Fer Crap’s Sake

Sorry, but this goes into my stupid Urban Marketer Mistakes file. Enough already with the Mr. Armitage. You’re supposed to be promoting the film and the stars in the film. Show me one single professional photo with caption or ID, or tweet by a marketer of a star/actor on the red carpet who doesn’t give full name recognition.


13 thoughts on “Fer Crap’s Sake

  1. LOL! Good point! God knows, you wouldn’t want to confuse which “Mr. Armitage” is being referred to. There is probably more than one on the planet.

    I remember that there is a funny side by side wallpaper someone made a while back of two Richard Armitages–one from the U.S. and the British “guy”. You definitely don’t want to confuse those two. Ha!


    • There was that time when a Chinees or Korean newspaper or Tv show was referring to the political Richard Armitage and put up a picture of our Richard Armitage. Wish I could find it.


    • It also means the tweets don’t show up in a hashtag search unless you use his full name or his Twitter @. I would think a marketer would WANT the tweets to be found if they’re trying to market a film. :-/


  2. Thank you for your views, Miss Perry. Could I get you a bag to barf in after seeing RA being referred to Mr. Armitage for the hundredth time?
    You’re right on the money again, Miss Perry. Maybe you refer to be called Ms. Perry? 😜



  3. True, there are mistakes being made, and for many of the above mentioned reasons they should be corrected in the future. Spamming tags, over zealous tweets, and frequent communication is just a sign that the person behind it is eager to please and wanting to impress. This tells me a few things—they are new and also likely very young.

    Chances are the account is likely run by a willing friend or family member to the filmmakers and may be working for only the perks and/or experience. But in the end, Richard’s retweeted them a few times, including once again today. The tweeter spends a lot of time responding to people, which is a lot of time spent on promoting through communication. Everyone likes feedback and they are being accommodating, open and very attentive. It would be good overall to see folks give the account bashing a rest.


  4. Crystal, the account is run by someone neither very young, nor eager to please, but definitely eager to impress. The @Urban Marketer has outed herself. She is Marcia Killingsworth, i.e., RA_US. And for what it’s worth, I disagree that all the responding is promoting through communication – especially since the bulk, if not all of her interactions are with Richard Armitage fans – who don’t need further promotion. And “open” is about the last thing that account has been, at least up until a week ago.


    • No, I did not know this. If true, then I suppose this means that I have insulted another adult by calling them young and inexperienced, which was not my intention. :/ My intention was an attempt to put perspective or another take on something.

      Like with many on twitter and in the fandom I read the Richard Armitage hashtags, related hashtags, and receive favorited tweeters in my feed. That is about the extent of my tweet activity, so I suppose my ignorance and inability (time availability) to pour through tweet accounts for history and background shows.

      My feeling is that what I don’t know may not hurt me, but may someone else, in that I spoke without background or understanding. The risk for me is that I likely look foolish, but again I am not afraid of that.

      Either way, I honestly haven’t had any issues with that account and I am puzzled as to why others do, that’s all.


      • You are welcome to your opinions. I will respect that.
        It’s true what Perry said. This person outed herself as soon as she started tweeting the same style as she does in her other accounts.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Varying opinions *are* welcome here- CrystalChandlyre’s – always, even when she doesn’t agree with me. But just to make it clear, Marcia Killingsworth literally outed herself publicly, in writing, on Candida Brady’s Facebook page, and also admitted on Twitter that she was all three accounts. This bit is important to me because I stated that I wouldn’t publicly identify the Facebook Page or Administrator by name until I could back it up with facts and by that, I meant direct evidence. Practically speaking, only an admission by the individual or someone involved closely with UATSC, say, Candida Brady, could have provided that essential fact . I could have set out all the circumstantial evidence, which was substantial,(some of which I did) i.e. comparing styles, personality traits, comparing the timelines side by, any number of ways, but, I knew I wouldn’t have to. I knew that this person had a compelling need for people to know who she was.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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