September 11 represents a day that forever changed the American psyche.  It seemed for a small moment in time that people willingly took a break from their everyday lives of consumerism and capitalism and stood together to support those in need.  And now we will come together again this Sunday to commemorate the 10 year anniversary of that momentous day.

From a marketing perspective, we expect an aura of deference and caution to surround such a somber event.  And for the past 9 years we have been afforded that.  But something is different this year.  It seems that 10 is the point at which advertisers consciously or unconsciously decided that it was no longer “too soon”.  As a recent article in the New York Times explains, “marketers, media companies and advertising agencies are changing course, involving themselves with sponsorships, screenings, fund-raisers, programming and other highly visible activities”.

There seem to be two trends converging here.  One is the growing trend of advertisers trying to bring awareness of social issues by integrating them into their campaigns.  One well-known example is Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty”, which spoke out against the advertising industry’s love affair with idealized body image by depicting images of women that more closely resembled the average American woman. Because they bring to light social issues and help us to deal with them, it’s not hard to argue that this type of advertising is laudable (even if the bottom line is still ultimately about positioning products in a way that will best grow the brand name).

However, the other side of the issue is advertisers’ seemingly insatiable need to inundate consumers with every type of advertising possible.  Spurred on by changes in technology (such as the conception of DVR) that have made consumers less of a captive audience, advertisers are searching for more creative ways to imprint their messages upon society.  This has often manifested itself in the form of sponsorships and promotional activities.  The bottom line of advertising deals with selling, so we can’t entirely fault companies for these activities.  But do the ends justify the means?  Is 9/11 a day too sacred to sponsor?

We can’t automatically argue in the affirmative to such a question.  Some of the advertiser activities surrounding 9/11 are easily praiseworthy. For instance, the Advertising Council is coordinating a PSA campaign that encourages people to visit the 9/11 memorial.  PSAs provide consumers with important information and bring social issues to the surface (much like the Dove campaign mentioned earlier). Unlike normal advertising methods, PSAs are unconcerned with profits. Messages like these make people think about something bigger than just the product itself.  They encourage people to reflect on the attacks and to preserve their monumental impact in American history.

Watch 9/11 Memorial PSA

However some advertisers take ideas like these to the extreme.  The Lieb Family Cellars winery, for example, is marking September 11 with a bottle of Merlot that commemorates the opening of the national memorial.  Is this the company’s heartfelt way to honor such a historic occasion, or a marketing ploy designed to play off of the psychological aspects of consumer behavior in order to boost sales.  People often want the objects that they buy to act as symbols, to represent who they are as people.  Perhaps some people may buy into the idea of 9/11 wine in an attempt to persuade themselves that they are compassionate, generous, and genuine.  This masks the consumers actual need for the product and makes them reliant on their purchases rather than their true values. The issue is further muddled by the fact that the winery is promising to donate up to 10% of sales proceeds to the memorial.  Can we condone their marketing as tasteless or applaud them for helping to raise funds?

Because we live in such a consumer-driven culture, we had to expect that inevitably companies would attempt to somehow market an event that captures so much of America’s attention.  Perhaps the real issue then is where we draw the line.  We want to encourage PSAs that keep the impact of September 11 in the collective consciousness, but we also want to encourage consumers to draw a distinction between acts of respect that help the human good and acts of marketing that help one company’s bottom line.  Just because a PSA and wine promotion both deal with fundraising for the 9/11 memorial does not mean that consumers should view them in the same light. The PSA works because it is relevant to the actual day and it resonates with the true emotions of the people watching it. The wine promotion focuses more on the company and perhaps even encourages us to buy the product for the wrong reasons. The public should be spurred to action, but it should be the right kind of action.  For the sake of 9/11 and the reputation of advertising as a whole, we should actively encourage people to be cognizant of the differences between a message that keeps the history of the day alive in our culture and one that mainly serves to help a company’s profits.