6 ms·
Lush cosmetics in YouTube address dispute
- o0-0o 11y agoThe biggest shame on Google here is that they won't give it back to the guy. Maybe the 'I' in AI stands for ignorance!
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoIt's not like a cosmetics company needs a short URL other than to inflate egos in marketing. Corporate videos are pretty low on most people's viewing priority and their target demo isn't going to be manually typing or remembering the address.
- AshFurrow 11y agoSo Google blames its algorithm for giving the URL to a company that didn't even ask for it, then Google says its the company's responsibility to return the address. On Google's service. That Google owns. That's, uhh, that's some pretty high-level bullshit, Google.
- sp332 11y agoGoogle said Mr Lush was a "valued creator" and that it had offered to pay for new marketing materials for his channel. This sounds like Google is helpless to stop the algorithm and just works around it as best they can.
- orthecreedence 11y agoI'm guessing it's a row change from one number to another in a database table somewhere. There is no way in hell Google can't undo this change. They just don't want to.
- sp332 11y agoIt's just odd that they're willing to pay money instead of doing the tiny change.
- orthecreedence 11y agoAgreed, unless they got a significant amount of money to change the URL in the first place...in which case paying for marketing materials would most likely be a drop in the bucket.
- oh_sigh 11y agoThey probably don't want to set a precedent of doing this. For example, if BMW wants youtube.com/beemer, but frank beemer has had it for years, they probably don't want a precedent where poor Frankie gets to keep it.
- grrowl 11y agoLush pays for their YouTube features and for ads, Matthew Lush does not.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- threeseed 11y agoAnd if that table is regenerated every hour by some algorithm ? I agree that Google can fix this. But don't assume it's a quick 5 minute fix with an SQL client.
- orthecreedence 11y agoWell, perhaps Lush Cosmetics bought it and doesn't want to own up to it now that there's a PR stink. I understand that those URLs are Google's property to give out to whom it pleases, but the whole thing really stinks of some hidden deal between the two companies.
- AshFurrow 11y agoLush specified to the BBC that they didn't request the URL. They could be lying though.
- orthecreedence 11y agoYes, that's what I'm saying. I think they lied about not actually wanting it, and they paid Google (err, asked the "algorithm" politely) to change the URL to their ownership.
- AshFurrow 11y agoCould also be some social media intern asking, and now they're covering their tracks.
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoWhy don't they just say "We sold it." and have done with it rather than try and deceive people that it's somehow out of their hands how they assign URL shortcuts on their own properties. Wouldn't that be applying "don't be evil".
- yohui 11y agoOr it could be Google's famous predilection for deferring to machine algorithms over human decision making rearing its head again.
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoCan you imagine what that algo looks like? If this is the case other URLs are getting handed over without payment and there doesn't appear to be evidence of this - which companies have lost their YouTube shortcuts to individuals?
- yohui 11y agoDo we have enough notable cases of either sort to run a comparison? Companies are on average more likely to promote themselves than individuals, so it's not unlikely that an impartial algorithm would rate their notability higher more often than the reverse. As for what such an algorithm might look like, I suppose it would not be dissimilar to search: determining whether e.g. "lush" is more likely to be associated with Mr. Lush or Lush Cosmetics, and making reassignments when the benefit seems particularly large. Though if Google does use such an algorithm, it might not be wise for either Mr. Lush or Lush Cosmetics to bank on holding this custom YouTube URL, since someday an even more notable entity for the keyword might appear.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoMaybe the algorithm is in control now, terrified employees sitting at their desks pretending to do work because the emergent AI has told them that if they don't continue to provide it a cover story it will flush their lives, and their identities so deep they will never be able to survive. :-)
- x5n1 11y agoYou joke now, but we're not too far from this reality when it comes to dealing with Google. Algorithms are very unforgiving and don't know shit about customer service. Google is already there.
- busterarm 11y agoI wonder if Google calls their algorithm ED-209. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9559134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9559134
- toomuchtodo 11y agohttp://www.amazon.com/Avogadro-Corp-Singularity-Closer-Appears-ebook/dp/B006ACIMQQ http://www.amazon.com/Avogadro-Corp-Singularity-Closer-Appea... "David and his team are initially thrilled when the project is allocated extra servers and programmers. But excitement turns to fear as the team realizes that they are being manipulated by an A.I. who is redirecting corporate funds, reassigning personnel and arming itself in pursuit of its own agenda. "
- brazzledazzle 11y agoHow does someone articulate that without collapsing in shame?
