Talk:The Kluger Agency/Archive 1

Declared conflict of interest
As the head of PR for the kluger agency, we are adding artists we work with to this page for informative purposes only. We will be adding names as we continue to sign artists and brand partnership agreements. We do not typically do press releases due to the fact that the reason our campaigns are so effective is due to our discreet nature. We do not want the public knowing what brand is paying for what. Everything is meant to be natural and we hope you respect that. Any questions, Feel free to contact me at (310) 461-3596. -Erin Rogers, PUBLIC RELATIONS The Kluger Agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.115.46 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 22 February 2009‎
 * WP:COI is relevant here - with the close relationship you've disclosed, it would actually be discouraged that you edit this article, instead deferring to neutral third parties. WikiProject_Business would be a good start point to finding some more general article that need improvement and would probably benefit from your expertise!Cander0000 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Client List
The client list was becoming WP:Listcruft. While it's possible that one could dig up a full client list, and some type of reference proving they were a client of the company in question, Is their relationship with this company really notable enough to list? I've eliminated the list o', and worked just a few examples into the paragraphs to paint the picture that this firm is working with popular music artists. I'm sure this can be improved, but I would suggest not reverting to simply listing names. Cander0000 (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

i've added a few of the kluger agencies clients. i also listed the the website in which i got my information. I'm not sure how to add it to the reference list, if you could help me, that would be very nice. I know that TKA works with about 200 artists, so i only listed the ones notable enough to list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.128.4 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am adding clients from news source labeled "The secretive world of product placement" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.128.4 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

additionally, page was grammatically poor, so i changed a few things. This page is now much more informative and organized. Please reframe from editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.128.4 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Two issues appear

Cander0000 (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The reference for the "client list" appears to be a press release and would not pass as a Verifiable source.  (i.e. I could put out a press release claiming a number of people are my "clients" - it's not necessarily a fact-checked or defensible document)  That being said, it's not that contentious of an issue either way.
 * 2) The "client list" appears to exist for the sake of having a client list, see Listcruft - a few examples in paragraph form seem to make for a better article, and this article could use a lot more content about the company itself - history? foundation? - instead of adding further examples of clients.  It appears the client list was originally added by someone with WP:COI concerns, so please don't put much weight in its historical inclusion.

Cander "Product Placement News" is not a press release. I've included the link at the bottom of the page along w/ several other reports from other news outlets. A dispute is not needed at this point as it's simply getting tiring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.128.4 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this take care of the two issues you've found conflicting w/ this article? Please let me know before you change anything as i'd like to know how we can get past this and make this article informative for all66.202.128.4 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

added information on artists found at VH1 news from 5/17/09 Keywordrenewals (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on the reference, I'm not sure how neutral it is, I thought BusinessWire primarily republished press releases, but it's not a contentious point. Still believe the LaundryList of clients is unnecessary and attempting to publish a complete list of notable clients would saturate the article which should otherwise discuss mostly 'this' company.  Just listing a few notable clients where the relationship to the company is well-established would lead to a better article.Cander0000 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The clients are notable if one of the names happens to match a review somewhere of a song or a music video where that performer is identified as delivering a blatant advertisement in the guise of 'content'. Simply naming clients without pinpointing which product is being sold in which video, though, isn't enough. That's just pointless namedropping and rather difficult to verify. Find the smoking gun first, then start naming names. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

COI and SPA editors

 * is the single-purpose account which originally created three articles (Adam Kluger, Kluger Agency, The Kluger Agency). All were advertisements; all but this page were redirected or deleted.
 * IP's and  are not currently active, but were used to add promotional text or remove controversy. These also edited individual musician's pages, as well as spamming links to the now-deleted Adam Kluger page from individual school articles)
 * IP's and  are actively removing content from The Kluger Agency as of August 2012, also editing a list of musicians (which fits the pattern seen earlier).
 * and IP also appear to be removing content or adding Kluger self-promotion as of August 2012.

