Who’s That Girl?

imageRecently someone posted on facebook pictures supposedly recovered from a camera they found while on holiday. The photos showed an attractive young woman posing in various stages of undress. The guy who found the camera wrote:
We are trying to track down the lovely lass in these photos so she can be reunited with her lost digital camera. She certainly knows how to use it!
Please get invites sent out to all gents in your friends list as if we all work together we can hunt this lass down.

The only thing surprising would have been if this didn't turn out to be a viral marketing campaign for a porn site. But no surprise here. It all turned out to be a viral marketing campaign for a porn site. (Thanks, Cranky Media Guy)

Sex/Romance

Posted on Mon Sep 03, 2007


Comments

Well, did she at least get her camera back? :lol:
Posted by Transfrmr  on  Mon Sep 03, 2007  at  09:49 PM
i've seen many sites reporting on how this was just a viral marketing campaign for a porn site, but i've yet to see anyone provide any references or even detail how it was discovered to be marketing.
Posted by dave  on  Tue Sep 04, 2007  at  07:08 AM
i believe the true story behind this is that some girl had a set of provocative (as well as regular) photos on her image hosting site, and it was broken into -- a LONG TIME ago. the pictures have circulated ever since, and then one site reports that it's a viral marketing campaign, (which it may be), but the girl isn't actually an x-rated model, nor is there a site that owns her photographs.
Posted by dave  on  Tue Sep 04, 2007  at  07:24 AM
So Cranky, it was just for 'research purposes' that you knew this, wasn't it? 😉
Posted by Charybdis  on  Tue Sep 04, 2007  at  09:33 AM
"Dear Penthouse,

I found this digital camera on the beach today, and. . .."
Posted by JoeDaJuggler  on  Tue Sep 04, 2007  at  02:00 PM
Good point, Dave. I was trying to figure out how the Daily Mail knew it was a viral marketing campaign, but they don't say that anywhere. I assumed they didn't give the url of the porn site because they didn't want to give it free publicity.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Tue Sep 04, 2007  at  09:17 PM
dave, the article states that the young woman does pose for x-rated photos online. And we all know that newspapers never lie or get the facts wrong.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Tue Sep 04, 2007  at  09:38 PM
Forgot to mention. She is a very good looking woman. Someone had to say it.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Tue Sep 04, 2007  at  09:47 PM
if you look at the digg article about this girl, one of the links provided is to a forum on which there are many dozens of pictures of her collected, only a few of which are risque. many of them are just standard pictures of a girl hanging out with her friends, prom pictures, vacation with her family, and of course nudes and bikini pictures. this very strongly suggests, to me at least, that the pictures were "stolen" from a no-so-secure free image hosting account and circulated (or, hell, they very well could have been found in a camera somewhere). from there, the risque ones found their way all over the web, on all sorts of image galleries, and at some point were posted to Facebook. this very well may have been a marketing ploy to get people to a gallery site on which they landed, but you can assume from all this that they weren't taken for a porn site, and the odds are very slim that she's actually a nude model.
Posted by dave  on  Wed Sep 05, 2007  at  12:27 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.