Talk:The Kluger Agency

Lawsuit

There was a 2011 federal court lawsuit against this firm, Global Marketing Resources, Inc. v. The Kluger Agency Holdings, Inc. (Justia, LexisNexis) claiming breach of a contract to feature the plaintiff's Planet Love Match website in a Jennifer Lopez video. Perhaps this should be noted? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it appear mentioned in any of the more mainstream news sites? Fayedizard (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A search on "Jennifer Lopez" and "Planet Love Match" finds that the advertisement did indeed run in Papi (song), a 2011 Jennifer Lopez music video, yielding multiple on-line music reviews critical of the placements. I have no idea whether there was a judgement yet for the corresponding lawsuit. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Got a bit confused by your response there - I was more looking to find out if the lawsuit with the Kluger Agency appeared in any other sources? Fayedizard (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So far, the only other sources I've seen are citing these two, who are merely repeating the information from the court record. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Next Paragraph

Of the sources for this paragraph of text

Lady Gaga's 2010 video "Telephone" had received notoriety due to placement of nine brands in nine minutes. Britney Spears's music video for "Hold It Against Me", which incorporates placements by The Kluger Agency for clients including Plenty of Fish, received negative reviews from Vanity Fair and TMZ. A Washington Post review described the video as an "infomercial" with "undisguised, un-subtle in-video brand cameos".

The only one that mentions Kluger is the Vanity Fair one with this paragraph:

Adam Kluger, an ad executive who engineered the Spears-PlentyOfFish.com collaboration, told The New York Times that the site’s presence in the vaguely dystopian “Hold It Against Me” video suggests “online dating is the future.” We thought it was a clearer indication that clunky product placement is the future.

I'd like to remove the content on the grounds that it's got very little to do with the article - at best most of it is OR, but I'm interested in hearding other people suggestions. Any ideas?Fayedizard (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's even one source saying that this is Kluger's client and even one source reviewing the finished product as "an informercial", this is not original research as it is based on reliable sources. WP:OR uses the term "original research" for a pet theory held by an individual editor without being backed by established sources, for instance to add "Hurricane Katrina was proven to caused by global warming" to hurricane and cite either no source at all or merely something I'd published myself outside Wikipedia would be WP:OR. You're probably looking for WP:SYNTH but even then, there's nothing here that isn't in the original sources so I don't see an issue here. Those musicians actually did take Kluger product placements (which is reliably sourced) and those musicians actually did get negative reviews for placing advertising in their music videos (which is also reliably sourced). This is very relevant to the topic of the article as the Kluger model of packing music videos full of ads is garnering unfavourable reviews from notable sources which are doing deserved reputational damage to Kluger clients. If Kluger claims these are unnoticed, he's wrong and there's a stack of reviews from sources like Billboard magazine, MTV, Vanity Fair and the Washington Post of the final product which are very relevant to the topic of this piece because these are Kluger's ads. Removing sourced and relevant info just because it reflects badly on the subject of this page is merely turning the page back into an advertisement for The Kluger Agency, sending this further from neutrality. If you want to pick the entire page apart line by line, please address all of it - including the unsourced claims for number of clients in the article's intro - and not just whatever the subject doesn't want known. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear - do you realise that SYNTH is a subsection of the OR page? Fayedizard (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Connected contributors

I see the {{COI}} tag has been replaced with the talk-page {{Connected contributor|69.84.115.46}}.

This one IP is not the only Kluger connected contributor. User:Shahs227 uploaded a copy of the Kluger logo (since deleted) to commons: with a tag claiming that Adam Kluger releases this to the public domain (which would only be valid if shars227 is Kluger or works for him). User:184.32.125.150 claims to have sent e-mail to info-en-q @ wikipedia.org requesting this article's deletion; info-en-q is an address for Wikipedia:Contact OTRS specifically designated as "handles issues regarding an article that is written about you or a group you are affiliated with" so a request there is an implicit admission of affiliation with the article's subject. If you must use {{connected contributor}}, expect to need a stack of them as more socks come out in the wash. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

A WP:SOCK investigation is now open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/keywordrenewals. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Adam Kluger

Same topic , not separately notable DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Weak oppose on the grounds that the Forbes award (to him personally) suggest independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming artist

Hello my name is Meghan ramos and I have a big dream to be a female rapper I am influenced by bhad bhabie and if you could make it so she is my mentor it would make me the type of artist I know I can be I am very tanleted my SoundCloud is megastar 444 2601:18F:E00:CA20:302A:E396:707C:92F1 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)