It is very likely that these are WP:COI or WP:SOCK; the deletion of valid, sourced content is abusive in any case. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the ongoing WP:SPA and content deletion issues at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Kluger Agency
The history of an article originally at Kluger Agency was merged here. There is discussion on Talk:Kluger Agency which may identify more IP users controlled by Kluger to add self-promotion or remove controversy from that article. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to match sources
The company description is still problematic in that it claims to cite sources but then both omits key facts from those sources (for instance, the list of which musicians are plugging which brands) and adds claims which are contradicted by those sources. One example, "the agency created and developed the concept[citation needed] of 'brand-dropping'” contradicts which claims the undisclosed advertisements have been around since 2001, at least six years prior to the establishment of this particular firm, with controversy going back to the mid-2000's (decade). It also misleadingly describes any mainstream media mention of Kluger (even if he's being quoted on some utterly unrelated issue, such as the financial state of the Michael Jackson estate) as if it were an endorsement or "recognition" by these media of the agency... something which is most certainly not in the original sources. The entire section needs to be cleaned up to lose the self-promotional language and make the article match the original source, including the list of brands being plugged. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 66.102.83.61, for the good work of keeping COI-editors from controlling the article. If you see information that fails verification by the source(s) cited, go ahead and remove it with the appropriate explanation in the edit summary. Cresix (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the problems, though, is this is moving strongly into criticism of the practice of product placement and of individual singers, rather than criticism specifically directly at the Kluger Agency. Presuming that they aren't the only group to be handling product placement in this manner, it may be that we need to tone back that area of criticism to focus only on the material directly related to the agency. - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The question of Katy Perry inserting promotion for the "DIESEL" clothing line into music videos is only mentioned because Perry did speak out on-line against other performers (presumed by mainstream reviewers to include Britney Spears, whose 2011 video was panned for clumsy and awkward product placements) being "blatant and in your face" with ads in videos instead of making any attempt to disguise the promotions. Kluger has tried to twist this into Perry endorsing Spears and The Kluger Agency, which is inconsistent with sources and utterly false. I'm not saying that Katy Perry is taking ads from Kluger (for all I know, the ads in her material could be from a competitor) only that Britney is a Kluger client and Katy has been reported by MTV and others as critical of those placements as excessive and poorly-disguised. That's the only connection between Perry and this topic. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This page features far too much cristism as the company has also been spoken of in a positive light on most of the major news sources i've came across. BusinessWeek "Singing songs of your brand here", The Comet "Raising the bar on product placement", Billboard Magazine "Power 30 under 30 2011", etc.. I feel that this page may be being altered by an individual with poor intentions. """" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.125.150 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this page all but claims that Kluger invented product placement in music videos. This is false. The cited sources indicate this sort of thing has been occurring on a smaller scale since 2001 while Kluger is a latecomer (founded 2008). Indeed this page is being altered by an individual with poor intentions... namely you, Adam Kluger, using various IP addresses and single-purpose accounts to remove information on "Double Happiness Jeans" (which is duly sourced to Wired magazine and is credible, but embarrassing to the Kluger Agency). The repeated insertion of self-promotion (for instance, claiming that some mainstream news outlet mentions Kluger without mentioning that whatever that publication said about the ads in music videos is either unflattering or completely different to the self-promotional claims being posted to this article. I have no horse in this race but Wikipedia is not somewhere for Kluger to post its self-promotional advertising. Maybe Britney Spears or Lady Gaga is willing to look the other way at awkward placement of self-serving advertising in her work for a six-figure sum, but Wikipedia is not Britney Spears. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the original sources for the company description. The New York Times only contained a one-line mention of a BusinessWeek article and nothing else about Kluger. One of the Forbes pieces says nothing about The Kluger Agency or product placement, merely citing Adam Kluger on one estimate of the value of other musicians' songs held by the Michael Jackson estate (so utterly off-topic and useless). The LA Business Journal is WP:PAYWALL. That leaves two valid sources, a Forbes blog entry and BusinessWeek. I've taken whatever info was in them (except for the bit where this twenty-something year old kid dropped out of a for-profit vocational school in LA in 2007 after "attending a two-year college in Gainesville" - with no mention of actually completing it) and used these two sources to rewrite the company description with a few hard facts in terms of what products are being placed where and how much money is at stake. It is not useful to link to a publication just to say that publication mentioned this guy, as a mention is *not* an an endorsement. If the source includes useful info, then cite the WP:RS and summarize the info instead of just name-dropping the publication. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

