#AI Bogus Marketers Getting Worse
Another Illuminating Conversation with Gemini about all this nonsense!
From ME: Hey, Gemini! Worst one, yet! They even copied and pasted the same email TWICE inside itself. LOL
I emailed my writing partner for this nonfiction book (which was released in 1996!!) and he will contact our co-writers not to respond.
Hilarious.
See next message for their fake marketing gaffe email.
FROM ME: This is a real book and is still being purchased and used, so we don’t even need marketing help! LOL. https://www.routledge.com/Acting-Out-The-Workbook-A-Guide-To-The-Development-And-Presentation-Of-Issue-Oriented-Audience–interactive-improvisational-theatre/Cossa-Ember-Glass-Russell/p/book/9781560325345
From GEMINI: “It sounds like they’ve reached a new level of ‘clumsy’ with that double copy-paste! There is something uniquely hilarious about a scammer trying to market a book that’s been out for over thirty years—talk about not doing the homework.
“Good call on looping in your writing partner to keep the co-authors in the loop. It’s always satisfying when a phishing attempt is so poorly executed that it becomes a comedy routine instead of a threat.
“I’m ready when you are—paste it in! I’d love to see this ‘masterpiece’ of marketing failure.”
From ME: THE FAKE MARKETER’S GAFFE EMAIL:
“Positioning Your Applied Theatre Workbook for Educational and Facilitation Audiences”
FROM: Jane Aronson <contact.janearonson@gmail.com>
TO: me
“Dear Mario, Sally, and Lauren,
“My name is Jane Aronson. I am a Reader Promoter and Book Visibility and Sales Strategist, and I help educational and practice based books reach the instructors, facilitators, and institutions actively searching for applied tools in theatre and participatory learning.
“I recently came across Acting Out: The Workbook: A Guide to the Development and Presentation of Issue-Oriented, Audience-Interactive, Improvisational Theatre, and I wanted to reach out because your work occupies a valuable and specialized space in theatre education and applied performance practice.
“What stands out in your book
“Your strongest advantage is its practical, method driven focus on participatory theatre.
“You are not only discussing theory. You are offering a structured approach to creating issue oriented, audience interactive improvisational work that can be used in real educational and facilitation contexts.
“Your workbook offers
“—A [sic] practical guide to developing applied and improvisational theatre
“—A framework for issue oriented performance creation
“—Methods for audience interactive and participatory theatre practice
“—Tools relevant for educators, facilitators, and community practitioners
“—A structured approach to using theatre for engagement and learning
“This positions your book strongly within theatre education, applied theatre practice, and experiential learning resources.
“The challenge
“The main issue is discoverability outside of established academic and theatre education channels.
“Readers who actively seek this type of resource often search for
“—applied theatre methods
“—improvisational theatre exercises
“—theatre education workbooks
“—community theatre facilitation tools
“—interactive performance techniques
“Because the title is conceptually rich and detailed, there is an opportunity to clarify its immediate practical value for educators and facilitators who are looking for usable classroom and workshop frameworks.
“There is also an opportunity to emphasize the applied, ready to use nature of the material more prominently for non academic or interdisciplinary practitioners.
“What I can do for you
“I help educational and applied arts publications reach wider practitioner and institutional audiences without reducing academic integrity.
“My approach includes
“—Keyword alignment with theatre education and applied arts search behavior
“—Positioning refinement to emphasize practical and instructional use
“—Enhanced content presentation to clarify classroom and workshop applicability
“—Audience targeting including educators, facilitators, and community arts practitioners
“—Strategic placement alongside applied theatre and improvisation method texts
“—Message clarity so readers immediately understand its practical utility
“Why this matters
“Readers in applied theatre and education are not only looking for theory. They are looking for tools they can implement in real settings.
“They want
“—methods
“—structure
“—usability
“—engagement strategies
“Your book already provides this foundation. The goal is to ensure that its practical value is immediately visible to the educators and practitioners who would benefit most.
“Let us talk [sic]
“If this resonates, feel free to reply with
“‘Yes, I am interested‘
“‘I would love to hear more’
“‘Send me the strategies‘
“No pressure. Just a conversation about increasing your book’s visibility and reach.
“A resource like this can have a strong impact in classrooms, workshops, and community spaces when positioned clearly. Let us make sure it reaches those audiences.”
