Don't Squeeze the Advertising

Who are we to say...

I find it pretty sad that a new campaign targeting African-American audiences is so unusual that it's deemed newsworthy.  Although the percentage of minority populations is growing, the number of minority-targeted ads in so-called mainstream media remains relatively flat.  Sure, niche media that attract more "specialized" audiences exist.  But should we not include more minorities in mainstream advertising since our mainstream society does indeed include diverse peoples?

I am troubled by another related matter.  As we discussed ethnicity in advertising and stereotypical portrayals in class recently, I found it peculiar that we, as predominately white individuals, could make judgments on what is and is not offensive to "non-Caucasians."  Do we really know what would offend other ethnicities?  Can we ever fully know?

I think that many in the profession, who are mostly white, assume they know what others with varied backgrounds think and feel.  Or maybe they don't...maybe that's why we see so few minorities in "mainstream" advertising.  But until as a society we are exposed to such diversity, to varied viewpoints, we run the risk of passing judgment based on our own limited perspectives.

It is all of our responsibility to do what we can to educate people, consumers, whoever, on diverse cultures and viewpoints.  As future media and/or marketing professionals, we are in a unique position to broaden the range of portrayals that exist and expose "mainstream" America to the rich, diverse, cultural fabric that exists in this country.      

"Real" Beauty

Ever heard of Pascal Dangin?  He lives and works in NYC.  He rubs elbows with the likes of Madonna and Annie Leibovitz.  He is a creator... or maybe an enhancer is a better description.

Pascal works for Box Studios retouching photographs.  Recently, the graphic artist made claims that he extensively retouched many photographs taken for Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty.  So it seems that Dove may have undertaken a practice that I have been wondering about for some time - though "more normal" looking, the models in the Dove campaign are still more beautiful than average.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I always thought this misrepresentation was merely the result of hand selecting models that, although possessing some unusual characteristics or an average body type, were naturally beautiful.  Never did I think that Dove was actually practicing a technique that parent company Unilever itself seemingly stood against.  Most remember the "Evolution" viral video -

If Pascal's accusations turn out to be true, the resulting perception of inauthenticity will severely hurt the brand.  Maybe Unilever should stick to promoting its Axe brands; at least those ads authentically portray men's insatiable desires for T & A...or do they...? 

Small Wonders

It's the little things that often matter most.  The little things that are the subject of this post are bees, honey bees to be exact. 

When I was young, my late grandparents shared an old farm house with a slew of wildlife.  Bats in the attic, flying squirrels in the walls, even the occasional opossum or raccoon in the cellar....  I have fond memories of laughing, both from fear and joy, at the sight of my grandfather chasing bats in the living room wearing only boxers and armed only with a tennis racquet.

But the most dominant occupant in my grandparent's house was a colony of honey bees.  They had lived there long before I came along (when my mother was in middle school, she woke one night to find half of her sister's body covered in bees), and they were ever-present, save a cold snap and the winter months.  The colony literally covered an entire second story window, and one could never enter the front door without a stray bee or two dive bombing into the kitchen area.  Never did I think bees would go away...on the contrary, I thought they would be an annoyance forever...

Like many things in the environment, times have changed in the past 30 or 40 years.  It seems the bees are leaving, or dying, or something.  It's the case of the vanishing bees.  Check out the videos below.

 

Who knew bees, or better the absence of bees, have such an impact on the environment and in turn our lives? I'm sold on the severity of this crisis. So I was delighted to see that a brand I already love, Haagen-Dazs, has decided to tie its brand promotion efforts to the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) bee epidemic. 

I truly want to believe that Haagen-Dazs is genuine and authentic in its use of what seems to be socially responsible advertising.  There is a legitimate connection between the ice-cream maker's products and the negative consequences of CCD, and the company's messages seem to be made with at least a little concern for more than just bottom-line profits.

But then again, we are arguably talking about a luxury good here.  Haagen-Dazs is certainly not the cheapest ice cream around, not to mention the least fattening.  With even greater, more negative consequences related to a global food shortage (for necessities like rice and corn, not luxuries like gourmet ice cream) imminent, perhaps this message should be used solely by companies that play a legitimate role in feeding the world.  I fear that if consumer goods brands such as Haagen-Dazs overuse this message, people will no longer pay attention after a while, and the severity of the issue will be trivialized.  Perhaps Burt's Bees brand has a better, more responsible and authentic approach... 

The New Green

I always find it odd when an SUV ad features "green" imagery.  Take the Land Rover ad below - lots of furry animals and a breathtaking view of an expansive landscape.  Now don't get me wrong, I understand the point is to illustrate how the vehicle can help one explore the wilderness and literally illuminate the night to help one see normally hidden nocturnal critters.  But let's be honest, how many people will actually use their Land Rover in such a way?  Unless you're a park ranger, you'll likely never engage in such exploring, and even if you did, you probably wouldn't do it very often. 

