Was the marketing ploy a long term strategy and why?

[Redblossom]

I think this needs a full new topic but have you ever thought that McCanns actually, at the time when Madeleine disappeared, were put into 'a system'.. buy all of the professionals who came to deal with them..

1. They might have been under a heavy medication in the first days when Madeleine went missing.
2. They might have been advised what to say, what to mention and what to not mention.
3. All that came out as their words was actually carefully selected by potential profilers and advisers, who were not that perfect in assessing the situation at the time.

It might have been that all that is put as a 'wrong behaviour' to the McCanns actually wasn't their natural behaviour at all but an advised technique of behaviour they were told to perform

Comparing a few initial days to 6 years? Of it? I dont thnk so somehow

[Redblossom]

If you wish to amaze a SY PO, ask if s/he read "Madeleine" !

I would have thought that might be required reading in exactly the same way as the files...cant get better evidence than direct  from the horses  mouth

[Carana]

.
Well that is j robs take.....he obviously  thought the take a chance on her eye being deformed is no big deal if its a good marketing ploy???

Why would concealing the fleck in her eye necessarily involve deforming it? By that, do you mean something painful? A contact lens would have concealed it if she was to be taken out in public.

Police the world over publicise distinguishing marks of missing people. Despite my criticism of Amaral on many points, he did get that organised very quickly.

[jassi]

Why would concealing the fleck in her eye necessarily involve deforming it? By that, do you mean something painful? A contact lens would have concealed it if she was to be taken out in public.

Police the world over publicise distinguishing marks of missing people. Despite my criticism of Amaral on many points, he did get that organised very quickly.

In order to get a contact lens, the child would need to be taken to an optician - maybe not a clever thing to do if you had a 'hot' child, who's face has been splashed over just about every newspaper in the world

[Redblossom]

Why would concealing the fleck in her eye necessarily involve deforming it? By that, do you mean something painful? A contact lens would have concealed it if she was to be taken out in public.

Police the world over publicise distinguishing marks of missing people. Despite my criticism of Amaral on many points, he did get that organised very quickly.

It wasnt my idea, it was Gerrys...About hurting her, read para under the big red A on page 4

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802?currentPage=5

[j.rob]

I was questioning J.Rob's comment, which sounded to me as if the child herself was being used as a marketing ploy for some unspecified purpose.


Yes, she always was low down on the list of priorities for the McCanns although she was useful as a 'marketing ploy'.

Can you think of a more cynical comment from a parent who is supposedly grieving for his missing child? It is absolutely dispicable.

The child HAS been used as a marketing ploy. Of that there is no doubt. What is extraordinary is that the words came out of the horses mouth. His arrogance is breathtaking.

From the very beginning it had very little to do with a search for a missing child (remember: Kate 'knew, just knew' what had happened) and more to do with another agenda.

A news story appeared within two hours of the alleged abduction. The next day Clarence Mitchell pops up in the resort - that in itself is breathtakingly extraordinary. (Was it REALLY the very next day??)

The McCanns show very little interest in searching for their daughter, instead enlist reputation managers, spin doctors, libel lawyers and media experts. Kate becomes exasperated with the police in the early days when they want her to come back to the station to identify what could possibly be their child.

What are the MCCanns marketing? You cannot deny that they have been quite successful at eliciting public money, which has funded jaunts around the world and libel cases.  They have attempted to gag the British press. They have managed to get Amaral's book taken off the shelves in the UK.

What is it REALLY all about? Are the just out-of-control narcissists who jumped into bed with New Labour and, aided and abetted by the Murdoch press spun an enormous porky-pie which sold papers and took the public eye off other stuff.

Or WHAT??

Someone knows but one thing is for sure - Madeleine has been callously, cruelly and ruthlessly exploited by adults who have their own agenda. It is SICKENING and the sooner justice is done FOR MADELEINE the better.

[Redblossom]

The child HAS been used as a marketing ploy. Of that there is no doubt. What is extraordinary is that the words came out of the horses mouth. His arrogance is breathtaking.

From the very beginning it had very little to do with a search for a missing child (remember: Kate 'knew, just knew' what had happened) and more to do with another agenda.