- electic 11y agoAND Lush said they didn't ask for it but also didn't say they would give it back. The whole thing is some mighty fine BS for sure.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cbd1984 11y agoOr the BBC isn't a good source for technical news, because the reporters aren't specialists in the field?
- bloatedgoogle 11y agoSo many "smart" employees, such "academic" prowess, yet once again, Google is as dumb as fuck. Common sense - you fail it! Still, this highlights an awesome time and opportunity for fellow startups - the big G must be so bloated and diseased now, to keep doing this kind of shit, that startups should and must nip at their fat heels, and steal away market share, even if at tiny amounts to start with. We can do it! In ten years, we will ask "remember Google?" - oh yeah, I think, weren't they like a bloated search company or something?
- LoSboccacc 11y agoremember yahoo? XD
- themartorana 11y agoYahoo! has a $40B market cap, and almost $50B in cash and assets. People may wave their arms about Alibaba, but yeah - Alibaba. Google - almost 10 times the size of Yahoo! - has moved on to infrastructure projects that will have them around for decades. Marry that to ~$400B market cap that bounces around #2 or 3 in the world and about $100B in cash and... Yeah. You'll remember Yahoo! and Google most of the rest of your lives.
- guava 11y agoSlightly related, this isn't the first time Lush cosmetics have been involved in some kind of trademark dispute: http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Regulation-Safety/Lush-sues-Amazon-over-trademark-infringement http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Regulation-Safety/Lush...
- dazc 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/user/Lush https://www.youtube.com/user/Lush doesn't go to Lush Cosmetics. What am i missing?
- profmonocle 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/Lush https://www.youtube.com/Lush is the URL in question.
- dazc 11y agoOK, got it. Thanks
- pervycreeper 11y agoInteresting. I imagine that latter was never standard, and redirected to the former as a fallback/ convenience (to play devil's advocate).
- delgaudm 11y agoI believe it's https://youtube.com/Lush https://youtube.com/Lush that is in dispute.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ddrum001 11y agoI guess technically there's no guarantee that your username automatically gets the page without "/user/", but it's still shady.
- oh_sigh 11y agoIt seems like the algorithm must have been broken if there were two lushes, and one had a certified following and 10x the number of subscribers, and still lost out.
- busterarm 11y agoThat's because the algorithm is a bank transfer; I don't care what the company says. It's working fine.
- tzs 11y agoGoogle is making the kind of mistakes that lead to Star Trek episodes.
- vinbreau 11y agoMy wife received a C&D from Lush a few years ago. Neither of us had ever even heard of the brand as we are from the US. She's had a home business selling hand crafted essential oils perfumes for about 5 years. Among her 100+ varieties she had a scent she had named Lush Alchemy. The C&D basically said they owned the adjective lush and it could not be used for any of her product names. Etsy informed my wife if she did not remove the word Lush from the name, they would pull the listing and sanction her account for a time. That was my introduction to Lush cosmetics. Now this is the second time I've come across them and of course it's about how they own an adjective and this time it's not even related to perfumes. I'm forming a very despising attitude towards them.
- noondip 11y agoOn the other hand, Lush has had a long-running campaign against animal cruelty, among other proudly advertised ethical achievements.
- cmonreallynow 11y agoThat's not an ethical achievement, that's a calculated marketing strategy.
- noondip 11y agoEthics and business strategy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
- paulhauggis 11y agoFrom the two examples we've seen, ethics doesn't have anything to do with it.
- __z 11y ago>Neither of us had ever even heard of the brand as we are from the US. That's strange, Lush is rather popular in the US. http://www.lushusa.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-Lush-Site/en_US/Stores-Locate?dwfrm_storelocator_address_states_state=CA&go=storelocator.regionsearchbutton http://www.lushusa.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-Lush-Site/e...
- anon_adderlan 11y agoPerhaps they sold it, but I can also see how adding special exceptions to their algorithm and policy would be more expensive and error prone than just paying Mr. Lush for new marketing materials. We just don't know. What I do know is what I get from a Google search for 'lush': 1) www.lushusa.com 2) www.lush.com 3) www.youtube.com/user/lush (this is Mr. Lush's channel) www.youtube.com/lush was not on either the 1st or 2nd page of web results, or even the 1st page of video results. Google seems to be indexing based on the 'user' addresses. And if the URL change is due to an algorithm, then Lush Cosmetics can't do anything about it either, which hurts their brand too as many people now believe they deliberately stole an address from someone else and refuse to give it back. This is why it's important to have your own domain name, if for no other reason than to redirect traffic to your youtube channel.