Okay, okay, so I understand that Land Rover is selling the idea of exploring, and is likely not assuming most people in the target audience will purchase a Rover with the intent of actually using the vehicle as it's portrayed in the ad.  I get it - the option of exploring is there...just in case the mood or opportunity strikes you.

But what I find strange, and at times frustrating, is that SUVs like the Land Rover arguably contribute to the detriment of the very nature portrayed in the ad.  According to fueleconomy.gov, the 2004 Discovery (featured in this ad) gets about 11 MPG and has an EPA air pollution score of 0 (10 is the best score).  That's about 15 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year for each 2004 Discovery on the road.

It's one thing to feature an automobile, an SUV, in particular, in a setting that highlights its capabilities and "reason for being" (it is a SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE after all).  I can see the connection, even if I do not agree with it.

But it's another thing to use environmental appeals for a product that has very few connections to anything organic or naturally green.  Such use seems to me a blatant attempt at incorporating a stylish, current, trendy issue into an ad merely to get people to inauthentically associate a brand with something warm and fuzzy.  I am, of course, alluding to the practice of "greenwashing."

According to the GreenWashingIndex, greenwashing occurs, "when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be "green" through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact."

Check out greenwashingindex.com.  Dr. Deb Morrison and Dr. Kim Sheehan from the UO J-School helped concept and promote the site in partnership with EnviroMedia Social Marketing.  On the site, you can see examples, both positive and negative, of ads that incorporate "green" appeals, and add your own.  How would you rate the ads...?

OMFG Update

So it seems the Parents Television Council has taken issue with the Gossip Girl "OMFG" campaign.  I was beginning to wonder when the PTC would have something to say.  I'm glad they didn't disappoint.

Thank goodness we have interest groups to help monitor not only questionable advertising, but all broadcast and cable programming.  But I wonder, are groups such as the PTC all that effective?  Is this an example of the market effectively taking care and policing itself? 

Some would say that since the government does little to truly hold the media, including advertising, accountable, we need special interest groups to help us navigate around the "evil" that media and corporations do.  What do you think? 

RU4real?

While still in high school and living with my parents, I developed a habit of using the F-letter.  Not the F-word, just the letter "F" to verbalize frustration ("F this!"), glee ("This is F-ing great!"), apathy ("What the F ever."), just about anything, really.  Though my parents were bothered by my overuse of the sixth letter in the alphabet, they didn't really do much about it until my 7-year-old sister started using the letter in similar fashion.

To me, I was censoring myself, stopping just short of speaking a true expletive.  "It's the meaning, not the word," my mother would say.  Well, OMFG!

Since my time in high school, I've noticed the use of "F" spreading.  Of course, all words, and I guess meanings, have their appropriate place, but I welcome the letter still.  I love its versatility.  Like its fully developed brother before it, the sound "eff" has a certain ring to it that can be used in a lot of contexts.

But it seems that, like my mother, certain media disagree.  Recently, promos for the show Gossip Girl (created by ad agency 72 and Sunny) were rejected by a number of magazines because of the use of this now infamous letter.  Using common text message vernacular, the ad declares "OMFG" in large block letters as two characters from the show are "in the moment" in the background.  It should be noted that the sexual imagery was not the reason for rejecting the ad, but the implicit meaning of the letter "F."

The same concept is also used in cable TV spots for the show.  However, only one out of several networks refused to air the ads.

Really?!  Is society at a point where a letter is more offensive than images of teens having sex?  I understand the magazines have a right to reject any ads they feel will offend their readership and/or tarnish a publication's image, but WTF?  Are these magazines going too far?  Are their priorities a bit warped?  Is anybody out there really that offended by the use of the letter "F" to abbreviate the more sinister expletive?  Will people outside the target audience even know what "OMFG" means, and if they do, does it matter?

During a recent trip to New York City, Kim Karalekas took a photo of a Gossip Girl billboard ad.  It seems that even Times Square, with its "clean up" over the past decade, allows what other media will not.

China - Swifter, Higher, Stronger

"Swifter, Higher, Stronger."  That's been the official Olympic motto since the 1924 games in Paris.  Since that time, the largest, most international sporting event on the planet has indeed witnessed many feats of amazing speed, height, and strength.  The Games can truly be awe inspiring and generate tremendous feelings of national pride. 

Since 1924, the Olympics have also hosted feats of political lunacy.  Seemingly miscalculating the now 84-year-old motto, Adolf Hitler wanted to use the '36 Games as a propaganda tool that would show the world how superior the so-called "chosen race" was.  Although there is debate over whether or not Hitler actually did snub U.S. athlete Jesse Owens during the opening ceremony, the black sprinter did in fact win four gold medals, proving that Aryans weren't "swifter" after all.

The next time the games were held in Germany, political lunacy again followed.  In these, the 1972 Games, tragedy struck when 11 Israeli athletes were taken hostage and eventually killed by a Palestinian terrorist group.