timewarp
We've got sources saying the company started in 2007 and in 2008 and both dates appear in a very short article - any ideas how we handle this? Fayedizard (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The conflict is in the original sources (Forbes had 2007 and BusinessWeek had 2008). Beginning of 2008 seems likely, but you may want to look at both cited WP:RS before trying to resolve this. I've gone the WP:WEASEL route of "late 2007 or early 2008" if that's all that this combination of sources can provide.66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section
I gather there has been some recent edit warring over the controversy section. To be honest, while I think there is cause to include some mention of the issue in teh article, at the moment it seems to be given a lot of weight that it out of sync with the sources and coverage. As near as I can tell, there was little mainstream coverage, and the issue boils down to the agency being accused of having made a poor choice of companies to offer their services. If it happened it was a pretty stupid choice of people to approach, but I'm hard pressed to see how that warrants over half the article space. A sentence of two would make sense, but I'm not sure that much mroe than that is warranted, unless there is something going on that is not covered in the article at the moment. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The agency has clearly debated that these events ever happened. I feel that only legitimate press articles should be included on this informative page rather than blogs in which case most writers can create and distribute any story they like. In the wired article as well as in the antiadvertising blog, the kluger agency has mentioned that these events never occured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.231.242 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a WP:RS for Kluger's denial of the incident? If so, report the incident, report the denial, cite both to their respective reliable sources (and no, Kluger editing Wikipedia himself is *not* a reliable source for anything because of WP:OR and WP:COI, as well as WP:SELF). Wired magazine claims Kluger sent inept lawsuit threats to the Anti-Advertising Agency, that's the closest to a denial that can be sourced so maybe that should be added? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again the controversy section was added without warrant nor with any legitimate links proving otherwise. We need legitimate news sources in order to keep information active on this page.


 * The information was sourced. The agency itself has been repeatedly editing these articles to remove key facts and replace them with self-promotion. The three articles Kluger Agency, The Kluger Agency and Adam Kluger were created by a single-purpose account specifically to promote that company in a very self-serving manner. Of this set, one was redirected, one was deleted and this page is the one still remaining. That the agency denies the event occurred does *not* prove or disprove anything, given the WP:COI involved. If Wired magazine or the Anti-Advertising Agency make an allegation which Kluger denies, report both the allegation and the denial (reporting the source for each)... but do not remove all mention of the incident as that is whitewashing and very dishonest. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put the cite of the article on Gaga back, as she *is* listed as a client in the "Company description" section of this article, the negative reaction to "nine brands in nine minutes" in Telephone (Lady Gaga song) is sourced and relevant. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - missed that. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section
Seems like it might be worth following WP:CRIT and merging the criticism into the body of the article; 2008's Double Happiness Jeans mistake looks like a natural counterpoint to Kluger's mass phonecalls and "bullsh-g" in the same year, and the Lady Gaga video is mentioned in both sections. It'd be more helpful to the reader to say "these adverts made a lot of money, but drew criticism" all at once, than to hold back the second half until later in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A separate section seems to make the WP:COI vandalism easier to spot (as section blanking). Tags is effectively flagging the repeated deletion of the entire section, so that this removal of content can be quickly reverted. As such, the problem of multiple IP's section-blanking anything that isn't promotional for The Kluger Agency needs to be addressed first, even though 400 phone calls of "bullsh-g" and "Double Happiness Jeans" both in-line do go together more smoothly by keeping the entire page chronological from 2008 forward. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support merging. (short answer as on train sorry) Fayedizard (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd looked at CRIT and there are some exceptions outlined there that appear relevant. One is the use of "criticism" to refer to the comments of professional critics, such as movie, music or restaurant reviewers. To say that some movie "opened to mostly negative reviews, according to x% of critics polled by review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes" is legit, for instance. The Washington Post and Vanity Fair pieces blasting Britney Spears for "Hold It Against Me" (2011) and the poorly-disguised advertising packed therein would qualify as "criticisms" but not necessarily "controversies" under this provision. :To follow that model would move "Double Happiness Jeans" inline with the phone calls and "bulls--g" but keep the "criticism" section for reviews of specific music videos in which these undisclosed advertisements appear. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A paragraph at the time...
There appear to be some problems with large chunks of the article, so I'll like to work though the paragraphs in question here...

