The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Buy Jake.
Following on from the woman who auctioned the rights to name her baby - leading to a child named Golden Palace Benedetto - and the sudden fads for offering bodies as billboards, comes buyjake.com.

Traci Hogg has decided that her son is cute enough to be used as a billboard. For a certain fee ($100,000 if you want a year long contract), she will dress him in logoed clothes. As she says herself: "When I'm taking him places, everyone seems to notice him and notice what he's wearing. They always say he wears the cutest outfits, and I thought, someone should be paying me to put their logo on him. He gets so much attention."

Jake must be pretty used to this sort of thing by now - his mother auctioned him off for commercial work on Ebay when he was 5 months old. Critics say that Traci seems eager for fame, an opinion she vehemently denies.

Well, he's a cute enough kid, but will this work?
Prices are pretty high for this and, with only one offer (far below asking price) for one month's advertising, it doesn't seem too hopeful just yet.
Categories: Advertising
Posted by Boo on Mon Aug 07, 2006
What an odd looking child!.
Posted by Iridium  in  Middlesbrough  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  09:55 AM
I hate people more and more each day.
Posted by Paul H.  in  Brooklyn  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  10:40 AM
Opened the site. Heard the weird laughter. Closed site.
My kids are cute. But let them be recognized by their actions, not because of what some people think of their looks..
Posted by MIKE  in  MASS  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  11:14 AM
"Parents" like these aught not be allowed to have kids. Poor boy.
Posted by LaMa  in  Europe  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  01:30 PM
My son got so many compliments on his looks and still does. (He's got the whole blue eyed blonde Scandi looking thing and we've had a number of offers of commercial or photo work, which I refused.) I've made sure to tell him that it's nice to be handsome, but it's more important to be smart, and most important to be kind. Now when he gets a compliment on his looks, he says "And I'm smart too". raspberry

That said, I did refuse when we were courted for this stuff, primarily because I didn't want to be like this woman. Marketing your child for what appear to be selfish reasons is wrong - even if her motives are pure, the way she is going about it (internet, sale on eBay(!!) is at best self serving.
Posted by Winona  in  USA  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  01:46 PM
I find nothing wrong with doing modeling, especially if you are approched, but what this woman is doing is wholesale advertising prostitution. I have a real problem with it. She is selling her child to the highest bidder and all for her own personal gain. While technically she is doing nothing wrong, there is an ethical component to be considered and I wish I could sic her local CPS on her.
Posted by Lounge Lizard  in  El Paso, Tx  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  02:28 PM
As apalling as this story is, it does make me wonder, for about the thousandth time, why so many people are willing to wear corporate logos on their clothes WITHOUT being paid an advertising fee, and in fact usually without even getting the wearable billboards for free, but instead paying good money to advertise somebody else's company.
Posted by Big Gary  in  Plainview, Texas  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  04:17 PM
Some people shouldn't be allowed to have children. it's just sick to sell your baby as a billboard.
Posted by Dracul  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  05:28 PM
Sure..I think my kid is cute enough to sell stuff. But I'd much rather do it through an actual agency than by offering to advertise on her body in an ebay auction.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  06:55 PM
Agreed Paul the more i read the more i hate people
Posted by Merve  on  Tue Aug 08, 2006  at  06:44 AM
child billboards, didnt this appear before somewhere?
we know whats gonna happen, in ten years or so the kid is gonna end up in therapy due to feeling exploited and undervalued by her mother (rightly so, id say)and then do the whole expose on the mother

its gonna be like that child body builder all over again... now that was sad
Posted by joodd  on  Tue Aug 08, 2006  at  08:05 AM
despicable.
Posted by thephrog  on  Wed Aug 09, 2006  at  01:23 PM
I don't think it's that 'horrible'; if her motivations are pure and she's doing it for good reasons-- such as the money going towards the kid's college education and not investing in a new jacuzzi or such-- then more power to her. If some schmo is willing to pay thousands a month for someone to wear their advertising, then so be it. I agree with Big Gary in that its high time they paid us for wearing branded clothing and not vice versa.

Having said that, he's just a baby and who knows if any effect this may have on him. This smacks of exploit to me just by the way she sets up the site. But it's quick and easy to be judemental and it's quick and easy to point fingers when we don't know her motivations. She's not abusing or hurting the child and any speculation at emotional abuse is just that, speculation.

To me, judging her and writing her off as criminal is worse than what she's doing; but then I never think of humans as particularly tolerant creatures.
Posted by Dee  on  Sun Oct 29, 2006  at  12:34 PM
this is sickning,its obivous she was neglected as a child,probaby sent to a boarding school,or made to stay in her house with no contact with normal people, poor child !
Posted by bill  in  georgia on her mind  on  Fri Feb 23, 2007  at  11:33 PM
Wow has anyone ever do a follow up on the Baby Golden Palace Benedetto?? I know the mother pissed the money away and none of it went to the baby or was put away for the Baby. I hear the mother is also having father problems. The Named father on the Birth cert doesn't even have rights or any visits with the child cause the mother claims its not his child. but knowing the real donor father is doing his own thing the name father on the birth cert is willing to take responsibilty whats the problem. i know the named father on the birth cert has taken care of everything for the baby for the first 2 years of the babys life. Till his rights were taken away. Tell me that is wrong?
Posted by James  on  Sun Nov 02, 2008  at  09:54 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.