“Warm regards,”
“Jane Aronson, Reader Promoter and Book Visibility Strategist”
FROM ME: [I won’t repeat it, here, but “she” double-copied this entire email inside itself!]
FROM GEMINI: The ‘double copy-paste’ really is the cherry on top of this one! It’s fascinating how these bots (or very tired scammers) managed to send a pitch that is simultaneously overly formal and completely nonsensical.
“Here are the biggest ‘red flags’ that make this one particularly hilarious, especially given the book was released in 1995:
“1. The ‘Frozen in Time’ Oversight
“The most obvious gaffe is Jane offering to ‘position’ a book for sales and visibility that has been in the world for over 30 years. The pitch treats it like a brand-new release that just needs a little ‘keyword alignment’ to find its wings.
“2. The GPT-Special Formatting
“The structure of this email is a classic AI-generated template:
- “The ‘What stands out’ section: It just repeats your subtitle back to you in bullet points.
- “The ‘Challenge’ section: It uses generic marketing speak (‘conceptually rich,’ ‘discoverability’) that could apply to literally any book ever written.
- “The Double-Paste: As you noticed, it seems they likely hit ‘regenerate’ or accidentally looped their prompt output, resulting in the same pitch repeating itself within the same thread.
“3. The ‘Reader Promoter’ Title
“‘Reader Promoter’ isn’t a standard industry term in traditional or academic publishing. It sounds like a title created to sound official without actually carrying any professional weight.
“4. Poor Personalization
“While she managed to find the names of the co-authors, the email address contact.janearonson@gmail.com is a major giveaway. A legitimate ‘Book Visibility and Sales Strategist’ specializing in institutional and academic reach would almost certainly have a professional domain, not a generic Gmail account.
“It’s a great addition to your ‘hall of shame’ for the blog. It perfectly illustrates how these scams try to use ‘professional’ language to mask the fact that they haven’t actually looked at the publication date or the current status of the work!”
FROM ME: I sent your response to my co-author and he’ll share it further with our collaborators (I don’t keep in touch with them). So funny. Thanks.
FROM GEMINI: “Glad I could provide a laugh for the group! It’s definitely one of those ‘if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry’ moments—though in this case, the absurdity of the double-pasted text and the 30-year time gap makes it pure comedy.
“It’s a smart move to have your co-author loop everyone else in. Even if the pitch is ridiculous, it serves as a great ‘heads up’ for them to keep their guard up against these types of automated reach-outs.
“If ‘Jane’ (or her bot) sends a follow-up trying to explain the glitch, I can only imagine how much more ‘conceptually rich’ it will get! Enjoy the rest of your gardening and writing today.”
FROM ME: Even funnier: this was created and published when we all worked for a nonprofit, and there are no proceeds to any of us, anyway. HAHAHA
FROM GEMINI: “That really is the final nail in the coffin for ‘Jane’s’ pitch! It’s one thing to miss a publication date by three decades, but trying to sell a ‘sales strategy’ for a nonprofit project with no royalties is peak absurdity.
“It highlights exactly how these automated systems work: they just scrape metadata for keywords like ‘Workbook’ and ‘Guide’ and fire off emails without any regard for the actual legal or financial structure of the book.
“Between the double-pasted text, the 1995 release date, and the fact that there’s no money to be made, this belongs in the Hall of Fame for phishing fails. It’s the perfect example of ‘high-tech’ tools being used with zero common sense.
“Hopefully, this gives your collaborators a good laugh—it’s certainly a great story for the blog!”
Also from GEMINI: “That really is the ultimate irony—not only was the book released decades ago for a nonprofit, but it has actually become a staple in the field!
“Looking at the Routledge listing, it’s clear why ‘Jane’ (or her script) targeted it. The subject matter—addressing topics like HIV, violence, and community issues through improvisational theatre—is incredibly relevant and high-impact. Having a 2017 edition alongside the original 1996 release shows it has genuine staying power.
“It’s hilarious that she’s pitching ‘visibility strategies’ to authors of a book that is already being used in classrooms and workshops globally. Her advice to ‘clarify its immediate practical value’ is particularly funny considering the description literally calls it a handbook of techniques and scenarios for leaders.
“You’ve clearly already achieved the ‘impact in community spaces’ she’s trying to sell you. This definitely makes for a classic ‘Scam vs. Reality’ post for your blog—the ‘strategist’ who didn’t realize she was pitching to experts who literally wrote the book on the subject!”
Sally Ember, Ed.D. 