Lush cosmetics in YouTube address dispute | Hacker News Reader

Lush cosmetics in YouTube address dispute

bbc.com

51 points51Cards46 comments

So 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.

Google 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.

I'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.

It's just odd that they're willing to pay money instead of doing the tiny change.

Agreed, 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.

They 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.

Lush pays for their YouTube features and for ads, Matthew Lush does not.

And 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.

Well, 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.

Lush specified to the BBC that they didn't request the URL. They could be lying though.

Yes, 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.

Could also be some social media intern asking, and now they're covering their tracks.

Why 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".

Or it could be Google's famous predilection for deferring to machine algorithms over human decision making rearing its head again.

Can 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?

Do 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.

Maybe 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. :-)

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. "

You 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.

I wonder if Google calls their algorithm ED-209.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9559134

How does someone articulate that without collapsing in shame?

AND 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.

Or the BBC isn't a good source for technical news, because the reporters aren't specialists in the field?

My 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.

On the other hand, Lush has had a long-running campaign against animal cruelty, among other proudly advertised ethical achievements.

That's not an ethical achievement, that's a calculated marketing strategy.

Ethics and business strategy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

From the two examples we've seen, ethics doesn't have anything to do with it.

>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/e...

Never seen it in a store. My wife is black so her brand choices in most stores are very limited. If we did ever see Lush it was just another one of those light skinned brands we tend to gloss over. But honestly we had never heard of them until the C&D.

So 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?

remember yahoo? XD

Yahoo! 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.

Slightly 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...

It 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.

That's because the algorithm is a bank transfer; I don't care what the company says. It's working fine.

The biggest shame on Google here is that they won't give it back to the guy. Maybe the 'I' in AI stands for ignorance!

It'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.

Perhaps 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.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Lush

doesn't go to Lush Cosmetics. What am i missing?

https://www.youtube.com/Lush is the URL in question.

OK, got it. Thanks

Interesting. I imagine that latter was never standard, and redirected to the former as a fallback/ convenience (to play devil's advocate).

I believe it's https://youtube.com/Lush that is in dispute.

I guess technically there's no guarantee that your username automatically gets the page without "/user/", but it's still shady.

Google is making the kind of mistakes that lead to Star Trek episodes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com