Samsung is Suing Its Brand Ambassador For Using an iPhone in Public (appleinsider.com) 144
Samsung is suing its Russian brand ambassador for using an iPhone X, demanding as much as $1.6m in compensation, media reports submitted by readers said Wednesday. From a report: Russian brand ambassador for Samsung, Ksenia Sobchak, is reportedly being sued by the South Korean smartphone producer, for allegedly being caught in public using an iPhone X instead of handsets she was supposed to be promoting. Ksenia Sobchak was hired by Samsung to market its smartphones in the country, with the Russian TV presenter, journalist, and politician contracted to use the smartphones in public. Under the terms of similar agreements between companies and influential people, they are not typically allowed to be seen using competing products in public, a rule that Sobchak broke.
According to The Mirror, Sobchak was spotted using an iPhone X during a television interview, with the personality attempting to hide the Apple smartphone under a piece of paper while the cameras were on. Sobchak is also said to have used the iPhone X during social events in Moscow and other TV appearances, again against the contract's rules.
According to The Mirror, Sobchak was spotted using an iPhone X during a television interview, with the personality attempting to hide the Apple smartphone under a piece of paper while the cameras were on. Sobchak is also said to have used the iPhone X during social events in Moscow and other TV appearances, again against the contract's rules.
Before anyone gets all outraged (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that PLENTY of manufactures do this.... If you're the brand ambassador, you're expected to promote your brand..
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... but ordinarily I'd expect that the consequence would be dismissal, if they found out, not actually getting *sued* over it.
Unless she had received any salary or payments in advance, in which case I could see it.
Otherwise, however... Samsung shouldn't really be able to do more than fire her ass for not promoting the company as expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, but the consequence of breaking a hiring contract only means that the person doesn't have a job anymore.... they can't go and (successfully) sue somebody because the person doesn't perform as expected unless the company has paid the person in advance for those services.
Breaking a hiring contract doesn't otherwise cause any actual financial harm to the company that they did not inflict on themselves by hiring her in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, but the consequence of breaking a hiring contract only means that the person doesn't have a job anymore.... they can't go and (successfully) sue somebody because the person doesn't perform as expected unless the company has paid the person in advance for those services.
Depending on how the contract was written, they very likely can successfully sue.
When you hire someone to advertise your brand, you are purchasing their popularity. If you pay me to use your product, and I fail to do so, that's violation of contract. If you pay me to use your product, and I not only don't, but I use your competitor's product, I'm not merely failing to promote the brand I've been paid to do so, I am promoting the competition.
Has Samsung suffered damage? Well, they paid someone to promote the
Re:Before anyone gets all outraged (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure... but ordinarily I'd expect that the consequence would be dismissal, if they found out, not actually getting *sued* over it.
Unless she had received any salary or payments in advance, in which case I could see it.
Otherwise, however... Samsung shouldn't really be able to do more than fire her ass for not promoting the company as expected.
Why would you assume that? They hired and promoted her as a brand ambassador -- their damages exceed just the loss of publicity from her not using the phone in public, but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
They are no less at fault for causing any damage to their own brand for hiring her in the first place. Unless they had offered her payment for her services in advance, even if as a hiring bonus (which typically requ
Re: (Score:2)
In the West, maybe.
In Russia, this lady is one of the head figures of the political opposition. This would have been news regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be far more accurate she is one of the players in the lame opposition, who was more interest in using politics to push her reality TV career in the west but she sucks, got her ass handed to her in debates by real serious politicians because she was playing reality TV star to get American or EU media contracts and failed bigly. Samsung suing because they found out she was a reality TV idiot and sucked as a spokeperson. No manufacturer in the right mind would sue their spokesperson for using a competiti
Re: (Score:2)
Considering her pedigree, pretending that one is done to promote the other rather than a symbiotic relationship between the two where both promote each other is silly. She also isn't the kind of opposition West wants in any way. She's a part of Russian old elite who at the very base level don't like West for what it did to Russia in the 1990s, so if she got into the federal levels of political power in Russia, foreign policy toward West would be unlikely to change. So she's the kind of opposition West doesn
Re: (Score:2)
They are no less at fault for causing any damage to their own brand for hiring her in the first place. Unless they had offered her payment for her services in advance, even if as a hiring bonus (which typically requires a minimum number of months of tenure, and the duration is spelled out within the hiring contract), then the company has no remotely plausible claim to monetary damages that they did not put upon themselves by taking the risk in hiring her.
