Archive for General Virtues
Driving the Message Home Safely: An Ad Standing Out Against the Trend of Violent PSAs
Posted by: | CommentsPublic Service Announcements. We have been seeing them for decades and many of them have famously educated us on important information about safety, health and societal concerns: if you lock your doors at night you’ll take a bite out of crime; Mr. Yuck means poison; by ten o’clock at night you should know where your children are; this is your brain on drugs… and it’s fried.
However, a new trend seems to be emerging in the PSA genre. Gone are the days of Smokey-the-Bear-type “safety mascots” and crying Native Americans on the side of littered highways. Instead, these somewhat conscientious and prudent methods of distributing information to the public seem to be taking a backseat to more realistic, graphic, no holds barred approaches. The previous appeal to subtlety and implied undesirable consequences has dissipated. And now, more than ever, it has become acceptable to portray violent behavior and physical trauma as a suitable means to drive home a point.
As one might expect, some of these more gritty Public Service Announcements have garnered media attention for their arguably flagrant use of violence. One such television spot that made waves in the social media community and graced the headlines of CNN, FOX News and TODAY was a PSA released in 2009 titled “COW – The Film That Will Stop You Texting and Driving.” Produced by the police department of Gwent, Wales, the short film realistically depicts an intense traffic collision, graphic injury to children, and death. Yet another was a PSA for Women’s Aid called “Cut Movie” where actress Keira Knightly was shown being brutally beaten to spread awareness of domestic violence against women. (The PSAs can be viewed through these links. WARNING: graphic images of violence and abuse. Please view at your own discretion.
So, herein lies the problem. Is it ethical feed into the media machine of realistic violence on television just to reach the public? Have the values and behaviors of society been altered to the point where a PSA requires tragedy and gore to obtain the attention necessary to educate? Or is it just easy?
Despite the appearance that shocking images and scare tactics are the new standard for disseminating public awareness, a PSA released by the Sussex Safer Road Partnership in early 2010 has done much to combat that notion. The announcement, titled “Embrace Life” tackles the serious issue of seatbelt safety. Interestingly enough, though, the ad is not filmed in a car, but rather at a child-sized table and chair in a living room. This setting gives the spot elements of whimsy and abstraction, but when the message is delivered, it is received powerfully and clearly.
The “Embrace Life” campaign assumes a component of responsibility lacking in the aforementioned graphic ads. It does not alienate a part of the market by being potentially disturbing for children to view, or too intense for people who abhor violence. Nor does it make the viewer want to tune out, which researcher are discovering is happening in ads using scare tactics. Recent studies suggest violent PSA are not effective and even counterproductive because they cause some viewers to take on feelings of defensiveness instead of receptiveness. While other ads are throwing physical pain, personal anguish and damnation in the face of the viewer, the “Embrace Life” PSA influences the greater public by suggesting that loved-ones care. They want you to be safe and will suffer if you are gone, which is much more impactful and positively received.
Overall, it is refreshing to know that responsible advertising can still carry some clout in regards to information dissemination. And, with this emerging information about the potential damage and ineffectiveness of fear-centric “shockvertising,” it is a wonder if advertisers will regress and pursue a different, more appropriate creative avenue. Or will they continue their current path of trauma as means of reinforcement because society claims it’s necessary in order to make a lasting impression? All I know is, we’ve come a long way from Vince and Larry the crash test dummies, folks.
Did Nike Buy off More Than Tiger’s Reputation?
Posted by: | Comments
We all saw the ad: Tiger Woods stares stoically and misty eyed into the camera in his usual Nike apparel. The voice of Earl Woods, Tiger’s late father, questions him about his infamous adulterous escapades. “Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion,” Earl Woods says. “I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. Did you learn anything?”
Talk about powerful advertising. Nike is a company that sells sports gear, but this commercial is proof of just how far advertisers in our culture have come from simply selling products. For years, Tiger Woods has been the face of Nike, establishing a fiscally beneficial situation for both parties, who grew into a kind of comfortable codependence. Tiger was able to finance his yacht (or whatever it is celebrity billionaires do with the cash from their endorsements) and Nike was able to capitalize on an athlete whose talent on the golf course was matched only by his squeaky clean image. Tiger was a marketer’s dream, and Nike amassed the revenue to prove it.
