Thanks for commenting. I can’t match your emotion; I’ll stick to facts and logic.

1 – “Initially, the site consists of hundreds of top quality fashion shots of models/people in Burberry trench coats.” No, it isn’t. It’s made up of mainly Sartorialist images, and there now seem to be some of real people. wjo have uploaded their own images.

FACT/LOGIC: The Sartorialist is an extremely talented professional fashion photographer. Ergo, “top quality fashion shots.” (I don’t think street fashion is easy, by any stretch.) I didn’t see any “real people” shots when I went through the site. There was no way to readily identify them. All the shots I clicked on were by The Sartorialist. The site might add a filter for “photos by users” so these shots can be readily found. Perhaps that’s planned for the future, when they have more user-generated photos, as I expect they will. I would not be surprised if user’s photos become the most clicked on elements of the site.

2 – “Art of the Trench appears to be a collaboration between Burberry and Facebook” – no it doesn’t. The Facebook Connect stuff makes it very clear that this is not the case.

FACT/LOGIC: This is what the site says: “It’s easy to participate on Art of the Trench – connect using your Facebook account, agree to our Terms of use & Guidelines and a profile will be created for you automatically.” It therefore appears that one must join Facebook–and sign up for Facebook Connect–before being able to fully participate in the Burberry site. Ergo, this would “appear” to be a collaboration between Burberry and Facebook. Joining Facebook is a precondition of fully using the site. All “commenters” on the site are Facebook members. They use their Facebook identities. There is a Facebook logo button on every page of the trench viewer. BTW I find nothing wrong with this kind of collaboration. It’s actually fairly smart.

3 – “In my previous post on Art of the Trench I noted that Burberry could opt for a fan site, at the lowest level of social media, or could aim higher, toward an interactive brand platform geared toward collaboration and co-creation with Burberry customers… It appears that Burberry has settled for a fan site.” – Wrong again. Read the press. It’;s an evolving platform, and user’s are invited to participate creatively.

FACT/LOGIC: I base my assessment on the site itself, just like a user would. It appears to be a fan site. If you can point me to a press release that says Burberry has higher goals for the site as an “evolving platform,” please do so. The “about” section of the site does not mention that the site is an “evolving platform.” I do like the way Burberry defines the site as “a living document of the trench coat and the people who wear it.” But (in the “about” section) Burberry may want to extend its “project collaboration” to include Burberry customers. Right now Burberry’s Art of the Trench “collaboration” per se (as stated) is limited to “the world’s leading image makers” and “the global creative community.” Why not include Burberry’s (paying) customers on the collaboration team?

4 – “The Art of the Trench does not seem to encourage high levels of user interaction. I did not see the word “interactive” on the site. (I may have missed it.) Only positive clicks (”I like it”) are allowed.” – This is just factually incorrect. There are 1000s of comments on this site, and user’s can add their own content and become part of the social archive. And why does it need the word “interactive” on the site – how does that prove it is “interactive”? What planet are you from? You seem to be looking at a different Web to me

FACT/LOGIC: If the site wants high levels of interaction it should have both “like” and “don’t like” buttons. That allows for “real” participation, as opposed to coached fan-site cheer leading. (No pun intended.) As I noted in the post, Burberry says it wants users to be “involved.” “Involvement” is a low level of interaction, almostpre -Web. You say that Burberry wants users to “participate creatively” in the site, but I don’t see those words on the site. I clearly state that the site allows comments, so that is not an issue. The “comments” capability is fine, but it does not allow for discussion, which is usually regarded as a more interactive and participative format.

5 – “I’m assuming Burberry would reject unsuitable photos with a polite “thank you” – and why not? This is curated ugc. There are many examples of this kind of approach. I don’t really understand your point. Are you suggesting that Burberry should simply let all the submitted trenches onto the site? Do you think that would be a good idea? Are you taking medicine?

FACT/LOGIC: Please read the post. You will see that I’m referring to a Burberry statement in their photo submission guidelines that says: “Please do not email us asking why your photograph has not been selected.” Why use this tone, and this language? There is no need to say this if they intend to send prompt notes of rejection. That would take care of the matter as a win-win. Burberry could amend its photo submission guidelines to give users a more complete understanding of the review/rejection process.