But if they mitigated that risk by spelling out damages in the contract, then they are justified in enforcing the terms of the contract. She's a public figure so she can't claim "but I didn't understand the contract", she has the experience and resources to understand what she's signing.
I don't know Russian law or the terms of the contract, so I'll defer to those that know both -- the Samsung legal team that is suing her must feel they have some sort of case.
...but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.
That's a fair comment, see, but this is something that they brought upon themselves by making a fuss about it where nobody would have paid attention otherwise (q.v. Streisand Effect)
How can you know that? She's a public figure in R
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... but ordinarily I'd expect that the consequence would be dismissal, if they found out, not actually getting *sued* over it.
Unless she had received any salary or payments in advance, in which case I could see it.
Otherwise, however... Samsung shouldn't really be able to do more than fire her ass for not promoting the company as expected.
Why would you assume that? They hired and promoted her as a brand ambassador -- their damages exceed just the loss of publicity from her not using the phone in public, but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.
Right and Samsung is making all that damage go away by suing her, thus drawing even more attention to what happened .... oh, never mind.
Re: (Score:3)
I tend to agree, they should have dismissed her quietly. By suing, they are actually announcing to the world their own ambassador prefers apple phones over samsungs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If all she did was not promote, they'd have just fired her. What she did was humiliate them in the public eye by choosing a competitor over them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Let's make this as simple as possible. It's wrong to just fire someone over the phone they use. Think about what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if your job is to use a specific brand of phone. Context matters.
Re:Before anyone gets all outraged (Score:4)
Let's make this as simple as possible. It's wrong to just fire someone over the phone they use. Think about what I said.
Unless, of course, you were hired to promote a specific brand of phone.
Note though that she wasn't just fired, she was fired and sued for damages for breaking her contract.
Re: (Score:1)
Done. I thought about it, and realized that what you said was stupid.
The guy had one job: pretend that he likes a particular product. He failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Just got done thinking about what you said and came to the conclusion you are stupid for completely ignoring relevant facts. Are you in training to become a Slashdot mod?
Re: (Score:2)
If it helps you any, they aren't firing someone over the phone they're using.
They're responding to someone with a contractual obligation to promote their brand consciously doing something that actively damages it.
Would you find that a reasonable cause for action?
Re:Before anyone gets all outraged (Score:4, Interesting)
On the video in the story, she literally says "I'm not allowed to do this, because of a contract".
She knew full well what she was doing.
Re: (Score:1)
It's just more proof that iPhone users are complete idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Before anyone gets all outraged (Score:2)
How much do your products suck when even the people you pay to use them avoid using them?
Re: (Score:2)
Branding in Russia was used quite extensively in the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century. Over time, red hot iron brands were gradually replaced by tattoo boards; criminals were first branded on the forehead and cheeks, later on the back and arms.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung, LG, GE, Siemens... These companies are huge and sell products covering nearly everything, it is nearly impossible even for a brand ambassador to not have a competing product in your possession.
Granted if this guy is getting paid enough for Samsung to sue him 1.6million dollars. I would guess he should know the full product line a bit better, and may have someone in Samsung helping him with his purchasing decisions.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! (Score:1)
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Apparently you literally cannot even pay her to use a Samsung phone.
Perfect! Wish I'd thought of that!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, clearly she's to dumb to be able to use anything other than an iPhone.
seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a very simple case of "breach of contract."
