@Urban Fangirl Marketer: Leveling a Charge or Back-pedaling?

Referring to this, it may be that some of you don’t know that two years ago I was the blogger who deciphered the letter originally posted by the young fan in question. I was not the only person to decipher it, and decipher is a misleading word. Some people just held it up to a mirror. The two-paged letter was written on both sides of studio paper, which seemed to be onionskin. Richard Armitage used either a fountain pen or, more likely, a thin Sharpie. The young fan posted an image of page 1 in her hand, and the text of page 2 was clearly visible through the paper. Anyone and everyone could see it, including the original poster. The only deciphering necessary, was  using the reverse image tool and enlarging. I don’t recall if I also typed out the letter. I can’t check, because of course, once the young fan asked everyone to take down their posts of any portion of the letter, I did.

I saw  @Urban’s marketer’s conversation about the letter on my Twitter timeline and replied.


I’ve been vocal on this blog about how I’m certain that the @Urban film account  Marketer is,a particular Richard Armitage Facebook Administrator,  who is mishandling the film account Here, here and here ( see the comments, too) and on other blogs. Consistent with this, I am almost certain that the @Urban Marketer, as a fan, knew about the letter incident when it happened, at least that everyone was asked to take it down and why. I never followed that FB page, so I don’t know if she ever posted the young girl’s original Tumblr post.

I didn’t see then and I don’t see now, how my actions were an invasion of anyone’s privacy The  young poster had previously published accounts of her visit to The Hobbit set, and knew that her previous posts were widely read and disseminated. She knew or should have known that the same would happen again, including reblogs of her complete post, which also included photos of gifts from Richard Armitage. She was very young,   and became nervous when she saw that the text was reversed and published. She’s mentioned in a previous post that she had been sworn to secrecy about what she saw and could not reveal details of the filming she observed.There were reasons why she needn’t have worried, among them, the letter was an official studio letter that Peter Jackson surely knew would be shared among fans. Still,  it was her prerogative to change her mind and ask that her letter and any other versions, be taken down. I don’t know of anyone who did not comply with her request. Fans across social media platforms signal-boosted her take-down request  to help her.

As you see in the Tweets above, I not only corrected the misinformation strewn out, but, using the language of the @Urban’s tweets, suggested that only a Richard Armitage fan would have “recalled” the incident, and that newer fans might not know the history. @Urban agreed.  I also mentioned that the letter incident was irrelevant to Urban and the Shed Crew. She agreed.

Tonight, this was brought to my attention by a friend:

tweet2Screen Shot 2015-10-25 at 10.46.28 PM

The tweeter obviously asked @Urban how she knew about the letter incident, and her answer might be genuine. As a Facebook Administrator of a Richard Armitage Fan Site, which I think is the case, she generally relies on followers to feed her graphics and information. Why else would a friend tell her about an incident  in the Richard Armitage fandom? This time, the letter was transcribed  not deciphered.  Her memory, or that of one of her Facebook follower’s today,  may be better than mine.

I object to the  hashtag #PrivacyInvasion, since @Urban  knew all the circumstances, as set forth herein. She has all the facts you have. The page was shared. It was there in blue and white for anyone to print and then hold up to a mirror.There was no invasion of privacy by me. There was no  invasion of privacy by the original tweeter. Invasion of Privacy is not the issue: copyright infringement would be the issue. A professional PR /Marketing person should know the difference.  Maybe, after reading Servetus’s post, @Urban Marketer was just trying to offer a belated, lame excuse for why she engaged in the conversation to begin with. She thinks it’s  her job to enforce the rights of Richard Armitage fans who don’t want their posts disseminated, or maybe a misguided belief that it’s her job to protect Richard Armitage’s privacy.

That will help promote Urban and the Shed Crew. 

10 thoughts on “@Urban Fangirl Marketer: Leveling a Charge or Back-pedaling?

  1. People who publish their correspondence to the web have no expectation of privacy. I hope it’s a lesson this young fan learned well. And it’s a testament to the good manners of RA fans that so many took down their posts about it at the fan’s request.


  2. Yes. It wasn’t only good manners. She had previously shared so much with us about her trip to the studio and her meetings with the cast and their families, with photos as well, and as a group, we she became endeared – and she was so courageous. Very young, in her early teens. So all that taken together, especially her youth, had something to do with the response. Really, you should have seen the signal boosting, of forums, on Tumblr, on blogs -everywhere, and fans who hadn’t complied or didn’t know were reminded by other fans to take the letter down. That, by itself, was an event.


  3. I remember the letter incident and once the young fan said she didn’t want it posted, everyone took it down and that was that. before that, many of us tried to figure out what the flip side of the letter said. there was nothing nefarious in that, just harmless curiosity. all of this aside, an account that is supposed to be marketing the Urban movie should not concern itself with rehashing this history, seeing as how it has nothing to do with the movie/story itself. of course, I don’t think an account like this should be using “me/I” in it’s tweets to begin with :/


    • Thank you. As it happens, someone retweeted the original tweet with the letter image today ( I guess it wasn’t deleted or it’s a screen shot) and it is plain to see the writing from page 2 showing through. So, many thanks.


  4. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. There was nothing so personal in the letter that it would be an invasion of privacy in my opinion — nothing very personal and private in it. It was a sweet letter. The only reason it was a bit of a problem I am guessing was because it revealed a plot point of the movie. And if you purposely decided not to read the book that was in print for like 70 years, it wasn’t much of a reveal. And you’re right, it has absolutely nothing to do with Urban. This ‘marketing’ site sure stirred the pot on this one!


    • Technically, the content of the information is not relevant. If someone who was not authorized, gained access to another’s private correspondence that was not in plain sight, or by unjustifiable means, that would fit. That wasn’t the case here, since the information was in plain sight and access was given. But I agree that nothing in the letter, on either page, was very personal. And, as I noticed today when I saw the letter again, retweeted, the plot point was actually on the first page, though I think there was some filming info on the second – but no spoiler or anything. The marketing sight continues to stir the pot, with a tweet last night, claiming that she was “shocked” when “heard about” the incident.


  5. I for one has looked for information about this letter out of sheer curiosity, because I was unaware of the stir-up back then . So, talk about making people aware of something completely irrelevant and outdated; it’s a really nice letter though (handwritten, no less). I hope this young lady cherishes it.
    Calling this a #privacyinvasion is over the top, and such rhetoric only sparks curiosity (mine). This is old – and irrelevant – news!


  6. Hi Perry,
    Thanks for the update. That UATSC Twitter account situation just gets more and more weird each passing day. *face palms2* And I’m not on Twitter much, so I miss seeing these tweets that you and Serv so nicely analyze for us.

    My question is, why doesn’t the UATSC film producers/studio create a “verified” Twitter account (blue check mark) and disseminate film news?

    And I’m hoping that we’ll all get to see the UATSC film soon. Doesn’t it have to be shown in theatres between January 1 to December 31, 2015 to be eligible for the Oscars?

    Cheers! Grati ;->


  7. Hi Grati, I don’t know, off hand, the deadline for Oscars, but I don’t think this film is/should be aiming
    that way, and I wonder whether it has to be distributed to qualify at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s