Nike sold Tiger’s image just as much as his short game and swoosh-embossed polos; he was a family man to be revered for his unwavering morals. In the face of the past and present multitude of adulterous athletes who still received millions in product endorsements after their transgressions (think Kobe Bryant), Tiger Woods was a wholesome breath of fresh air. As a company, endorsing Tiger Woods meant representing his personal life, which at the time, was all about the values of our country. Or so it appeared.
Did consumers buy Nike products partially because they believed that Nike was a company with a similar set of values to their own? I’m guessing the marketers at Nike have heard of value segmentation, and targeting consumers who placed high value on family or who admired Tiger Woods for both his professional career and admirable personal life wasn’t a coincidence. Tiger Woods was a figure whose life was consistent with Nike consumers’ values, or so it seemed. When the Tiger scandal hit the media, the endorsers who had made him the most highly paid athlete in the world were faced with the big decision: damage control or exit stage right.
Several of Tiger’s endorsers did in fact choose to bow out, deeming his reputation irreparably damaged. But not Nike. Nike’s response to the scandal was this commercial, which in one thirty second spot repositioned Tiger as a living commentary on our society’s changing values. Instead of marking him with a letter “A” and writing him off as another professional athlete turned modern day Hester Prynn, Nike did what they do best: emblazoned their famous logo on their fallen spokesman and used the media to cleverly redefine him as a man who needed his father to help him through a difficult time in his life. Nike battled the public’s critique of Tiger’s tainted family values with the ultimate trump card- more family values. The only way Nike could continue to endorse Tiger, who at that point was so ingrained in the culture of their brand image and company that dropping him would mean redirecting efforts towards an enormous and risky counter-campaign, was to fight fire with fire.
The question remains: did Nike make the right choice? Was this commercial just about the money, and saving face? Or does it speak to our culture’s values at large? In spite of his egregious transgressions, Nike supports Tiger Woods. Advertising as an industry now carries a lot of social responsibility that it never did before, possibly because agencies now brand their image with meaning beyond simply functions of the product they’re selling. No matter what, Nike’s decision was going to make a statement, and the impact of the decision and the ad are unmistakable. Instead of changing their spokesman to an athlete who was a better representation of their values, Nike changed their values, and attempted to change ours as well. Did we fall for it? Like I said: talk about powerful advertising.
Do YOUR Trust Issues Affect THEIR Bottom Line?
Posted by: | CommentsWhy are we as consumers continuously trying to dodge advertising? The answer is both complex and yet quite simple.
As a consumer driven culture we are inundated with ads through various types of media every second of every day. From television and magazines to Internet and buses, we are never without the influence of some form of advertisement. Even those aspiring to build a career in the advertising field do not want to see ads–thus the genius behind such technological advances as DVR and Tivo–and yet, advertising drives consumerism just as much as it depends upon it. At the heart of this infinite cycle is trust, and the ability to distinguish the responsible from the irresponsible while wading through the ad clutter.
As a consumer, we directly and indirectly live by a value system where trust is the leading act (hard to successfully get and keep). In a culture so bedecked with various media and ads, which should the consumer trust? According to Judy Shapiro, this idea of trust correlates with decreasing integrity in media as a result of too many options and undefined roles of “credible journalists, entertaining bloggers, and self-proclaimed experts.” Who is deemed credible, and how does the consumer know if the ad or advertiser is credible?
This is where advertising and its responsibility to the consumer play a part. Advertising today has evolved from simply selling a product to selling a brand, lifestyle, and most importantly, a relationship.
They always say that the key to a good and healthy relationship in life is trust, why can’t this be true for all aspects of life? Today, consumers build and break and rebuild relationships without blinking an eye. How do advertisers get to the consumer through all other competition and ignored ads? Advertisers must successfully sell the brand image and wanted lifestyle in order for the consumer to buy the relationship. In this culture, consumers buy an identity or a symbol not a product. The black hole here, however, is that the consumer must first form a relationship to a product, which begins with advertising.