Firstly the paragraph....

Does anyone have an issues? alternate versions they suggest? Fayedizard (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, you do realise that the person who keeps removing the entire controversy section is most likely WP:COI and wants to turn this page back into an advertisement for Adam Kluger (it was originally a set of three blatantly-promotional articles, the others at Kluger Agency and Adam Kluger, same original poster, are now gone)? The same user has blanked the all of The Kluger Agency previously and attempted to use WP:AFC to recreate a twice-deleted promotional bio at Adam Kluger (that attempt was speedied as db-promo). The issue is currently open at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, so this has gone a little beyond WP:AGF.
 * I've reinstated the controversy around Gaga's "Telephone" (2010) which got some highly-negative reviews for pushing nine brands in nine minutes; that issue was already discussed on this talk page earlier when the question of whether she is a Kluger client was addressed (she's not only tied to the Kluger mess but is noted as the first to place Kluger advertising in a music video, per BusinessWeek) and the content re-instated at that time.
 * As for "Double Happiness Jeans"? Wired magazine says it happened, MusicRadar says it happened. Adam Kluger sees fit to deny it (Wired reports he made some rather inept attempts at threatening a strategic lawsuit against public participation to silence this incident, which only backfired) but is the only to do so. No doubt, it happened and is relevant as it provides an insight into the 2008 era of his "400 phone calls" making questionable claims to brands that he already had the record labels while claiming to labels that he already had brands as prospective advertisers. Please stop the whitewashing. WP:RS said it happened, leave it at that.
 * Katy Perry was only mentioned because MTV reported her as criticising Britney Spears online for clumsy, poorly-disguised advertising in "Hold It Against Me" (2011). Britney is tied to Kluger; I have no idea who placed the ads in Perry's videos so (unless that can be established) only MTV's interpretation of her comments on Spears related to Kluger's agency. It might merit a line in the article at best, but any false claims (such as the ones inserted claiming that Perry was "defending" Spears and The Kluger Agency, which was inserted a few days ago by one of the WP:COI IP's) should not be re-instated.
 * Basically, what I see here is someone from Kluger Agency editing this page repeatedly to remove all criticism of Kluger Agency in order to use this page as WP:ADV. The solution is not WP:AGF and "compromise" by deleting half of the sourced criticism (unless it goes off-topic, fails WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT or some other criterion other than Kluger's WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The solution is to enforce a stance on WP:COI and block any IP's and WP:SPA accounts being used by the Kluger Agency to remove all non-promotional content from The Kluger Agency. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit lost in that - do you have any problems with the paragraph as it stands? Fayedizard (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is sourced and appears valid; no idea why the wikinews: piece on the incident was unlinked? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was me, it just seemed out of place. I couldn't find any policy guidance on when to use the template, but was under the impression that we only used Wikinews boxes in articles that were about a specific news story, not to emphasise a single sentence in a larger article merely because that sentence was "news" at the time (which would be true for a large number of sentences in every Wikipedia article). It's not as if the Wikinews link says anything the sources don't. --McGeddon (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My major concern with this section is that it is poorly source. Both references are to blogs, (although one is a blog on Wired), one of which is the primary source and which is of questionable reliability on the issue. I gather from the IP that The Kluger Agency has denied that they sent the email, but I haven't yet seen a source to support that - presumably if the IP is connected with the agency then they would be correct, but without a source I haven't been able to add it. Either way, I'm not sure that it is viable criticism due to the sourcing issues and the nature of the concern. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Music reviewers and critics
One issue regarding the mainstream media outlets reviewing music videos... in nearly all cases, the reviews will not directly mention The Kluger Agency but instead will name and shame an individual client - a musician which ran Kluger ads and/or the brand(s) being advertised.

This is inevitable, as Kluger does not disclose to the viewer its involvement. We know which musicians are tied to Kluger because it was reported by BusinessWeek. We also know which of these placements are being spotted (or panned) by reviewers by a quick search for the name of any of these bands and "product placement" in news media.