A news story appeared within two hours of the alleged abduction. The next day Clarence Mitchell pops up in the resort - that in itself is breathtakingly extraordinary. (Was it REALLY the very next day??)

The McCanns show very little interest in searching for their daughter, instead enlist reputation managers, spin doctors, libel lawyers and media experts. Kate becomes exasperated with the police in the early days when they want her to come back to the station to identify what could possibly be their child.

What are the MCCanns marketing? You cannot deny that they have been quite successful at eliciting public money, which has funded jaunts around the world and libel cases.  They have attempted to gag the British press. They have managed to get Amaral's book taken off the shelves in the UK.

What is it REALLY all about? Are the just out-of-control narcissists who jumped into bed with New Labour and, aided and abetted by the Murdoch press spun an enormous porky-pie which sold papers and took the public eye off other stuff.

Or WHAT??

Someone knows but one thing is for sure - Madeleine has been callously, cruelly and ruthlessly exploited by adults who have their own agenda. It is SICKENING and the sooner justice is done FOR MADELEINE the better.

Cant argue with THAT!!

[jassi]

But you can be sure that some will   

[Redblossom]

But you can be sure that some will   

Do i look bothered"? LOL

j Rob has a very good point.....they, or rather only one of them, did a very cursory search for their child for  an hour max whilst others did so all night and day in day out after, the other one was busy ringing friends and relatives and smashing their wrists on railings etc praying and keeping vigil.....few days after the legal cavalry were called in,as if they would find her

[John]

New thread.

Was the marketing ploy a long term strategy and why?

[j.rob]

If we are to go along with the accidental injury/death/adverse reaction to drugs theory, then that could (at least partially) explain how the McCanns massively panicked and pulled rank. In the UK, and probably elsewhere, there is a very strong culture of covering up (medically-induced) negligence. There is a huge industry associated with it - medico-legal lawyers, departments in hospitals. There have been some very high profile cases recently that highlight the problem. Unless you have knowledge of it or have witnessed it at first hand, it is quite difficult to get your head around it from a moral point of view. But, unfortunately, the default mode when there has been a 'disaster' is to cover your backside. And there are large departments behind you with dubious titles like 'risk assessment' and 'medico-legal'. While ostensibly these exist to help patients, in reality they are also there to defend against negligence claims

So, I can understand that if there was some kind of (medically induced or otherwise) accident a team of doctors would be likely to adopt a certain strategy. What is more difficult to understand, if we go along with the accident theory, is why there was so much high-profile media/legal/celebrity support and endorsement.

You could argue that what initially started as a backside covering exercise then developed its own momentum and became something of an out-of-control monster. From their reactions in media interviews over the various 'sightings' of Madeleine it is clear, at least to me, that the McCanns do not believe them. In any case in the highly unlikely event that Madeleine is still alive (and again the behaviour of the McCanns strongly indicates that they know she is dead) then that abductor/s would be cunning people who would have changed Madeleine's appearance. Hardly rocket science, right? So, on that basis alone, the 'sightings' , particularly the later ones, are just ludicrous and it really is disgraceful that the media are still spouting such drivel. That Kate should have been giving more credence to mystics than to detectives speaks volumes about her own state of mind.

I suppose you could argue that the whole thing became rather like the Emperors Clothes. The McCanns determination to protect their reputations knew no limits. And, once the money started coming in, the vultures started circling and they still are.

It does sicken me that so many people have got rich off the back of poor little Madeleine. Adam Tudor from Carter Ruck has the bad taste to boast about how winning the Express libel case is a highlight of his career.

Thanks to Madeleine, we have some fat cat lawyers, media 'experts', media magnates getting even fatter and richer - as if they needed to.

Or perhaps that should be thanks to the negligence of Madeleine's parents and the collusion of their friends.

Where there's muck there's brass, as the saying goes.

If you go along with a theory that the 'marketing ploy' that Gerry speaks of (and remarkably early on) and the emphasis on 'the Fund' and a long term strategy your mind starts boggling. What on earth is going on? And what does it have to do with Madeleine?

[j.rob]

As to the latest news reports that the police are following up a bungled burglar theory I presume these were planted by Clarence Mitchell. He must be running out of ideas and I presume he is clutching at straws as the bungled burglary theory is even more ludicrous than the random abduction by an unknown paedophile theory.