You, sir, are an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it was in the contract or not. It's just outrageous to reprimand someone for the type of phone they use.
She wasn't fired just for her choice of phone, she was fired for violating the contract she signed (and was paid for). There's a word for signing a contract to do something and then not doing it, it's called fraud. If you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house, and he took your money and used it to paint someone else's house, would you be arguing "It's outrageous to reprimand someone for not painting a house, people shouldn't be forced to work"?
Re:seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
If you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house, and he took your money and used it to paint someone else's house
It's far worse than that. This is a matter of image. She was paid specifically for that purpose, because of her high profile status and the image it would portray. Not only did she not help Samsung's image, she directly harmed it, far more than the value of the amount she was paid. A better analogy is that you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house and they vandalized it instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's far worse than that. This is a matter of image.
Exactly. Another analogy : It is not like you paying someone to make Brand A widgets and then their failing to make them, which could be resolved by stopping and reclaiming any payment and tools provided. It is like you paying someone to make Brand A widgets but they actually make Brand B widgets for your rival, on your pay and using the tools you provided. The damage is more than simply what you gave them because they are also reducing the market for your Brand A by flooding the market with Brand B.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Graffiti is paint, technically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I literally have no idea why you think that's unlikely.
I don't understand how you don't see this is open and shut.
I'm the first person to roll my eyes at "Samsung executive's daughter caught using iPhone" or "Coca-cola employee takes kid to his favourite restaurant for his birthday, that happens to serve Pepsi, and doesn't force the kid to have water or milk but in fact allows him a Pepsi". But literally the job of the brand ambassador -- the whole job -- is to preferentially use that brand's products and
Re:seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be outrageous if Samsung fired factory workers for using a different phone. A _brand ambassador_, on the other hand, is literally paid specifically to promote the brand. If you don't want to use a product, don't become a freakin' brand ambassador for it and don't sign a contract saying you will use said brand.
Re: (Score:2)
Some companies don't allow you to use personal phone while working, she could have used her iPhone outside work.
Re: (Score:2)
My friend was an office drone at the US embassy, had to get rid of the phone the Russian govt gave her the week she started their.
Capiche
Re: (Score:2)
FML, there not their.
Re: (Score:2)
That you couldn't even pay people to use an Android/Samsung phone.
Re: seems reasonable (Score:2)
The story is that she is moderately anti Putin opposition and daughter of the legendary Eltsinoid politician who was major benefactor of Putin in those days
Streisand effect (Score:1)
I wonder if anyone outside a few nerds would have noticed without the lawsuit. They could have just sent her an email saying put the damn iphone away. Instead they made themselves a laughing stock.
Re: (Score:1)
They haven't made themselves a laughing stock at all... at least not in front of the people they give a fuck about. I'll give you a hint: it ain't a few nerds.
What they are accomplishing by suing is telling all other would-be contract breakers that just like the contract stipulates, Samsung will sue them too if they break the terms. A contract is a contract. She signed it willingly to get paid. She broke it and deserves to be on the receiving end of the penalty described in the contract that she signed.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if anyone outside a few nerds would have noticed without the lawsuit.
I think that you underestimate Apple fans and people generally. They take a great deal of notice of what other people, particularly celebs, are using. I am on a particular camera brand forum, and there is a large and ongoing thread about who is seen with what brands and models of camera. Some members keep a count of the different brands that they people using around tourist spots and discuss the results.
Re: (Score:2)
That fashion conscious "the brands I use define me" behaviour is why Apple have such ludicrous profit margins.
I guess I should respect firms like Apple and Leica for tapping into the market segment of wealthy idiots.
Who Cares? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So did Hillary, yet no one talks about her anymore.
