It's crazy, I can can believe it's on the website but I can't imagine a marketing meeting where that gets a green light. Ditto for the Target "Manatee Grey" incident.
The reality is most of those firms employ very low paid data entry people to do a lot of that grunt work. It just takes one of them to be pissed off or think they're clever and you get this. -
Yeah, saw this early.
Its more likely from the marketing team though. Not intentionally mind you ( or to be specific, not intentionally uploaded ) but rather an "in joke" that they forgot to change before it hit the servers. Data entry / wage slaves will be inputting product information yes, but its pretty unlikely they have the power to create new store categories on the webpage of a huge corporation.
I'd bet a wage slave actually noticed it before it went live but his or her warnings went unheeded or unprocessed in time. Thats how it works at my office with the marketing team. There's a process one must go through that involves filling out a paper form detailing the data that needs to be changed or fixed. Then you have to send them an email notice. Then you wait 3-5 business days for them to get around to reading an email from someone beneath them and bother to check the inbox for the paper form.
I've seen critical errors go unfixed for 1-2 weeks after reporting them then usually only fixed when I manage to catch an elusive middle manager face to face and ask wtf. Upon which point they profess not having read their emails or checked their inbox yet.Comment
-
As someone who has worked for development companies maintaining major ecommerce websites, this is probably the most plausible. I've always made it a personal policy of mine to NEVER make any kind of dummy or placeholder content in a development environment that would be offensive if accidentally pushed to the public site. It's just common sense.Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
The worst I've seen personally is a colleague who left an alert box that said "BAZINGA JACKASS!" when someone submitted a form with certain values. The problem was fixed within minutes of it hitting production and nobody outside the company knew about it, as far as we could tell.
Oh, and there was one guy who, for about 15 minutes, accidentally changed all of the banner ads for an online ad company's 200 clients to read "FREE TRIP TO MARS! LOW GRAVITY FUN! CLICK HERE!" The punchline there is the metrics for those 15 minutes doubled the click-thru rate.Comment
-
using that as placeholder text is worse than someone being a jerk. It means that even for a little bit they thought this title was acceptable behind closed doors.Comment
-
Call me a hypocrite... It's okay when I complain to my friends that a store doesn't have "fat girl" clothes, but it's not okay for them to literally have "Fat Girl" clothesComment
-
That's because the former is you making a statement about yourself. It may be self-deprecating, but you're only saying how you feel. The latter is someone making a statement about a group of people and becomes biased, at the least.Originally posted by Kara_CS View PostComment
-
At worst, that's a subcategory of being a jerk. But finding a joke funny is not at all the same thing as either believing it to be true or, whether it is or not, thinking it's appropriate to say in front of anyone who might not like it, so how would using it what-they-thought-was-privately *worse* than being a jerk?using that as placeholder text is worse than someone being a jerk. It means that even for a little bit they thought this title was acceptable behind closed doors."My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."Comment
-
They're not even fat.
WTF?Comment
-
They can't be bothered to take a picture of a plus-size model, so they use the same photos of the standard costumes. Except for the costumes which are plus-size only, but even then they don't usually look it. But, by industry standards, just about any size above "petite" these days is considered plus-size.Comment
-
Even in catalogs that cater to plus sizes, the models used are posed and sized so as to imply thinness.Originally posted by Kara_CS View PostGood news! Your insurance company says they'll cover you. Unfortunately, they also say it will be with dirt.Comment
-
Or for plus-size stores, they'll use the smallest models they can get away with. It's gotten to the point that a couple of companies will put down under "fit" that "model is <x cm> tall and is wearing a Size 10/14/16" (10 is for "standard" pages, 14 and 16 are for the "plus size" ones)Originally posted by Kara_CS View Post
America's next top model is actually a good example of this. From memory, there were quite a few models who wouldn't really count as "plus size" but were considered to be as such by either Tyra or by the designers. (One off the top of my head was this model from C9, who was a little bit wider and curvy in some spots, but didn't look any different from the regular models. Yet she was marked as "plus size" by some of the judges. C8 wasn't much better as they had 2 models who fit that bill, one of whom actually resembled an "average" girl more than the models!)
See my comment above.Originally posted by Panacea View Post
To give you a better example: http://www.citychic.com.au/MISS-SPOT...r=p2lt__015816 (Their XS is a Size 16 in most Aussie stores*)
I won't even get into the maternity ones...
*-Converting into American size, you drop down 2 even numbers from the Aussie one. So a Aus 16 is a US 12 for example)Comment
Tweet
Comment