In the highly unlikely event that a burglar stole Madeleine (this really is a ridiculous theory) then what would the burglar do? Would your average petty criminal who hangs around a Portuguese holiday resort committing petty crimes be holding Madeleine hostage somewhere? But, back to basics, why would a petty thief steal a child? Especially a four year old - they are actually quite heavy and noisy (unless drugged). And are we really to believe that your average petty thief would go to the trouble of drugging children? It's just nonsensical.

On the other hand, perhaps the bungled burglars are leading the investigation in another direction. Certainly in a direction away from the McCanns and their friends. But bungled burglars would not be holding a child hostage. Where is Clarence Mitchell going with all this?

[stephen25000]

If we are to go along with the accidental injury/death/adverse reaction to drugs theory, then that could (at least partially) explain how the McCanns massively panicked and pulled rank. In the UK, and probably elsewhere, there is a very strong culture of covering up (medically-induced) negligence. There is a huge industry associated with it - medico-legal lawyers, departments in hospitals. There have been some very high profile cases recently that highlight the problem. Unless you have knowledge of it or have witnessed it at first hand, it is quite difficult to get your head around it from a moral point of view. But, unfortunately, the default mode when there has been a 'disaster' is to cover your backside. And there are large departments behind you with dubious titles like 'risk assessment' and 'medico-legal'. While ostensibly these exist to help patients, in reality they are also there to defend against negligence claims

So, I can understand that if there was some kind of (medically induced or otherwise) accident a team of doctors would be likely to adopt a certain strategy. What is more difficult to understand, if we go along with the accident theory, is why there was so much high-profile media/legal/celebrity support and endorsement.

You could argue that what initially started as a backside covering exercise then developed its own momentum and became something of an out-of-control monster. From their reactions in media interviews over the various 'sightings' of Madeleine it is clear, at least to me, that the McCanns do not believe them. In any case in the highly unlikely event that Madeleine is still alive (and again the behaviour of the McCanns strongly indicates that they know she is dead) then that abductor/s would be cunning people who would have changed Madeleine's appearance. Hardly rocket science, right? So, on that basis alone, the 'sightings' , particularly the later ones, are just ludicrous and it really is disgraceful that the media are still spouting such drivel. That Kate should have been giving more credence to mystics than to detectives speaks volumes about her own state of mind.

I suppose you could argue that the whole thing became rather like the Emperors Clothes. The McCanns determination to protect their reputations knew no limits. And, once the money started coming in, the vultures started circling and they still are.

It does sicken me that so many people have got rich off the back of poor little Madeleine. Adam Tudor from Carter Ruck has the bad taste to boast about how winning the Express libel case is a highlight of his career.

Thanks to Madeleine, we have some fat cat lawyers, media 'experts', media magnates getting even fatter and richer - as if they needed to.

Or perhaps that should be thanks to the negligence of Madeleine's parents and the collusion of their friends.

Where there's muck there's brass, as the saying goes.

If you go along with a theory that the 'marketing ploy' that Gerry speaks of (and remarkably early on) and the emphasis on 'the Fund' and a long term strategy your mind starts boggling. What on earth is going on? And what does it have to do with Madeleine?

Excellent post.

 

[Luz]

New thread.

Was the marketing ploy a long term strategy and why?

Of course it was a long term marketing strategy, that's why they registered the copyrights.

The McCann didn't have any scruples in using the most distinguishing features of their daughter, despite having been strongly advised not to do so by he authorities, because less than 2 weeks after her disappearance they were setting a Ltd Company in order to make money.

After their ostentatious behaviour contrary to what they had been advised the, then, Attorney General Fernando Pinto Monteiro suggested (in the article mentioned above by Vanity Fair) that one way or another the McCanns were responsible for their child’s death

It's sad to see parents put their own interests in front of their children, but even more so when it involves questions of life or death.

[AnneGuedes]

From their reactions in media interviews over the various 'sightings' of Madeleine it is clear, at least to me, that the McCanns do not believe them.

In an interview in Portugal they were asked if it had occurred to them that a sighting could be Madeleine, they looked at each other, smiled and answered "no". Were they smiling because they could tell the truth ?