LOL
in the usa a rule like that is not ok for 1099'er (Score:2)
in the usa a rule like that is not ok for 1099'er
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it comes down more to preference than your blanket statement of "brand X must really suck". I personally don't like the interface of an iPhone (or osX), but that doesn't mean it sucks. This lady has probably had an iPhone forever (which is probably a primary reason Samsung choose her) and didn't care for the Android experience (or in your words, "it sucks").
Although I don't like iPhones because they suck (your word, not mine) if someone was paying me a huge sum of money to use one for a year, you
Re: (Score:2)
> I mean, most of us wouldn't care that deeply about what we use.
1st. Yes, **some** of us DO care about what (mobile) phone we use -- based on functionality and usability -- not some iHipster fad.
2nd. FTFY: The fact that Samsung thinks:
That people actually give a shit what phone some nobody (*), er "Samsung brand ambassador" Ksenia Sobchak, is using
-- a politician, no less -- also known as Russia's "Paris Hilton", is freaking hilarious!
(*) Yet another Russian politician, TV anchor, journalist, socialit
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really think so.
I think it's far more likely that this "brand Ambassador" was a brainless douche who IS too stupid to understand that no, you can't just do whatever you want once you sign a contract.
I mean, duh.
"I'm not allowed to do this, because of a contract (Score:2)
Apparently in the video, as she covers the iPhone with a piece of paper she states she's not allowed to be seen using one, due to the contract. So she knew. She might have an overriding sense that rules don't apply to her, though. She is a politician, after all.
What? (Score:2)
"Which means... Samsung's phones really must suck."
How on earth does that follow? For starters Samsung phones run the same OS as every other phone on the market except for Apple's so how on earth can they be offering such a significantly worse experience? After that, their phones are always well received critically including this latest gen and have been absurdly popular for about a decade now. You don't achieve the market dominance Samsung has in such a competitive market as Android smart phones without ma
Re: (Score:2)
This Samsung rep was clearly just a twit who preferred Apple's OS over Android so much she was willing to risk her job over it.
Actually, it's highly unlikely that she even knows what an OS is, let alone that there are different ones.
More likely is she took Samsung's money and phone, then realised that FaceTime or whatever other Apple-specific thing wasn't there, so switched and hoped no-one would notice because, like, they're all just phones, right?
Oh, and is was effectively a sponsorship deal, not a job per se.
Re: (Score:2)
"Actually, it's highly unlikely that she even knows what an OS is, let alone that there are different ones."
How do you come to that conclusion? If she doesn't understand that how on earth would she have been hired as a Samsung rep? I feel fairly confident a massive corporate entity isn't that incompetent when hiring reps.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to know what an OS is to use a phone, Samsung are selling hardware, the software is incidental, it's not even their own software.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a sales Rep at an Apple store we're talking about here, this is a fairly significant figure if they can be sued for damages in the millions. Furthermore, she clearly knew what she was doing was not allowed as she was trying to hide which phone she was using while she was using it. That clearly implies she understands the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
If she doesn't understand that how on earth would she have been hired as a Samsung rep? I feel fairly confident a massive corporate entity isn't that incompetent when hiring reps.
She wasn't "hired as a Samsung rep." She's not a Samsung employee.
"Brand Ambassador" is akin to a sponsorship deal - take this bucket of money to exclusively use, been seen using and promote our [product] during your daily life.
Outside the "Slashdot bubble," most people don't know what a phone OS is. At best, they might recognise there's a difference between Apple and non-Apple, but are generally unaware what those differences are...
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics, nice.
And no, the general public is well aware that Apple and Android phones run different OS's. They may be fuzzy on the details but we're talking about an incredibly common consumer item. Most understand the jist of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hatred is one of the most powerful and intense human emotions. I have yet to completely understand why people can feel such toward a device like a smartphone. Maybe toward a company that is particularly malicious. Once I learned real hate toward a person I've never used it lightly again.