Your second comment refers to nothing in the post. Please stick to the facts of the post.

6 – “Burberry’s biggest threat is that a competitor will change the brand game and leverage its customers in ways that an iron-fisted Burberry cannot.” – Err, yeah, except this omits one important point: that competitor will also have to invent an iconic garment like the trench coat, 104 years ago… so this one is probably not as worrying as you make it sound

FACT/LOGIC: Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there were large and highly successful corporations called “mobile phone makers.” They had invented the iconic mobile phone. They totally controlled the iconic mobile phone. They were the “mobile phone” for a full generation. Then a company that had never developed a phone in its life, and which had *zero* experience in the phone business, came out with something called the “iPhone” that turned the mobile phone business upside down. For the mobile phone companies, being an icon was a problem, not an advantage. The icon never sees the iconoclast coming. What disrupts the trench will not be another “trench.” Thankfully Burberry has people on staff who are paid to be paranoid about the brand.

7 – “For brands, there’s also the possibility that sites like Art of the Trench may in fact look backward, rather than forward. The future may belong to personal brand applications, where the brand is a direct drive, with no need to be staged.” – Incoherent. Sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense.

FACT/LOGIC: If you read the link provided you will understand. There is a new device called the smartphone. The smartphone will enable brands to become personal, portable and persistent. For brands, this is a VERY big deal. Smartphones can do this via personal brand applications that run on the phone. So the brand evolves from an audience model of “messaging” or a stage (as in a fan site) to an app that lives with the user 24/7, basically as a second skin. A personal brand application from Burberry could enable Burberry *buyers* to do amazing things not possible for the owners of lesser brands. It could be exclusive in ways that the trench is not. In fact, it should be an outstanding reason for buying Burberry.

1 – “Initially, the site consists of hundreds of top quality fashion shots of models/people in Burberry trench coats.” No, it isn’t. It’s made up of mainly Sartorialist images, and there now seem to be some of real people. wjo have uploaded their own images.

2 – “Art of the Trench appears to be a collaboration between Burberry and Facebook” – no it doesn’t. The Facebook Connect stuff makes it very clear that this is not the case.

3 – “In my previous post on Art of the Trench I noted that Burberry could opt for a fan site, at the lowest level of social media, or could aim higher, toward an interactive brand platform geared toward collaboration and co-creation with Burberry customers… It appears that Burberry has settled for a fan site.” – Wrong again. Read the press. It’;s an evolving platform, and user’s are invited to participate creatively.

4 – “The Art of the Trench does not seem to encourage high levels of user interaction. I did not see the word “interactive” on the site. (I may have missed it.) Only positive clicks (”I like it”) are allowed.” – This is just factually incorrect. There are 1000s of comments on this site, and user’s can add their own content and become part of the social archive. And why does it need the word “interactive” on the site – how does that prove it is “interactive”? What planet are you from? You seem to be looking at a different Web to me

5 – “I’m assuming Burberry would reject unsuitable photos with a polite “thank you” – and why not? This is curated ugc. There are many examples of this kind of approach. I don’t really understand your point. Are you suggesting that Burberry should simply let all the submitted trenches onto the site? Do you think that would be a good idea? Are you taking medicine?

6 – “Burberry’s biggest threat is that a competitor will change the brand game and leverage its customers in ways that an iron-fisted Burberry cannot.” – Err, yeah, except this omits one important point: that competitor will also have to invent an iconic garment like the trenchcoat, 104 years ago… so this one is probably not as worrying as you make it sound

7 – “For brands, there’s also the possibility that sites like Art of the Trench may in fact look backward, rather than forward. The future may belong to personal brand applications, where the brand is a direct drive, with no need to be staged.” – Incoherent. Sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense.

Wrong on just about every count. I honestly haven’t read a wrong-er blog post for a long time. So, thanks, because it’s always quite funny to find a gem like this.

Well done.