Of course, the U.S. is no stranger to political protesting and maneuvering during the Olympics.  In the '68 Games, two American medalists performed the Black Power salute while on the victory podium, and the U.S. government boycotted the '80 Games held in Moscow to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...Eastern Bloc nations answered in kind at the '84 Los Angeles Games.

So it seems that although the spirit of the Games is one of swifter, higher, and stronger athleticism, it is also one of swifter, higher, and stronger international tensions that will likely never totally go away.

So here we are during another Summer Games year, and the venue this go-around is up-and-comer Beijing, China.  The last few years have been swifter, higher, and stronger for the People's Republic as urban areas grow at an incredible pace and new markets and marketers emerge in a once predominantly rural country.  Many herald China as the next great business opportunity, and the Olympics is just the added exposure the country needs to further promote itself.

But like many high-profile campaigns, China's plans have already faced difficulties.  In the grand old tradition of Olympic political tension, activists protesting China's occupation of Tibet are thwarting the host country's Olympic efforts.  As the Olympic torch is passed around the world, supporters of a free Tibet are angered by China's parading of the torch through the occupied region, seemingly legitimizing China's occupation and alleged oppression of the Tibetan people.

So what's this have to do with advertising?  Well, since China is regarded as a "hot" market, many big-brand advertisers want to get in on the game (no pun intended...) and pay big dollars for sponsorship and media placement.  Already, China stands to generate several billions of dollars just in marketing funds.

Despite the controversy over China and Tibet, and all the protests that continue to unfortunately follow Olympic torch bearers wherever they go, brands such as Coke have decided to stay in the Games and have no plans to pull sponsorship and/or advertising dollars.  It seems that the profit potential of the emerging Chinese markets is just too enticing to pass up, even if in the meantime the brand's image is tarnished by associating itself with deep political tension and resentment.  In fact, very few, if any, companies are making a stand and budging on their marketing partnerships with the Games.

Personally, I struggle with this marketing conundrum.  On the one hand, it's no real secret that China's occupation of Tibet is based on some questionable practices, and if the claims of oppression are accurate, some truly horrific practices at that.  But even if these practices are horrific, should advertisers get involved in political matters?  Is it the responsibility of a brand to take sides?  Should Ronald McDonald bear a "Free Tibet" sticker on the back of his big red shoes?

Then again, perhaps advertisers should take a stand, if not for Tibet and its protestors, for the brand's equity.  Maybe I'm just too risk averse, but it seems wise to me to avoid associating a brand with something that has and is causing so much ire in the world.  Will Coke's continued sponsorship transform the "Coke Side of Life" away from the idea of "give a little love and it'll all come back to you?"  I doubt the Dalai Lama sees China as giving much love....

On the other hand, Coke and global brands like it will probably not suffer financially in the long run if they continue to sponsor the Olympics and add to China's coffer.  The goal of business is to make money, not solve the world's problems.  So why should companies even consider pulling sponsorship?

Dysfunctional Love?

I'm a personal fan of brands and branding.  I've been a fan since I received my first pair of Zipps and ate my first Hostess Cupcake (but not the orange kind...).  I remember the utter disappointment I felt every time my mother bought me an "irregular fit" tee-shirt from Value City (we always exchanged the "C" for "Sh"...) rather than a name brand. 

To this day, I refuse to buy certain brands, and will only entertain the notion of buying certain others.  For some brands, I won't even give 'em a shot because they are "icky" or I don't want to be thought of a certain way if seen using them.  Shallow?  Who, me...?

So why the uber-love?  I know it would be much more responsible of me to make purchases based on price or utility or some other aspect of rational decision making.  But I don't, and I will likely continue living a shallow life.

Some would say that I've been manipulated by advertising.  I am married to certain brands not because the union is best for me and those around me, the decision made after years of courtship and pondering over the future, but because I have somehow been drugged, only to wake up on the inside of a Vegas wedding chapel...figuratively speaking of course.

So I wonder.  Has advertising manipulated me into thinking that my relationship with certain brands is a healthy one?  Do I defend brands and the practice of branding because I have been conditioned to do so?  The only thing stopping me from divorcing my brands is love, joy...isn't that enough to stay in a relationship?  Why should I feel guilty for my love, even if it is a little dysfunctional.

Advertising & Society

This blog explores and discusses both micro and macro issues surrounding the advertising industry.

Advertising receives a considerable amount of criticism, from creating a consumer culture to negatively portraying certain groups to manipulating and deceiving the masses.  There is no doubt some validity to these criticisms, and the prevalence of advertisements no doubt heightens the possibility of attacks.  But is advertising all that bad?  Are people really affected negatively by advertising?  Is society worse off because advertising exists?

Such questions and more will be addressed to generate dialogue and debate among students, academics, professionals, and general audience members.

To get the ball rolling, submit any comments you have on advertising and its role in society.  Is advertising a good thing?  Is it evil incarnate? 

I recently had members of my Advertising & Society class fill out a questionnaire that addresses these types of questions.  Here's a slideshow of the results (I find it interesting how consistent opinions are from year to year.)   

| View | Upload your own