Social Marketing analyst Jeremiah Owyang has posted an interesting tale of artist Nadia Plesner’s hijacking of Louis Vuitton’s luxury goods brand to help raise funds for Save Darfur’s “Divest for Darfur” campaign.

As I wrote on Jeremiah’s blog,

Luxury brands do not have the luxury of remaining silent. They are the expressiveness of the well-heeled, for whom verbalizing, “I’m richer than you.” is a sign of a lack of refinement. So LV is *required* to publicly react in this case.

Their best option would be to sponsor a forum in which the global community can participate and engage with the local Darfur community and any and all who are engaged in the atrocities or can act to prevent it; a forum which (it is hoped) effects a change, but in which, at the least, participants feel as if they’re doing something. After all, a brand which symbolizes wealth *and* power is able to wield quite a bit of both itself.

The real dilemma for a brand which positions itself as a symbol of wealth and prestige, is how to present its position on non-lifestyle topics. To say you represent the constituency of wealth and influence, yet are unable or unwilling to exert either for social and political issues is preposterous. To choose to remain out of the “conversation” regarding these matters is to invoke the legend of Marie Antoinette, who when she was told the peasants of France had no bread (according to the legend), said, “Let them eat cake.” It indicates a shallowness of character, indifference to world affairs, impotence or fear of loss, none of which can be considered admirable traits and thus worthy of public expression by the upper crust. And to be directly hostile to efforts to assist the victims of genocide is to support the perpetrators of this outrage.

No, Louis Vuitton must demonstrate their ability to act on behalf of the victims and those who would assist them, or acknowledge that they are incapable of effecting any change and allow their brand to be repositioned as the symbol of a lack of influence, power, scruples and/or purpose.

I suppose it’s fitting that Paris Hilton has become the face of Louis Vuitton.

Recently, Turner Classic Movies aired the 1956 film The Opposite Sex, a film about the stereotypical 1950’s housewife who discovers her husband is having an affair, divorces him, but remarries him a year later (I guess).

Anyway, some of the dialogue is noteworthy as it demonstrates the error of just reacting to events instead of remaining cool, analyzing the situation, and acting on decisions that put you in a position to collect the desired outcome. Your desired outcome.

Here it is:

Once her divorce becomes final, one of her friends flies out to Reno (remember, this is the ’50s) to accompany her on the long trip back to New York (remember, this is the ’50s).

Amanda asks, “Are you satisfied?”

Kay hesitates.

Amanda continues, “Steven isn’t. Kay, has it ever occurred to you he might marry that girl?”

Kay hesitates again. “If that’s what he wants.”

“That isn’t what he wants. She wants it, and she hasn’t been wasting any time. I’ve seen clever operators in my day…”

Kay pauses packing. “You don’t seem to understand: it’s over.”

“You’ve played right into her hands. Walked wide-eyed into every trap she’s set for you. And now you’ve removed Steven’s last protection, his marriage.”

Kay looks at Amanda. “Why rehash this?”

“Because this is wrong! You’re not like these jaded, frenetic women shedding their husbands like they shed last year’s dresses.”

Kay continues packing.

“Look, Kay. I hate airplanes, and I hate cactus, and I hate people who give advice to other people. So I don’t know why I’ve flown 3,000 miles to this God-forsaken waterhole unless it’s because I can’t stand seeing something good go down the drain.

“Maybe it was good once…”

“Oh, you’re talking like a child! What do you think marriage is anyway? Something safe and comfortable you can take for granted? This is a rough world, Kay, and marriage has to live in it. It has to be won over and over again, as many times as necessary and against all challengers! And anyone who hasn’t the guts for it ought to have learned to live alone and like it a long time ago!”

Kay glares at her. “Like you?”

Amanda steels herself and continues, “That’s right, like me.”

Kay fumbles about. “I’m sorry, Amanda, that wasn’t very nice.”

“Well, at least it’s a step in the right direction. Stop being so nice, Kay! If you have any feeling left for the guy, get to New York as quickly as possible and tell him.”

“Oh, I don’t know. Maybe I’m just not the fighting kind.”

Now, you may be asking yourself, “Why has Alfonso gone nutso and started quoting old movie scenes. And especially bad movie scenes?”

Simply because earlier today, Scott Anguish, one of the eminent NeXTStep/Mac OS X developers who’ve assisted the rest of us Cocoanauts in getting our code to work and whose works have been referenced by Wikipedia articles, began shuttering his site due to one of the Internet trolls stealing his work. (Again, the topic of another blog entry which I’ll post after Mori’s latest bugfix is released.) He ended his explanation of events with the following, “I’ve worked 13+ years on supporting developers by maintaining Stepwise (which truly is a labor of love) and I don’t want this theft and misrepresentation to damage that effort.”

Really?! Then why just roll over and let him keep it? Don’t just cave into him! Do to him what should be done to all bullies, you kick them in the teeth and pound their heads into the ground!

Now, the perpetrator of this infringement might be a little more skilled than the average individual where programming is concerned, but that doesn’t make him more skilled than the average programmer. Indeed, having only one area of human activity you’re skilled in doesn’t make you skilled in all. Nor does having the right answer once make it the right answer all the time.

There’s an old saying, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Well, it’s obvious this bully needs to acquire additional tools, because he’s got a few loose screws.

Keep your material up, Scott. Please keep adding to the valuable content which has benefitted us, and the users we work for, tremendously. No amount of sputtering by a counterfeiting troll can prove to be a substitute for you.