Consumers do not trust advertising because it has lost its credibility due to the volume of ads consumers are exposed to daily. Not only does the amount of advertising defer us, but also by human nature we tend not to trust. This can be attributed to our cultural foundation based on classical liberal beliefs not to trust centralized government or big businesses. Again and again, this notion has been proven through such overbearing players as the once powerful tobacco industry that used ulterior motives, morally ambiguous marketing tactics, and capitol based get-out-of-jail-free cards to enhance profit. Instead, consumers listen to other consumers through word of mouth because it is based on experience and direct human interaction, not advertising.
Low-involvement, consumer goods brands face the challenge of differentiating themselves in product categories that are sufficiently saturated with very similar products, such as the beer industry. Dos Equis, in 2007, launched an advertising campaign centered on a fictional character, The Most Interesting Man in the World, whom they portrayed in television advertisements accomplishing outlandish feats and seeking adventures around the world. This ad campaign plays on the trickle-down effect as Dos Equis seems to assume that consumers of lower economic classes than the Most Interesting Man in the World will seek to emulate his behavior, and in this case, drink Dos Equis beer. Generally speaking, American consumers strive to better themselves economically by working hard enough so that they may achieve financial success. Thus, those in the elite are admired for their success, or envied for their inherited wealth; either way, those in the middle or lower classes tend to look up to the elite, and try to imitate their behavior. So, Dos Equis is using this wealthy and adventurous character to persuade consumers that although they aren’t as interesting as he is, they can be one step closer to being The Most Interesting Man in the World by drinking Dos Equis beer. The brand positions its beer as an affordable luxury; while the Most Interesting Man in the World enjoys the finer things in life like exotic vacations, he also drinks Dos Equis. If the average Joe can buy a six-pack of Dos Equis for $7.99 (at your nearest BevMo) and feel like the Most Interesting Man in the World while drinking one, why wouldn’t he?
Dos Equis, in creating such a worldly and accomplished man to recommend their beer, also takes advantage of the fact that consumers value the opinions of those whom they perceive as experienced. His age, estimated in the fifties or sixties, also adds to this image of a knowledgeable man. By incorporating characteristics that consumers value into the character of The Most Interesting Man, Dos Equis makes his recommendation of drinking their beer very persuasive.
At the same time, they use humor by going to such great lengths to portray him as “interesting” with absurd traits or hobbies that the viewer cannot help but laugh. These commercials entertain, and some viewers even look forward to seeing a new one, to see what his next ridiculous talent will be.
The institution of advertising as a whole is expected to be socially responsible by informing the consumer, rather than manipulating the consumer into buying products they don’t actually need. Alcohol advertising is held to even greater accountability with regards to sensitive social issues like drinking and driving and underage drinking. Though these topics are never directly addressed in these commercials, one could argue that Dos Equis is being socially responsible in the way that it frames the act of drinking beer: a leisurely activity which adults (twenty-one or older) engage in occasionally after a long day of work, or in the case of The Most Interesting Man in the World, worldly activities. The Most Interesting Man is not shown guzzling multiple Dos Equis before “curing narcolepsy” or while chest-pressing two women in chairs; rather, when the mood strikes for a refreshing bottle of beer, after a day of exotic adventures, the Most Interesting Man reaches for a Dos Equis. His now infamous tag line “I don’t always drink beer. But when I do, I prefer Dos Equis,” clearly does not encourage binge drinking or other socially irresponsible activities involving beer. This almost serves as a reminder to the consumer that excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages is very rarely perceived as a classy act. A Dos Equis, as portrayed in the commercials, serves as a final note to the day, not a start of a rowdy night.
There are opponents to this campaign, some of whom argue that the commercials are not believable, specifically in the fact that a wealthy man like the Most Interesting Man in the World would drink a Dos Equis. He is portrayed as a man who can afford many luxuries, so the question some critics ask is why would he settle for a Dos Equis? This all depends on taste, for these critics clearly do not like the taste of Dos Equis, so cannot buy into the idea that such a worldly and rich man would enjoy this specific beer. Others question why an older man was used as the main character of beer commercials, which are generally targeting college-age young men.