In any case I was happy with my Samsung Galaxy S6, it was and is still a really great phone but it is scandalous that it no longer receives OS upgrades which is why I got an iPhone now. I can use either OS and personally don
Re: (Score:2)
By using an iPhone, this Russian celebrity has just told the world that the Samsung phone he was paid to use is the worst phone in the entire universe, that it's practically unusable, and you should probably avoid it.
Holy crap, hyperbole much? A more realistic interpretation is that she liked her iPhone and was just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect relatively few people would have heard of this if Samsung hadn't proposed suing.
I suspect Samsung actually checked and found out. Were people posting the video of her trying to hide her iPhone under a piece of paper on camera? Where people reposting the video? Voting it up? Yes? Then we're suing, and suing big.
Now maybe we wouldn't have heard about it at all if Samsung hadn't sued, since it was all on Russian social media, which is almost as insular as Chinese social media, but then again we might have. And still, she negatively affected their brand image in an entire country. L
Idiot (Score:1)
Pretty sure Samsung required in contact that any public exposure would require that you use the proper phone brand. How hard is it these days to simply do what your paid to do? If you love the iPhone so much why in the world did you sign a contract with Samsung? Yeah, this person should be sued for breach of contract. That's the way it works folks, you agree to do something for compensation then do it.
don't blame her (Score:5, Funny)
She probably just didn't want to catch on fire.
Re:don't blame her (Score:5, Funny)
She probably just didn't want to catch on fire.
It's going to be winter soon in Moscow - having a combustible phone might be advantageous.
Can you imagine the backlash if Apple did this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does attract a bit more negative attention. But most people look at a story like this and nod to themselves and think something along the lines of "that seems reasonable for [company] to do, because their employee broke their contract and may have caused brand damage" where [company] is Samsung or Apple. But most of these people don't bother commenting. The commenters are the ones who have a bone to pick with somebody in the story.
There's not much point in getting worked up about negative comments on
Re: (Score:2)
People are like: "meh, they broke a contract" but if Apple did this, I bet there would be ravenous pearl clutching. The double standard is palpable.
That doesn't make sense. How can something be "palpable" if you merely imagined it?
Honestly, you should save your outrage for things that actually happen, rather than what you imagine some opposing group might do.
time for a commercial break (Score:2)
sounds like the makings of an Apple commercial.
iPhone. (Score:1)
Isn't using an iPhone punishment enough?
Agree to be paid, botching contract (Score:2)
I'm not sure why this is super surprising. If you're paid to use X product and you get caught using a competitor's product then of course you're going to get sued. It's so simple almost anyone can understand it. Don't like it? Then don't agree with the contract, don't take the money.
Reminds me of Alicia Keys and Blackberry (Score:2)
good (Score:2)
can't stand that privileged nobody
If youz gonna take money from Nike.... (Score:1)
then don't be caught dead in Converse, man!
Whutz wrong wid you man?
Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
At least it's not an insecure phone like Donald (Score:2)
At least the phone he uses isn't an insecure phone that the Russians and Chinese are listening in on, as is the case with the President of the Fearful States of Amerika.
HAHAHAHAHA (Score:2)
Is this any worse than when Siri was asked what the 'best' smart phone was, and answered the Samsung Galaxy ? Did they really pay someone that much money or is this an 'estimate' of damage or a potential damage to the brand issue ? I used to love when Nickelodeon network used what was obviously an apple product but with a pear logo on screen to avoid advertising for Apple.
What kind of decent manufacturer does it? (Score:1)
Not uncommon at all. (Score:2)
I'm very curious where the people saying (Score:2)
"OMG IT'S WRONG TO GET FIRED FOR WHAT PHONE YOU USE!!?!?!" actually live.
I live in an Orwellian double-speak named "Right to Work" state where I could fired for literally anything other than the handful of protected classes (gender/race/religion/sex) and have literally no recourse for it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's definitely the reality.
In this case, this woman was hired specifically for her high profile and supposed to be marketing their phone for them by being seen using it.
She willfully