Ultimately, however, the sad reality is that it's the musician whose name goes on the product and it's the musician who takes the rap (pardon the pun) when the final product gets unfavourable reviews due to passing advertising off as content. It's not Kluger's reputation that's being damaged by the bad reviews, even though these musicians are Kluger clients and these are Kluger product placements which are clearly relevant to this article. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's still original research I'm afraid, and still doesn't belong in the article, hang on while I get a second opinion... Fayedizard (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Page blanking
Due to an extreme amount of disputes, this article has been deleted until disputes have been settled.--184.32.125.150 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)-

Page-blanking is vandalism. I have reported this incident for administrator intervention. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Both sides of this debate are guilty of constant edit warring and I suspect both could have been blocked for that alone. Fayedizard (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

break for flow
I believe that this article is being edited very unjustly. In my research most of the press i've found has been positive press and it seems only negative materials are being posted on this page. I continue to delete the controvery section as i cannot seem to find a legitimate source other than blogs quoting information originally posted on a NYU student project titled "Anti-Advertising Agency". I move to only list information from credible sources. If i'm mistaken, Please do list a credible source in this Talk section. Regarding criticism on particular video placements, Those should be placed under the wikipedia article for that particular video as its not clear whether or not The Kluger Agency creatively places the products or just participates in the financial negotiation.(184.32.125.150 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.125.150 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there - welcome to the talk page. I'm happy to remove anything not in source - which *current* sources from the article are you objecting to? Fayedizard (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In case I can help here, from what I can tell the two sources in question were music radar and Wired. The Wired soruce is a blog, and both are using as their only source a blog post on Ant-advertising agency, which I would regard as potentially unreliable. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Wired actually interviewed the persons involved with this incident, they didn't just repost content from the Anti-Advertising Agency. That much is spelled out in the piece itself. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, the Wired piece is a blog post, not a magazine article. And it seems to take as given that the email was sent based on the Anti Advertising Agency claim. The main reason why I haven't thought that it was worth removing it outright is that the Wired blog article doesn't have any sign that Kluger denied sending the email, and I assume that Kluger would have said so if that was the case, but being a blog article I can't assume that it was fully vetted.
 * To be honest, other than the sourcing issues, this still gets back to being pretty much a non-event. The issue seems to be that The Kluger Agency may have sent an unsolicited email to a group offering their services. There idoesn't really seem to be much to it. - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One point that looks noteworthy was that Kluger approached "Double Happiness Jeans" in 2008. The company had existed for less than a year at this point and wasn't even on the sonar, let alone the radar. Just some non-notable twenty-something kid on the make with dollar signs in his eyes but no real commercial notability or track history. That would be about the same time as the 400 phone calls of "bulls--g" (telling record labels he already had advertiser brands while telling brands that he already had the labels or musicians) and would have predated any of the music reviews panning the ads (2010 and 2011) or even his three self-promotional articles here on Wikipedia (fall 2008). As he was unknown, the incident does give some insight into the aggressive marketing tactics on which he founded the Kluger Agency in 2008. This goes right to the beginnings of the firm. It's also highly improbable that Wired magazine or the Anti-Advertising Agency imagined the whole thing as, had he not actually made this approach to Double Happiness Jeans, there's no way they could have been aware of his non-notable firm so early. There'd also be no reason to fabricate an allegation about Kluger at a time no one had even heard of Kluger. It had just been founded earlier that year, after all. It fits the timeline very well as an explanation of the company's beginnings. The information is sourced, is wrapped in "alleged" as weasel word and needs to be retained. I could see adding "allegation, which Kluger denies" at the end of this if there were a WP:RS for the denials... something other than WP:COI IP editors repeatedly popping up here making unsourced allegations that Wired or Anti-Ad Agency are liars (which fails WP:OR as we can only speculate which of this mess of anon-IP's is Kluger). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, most of that is conjecture. The main issues are that we gather The Kluger Agency has denied sending the email, but we don't have a reliable source for it, and we have the claim that the email was sent, but also don't have a particularly reliable source for it. And that this whole thing seems pretty minor - it isn't particularly controversial that an advertising agency may have sent an unsolicited email to someone they thought would make a potential client. There is still a humour aspect - if they did send it, it was a particularly bad choice of potential clients - but otherwise I'm inclined to remove the section, given the sourcing concerns and that it really doesn't seem significant. - Bilby (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)