However, most consumers enjoy the entertainment aspect of these commercials, and those of age to consume alcohol might say, “If the Most Interesting Man in the World drinks Dos Equis, why wouldn’t I?” Class is the ultimate persuader in this ad campaign, as Dos Equis creates this character of the Most Interesting Man in the World who possesses both money and worldly knowledge. This has such an impact on the consumer because these are two qualities which most Americans strive to accumulate a wealth of over the course of their lifetimes. The commercials thus position The Most Interesting Man in the World as someone who most consumers will respect and therefore value the opinion of. The sarcastic nature of the ads simply adds to the positive associations consumers will create in their minds toward Dos Equis beer for although we strive for perfection, we do so knowing that perfection is impossible. So by making the accomplishments of The Most Interesting Man in the World so wildly impossible to believe, Dos Equis takes advantage of this tension within consumers of craving perfection while knowing it cannot be achieved. This ad campaign influences consumers to consider Dos Equis when purchasing beer, and influences the beer industry in creating an ad campaign that stands out from the rest in using such a classy and respectable character to persuade consumers.
This campaign could influence the greater society in the interpretation of The Most Interesting Man in the World’s sign-off “Stay thirsty, my friends.” This could have multiple implications, but the most plausible would be that it encourages consumers to “stay thirsty,” keep drinking, Dos Equis beer. This affects society in its promotion of alcohol consumption, and the side-effects or fatal accidents which occur when consumers do not drink responsibly, but is a relatively moderate statement due to its abstract or vague nature and the many different possible interpretations one could make of it. However, in conjunction with all other advertisements for beer, this could lead to an all too positive perception of beer by consumers; while beer is not a harmful substance by any means, irresponsible consumption thereof has caused an obscene amount of injuries and fatalities. This explains why alcohol advertising in general is a very tricky business in walking the line between promoting its products as superior to competitors while not condoning irresponsible behavior, which both public and private institutions make sure to monitor.
A compilation of the Most Interesting Man in the World commercials:
The Advertising Community is Seeking to Change the World
Posted by: | Comments
ACT – Advertising Community Together – is a non-profit association.
Its goal is to federate, promote and inspire responsible communication on sustainability, equitable development and social responsibility. ACT shows how advertising professionals from all continents can use their core talent – creativity – to play a significant role in addressing today’s crucial world issues. Read more about the mission of the organization.
ACT catalogs responsible advertising and exhibits the content online and through a traveling show.
- Online Gallery : ACT collections generates over a million downloads of responsible adverts each year.
- Exhibitions : every year, ACT’s collections go on a world tour. Exhibitions have already been shown in Paris, Cannes, London, Brussels, Barcelona, Warsaw, New York, Seattle, Santiago de Chile, Milan, Seoul and Beijing.
- Conferences : Launched in 2003 during Paris’ advertising week, the conferences foster discussion about ethics and values through debates between all parties concerned and the general public.
- Media : partnerships increase awareness and drive changes in professional and public behavior.
The ACT initiative was launched after 9/11 by AdForum’ s employees, using the global reach of the website to gather the talent of the global advertising community to fight violence and terrorism (“Still Shining, New York”, 2001), to fight discrimination and promote tolerance (with IFRC, the International Red Cross, 2002), to illustrate how advertising can promote good causes (“Great Ads for good causes”, 2003) to contribute to raise awareness on social issues (“Ads that make us change”, 2004) get society informed of what sustainable development is and why it’s essential to our future (“Great ads for a better future” 2005, “Taking care of our future”, 2006) tell everyone there is a time to meet and a time to act (“Together for a Sustainable World. The Advertising Community Promise” 2007), call for change (“The Expo that changes you from inside” 2008.
Take a look at the website. Browse the archives. Join the community.
KFC..The Eye of the Beholder
Posted by: | Commentshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQfZRnqQr-k&feature=related
I thought this ad was quite interesting because it got quite a bit of buzz on the internet as being racist. Apparently KFC was the sponsor of the cricket match between the West Indies and Australia. When I first saw this ad I almost died because I wasn’t thinking about cricket, or about this ad in the right context at all. Yet, after I realized it was a cricket match and an Australian cricket player was on the opposing teams stands it made a lot more sense to me. I thought this ad was a good example of how it is so easy for advertising to get misconstrued and how imperative it is for agencies to realize that how your ad is interpreted depends on the eye of the beholder. To an Australian, or someone who is familiar with cricket, this ad makes complete sense, but with the associations that people in the United States make about KFC fried chicken it’s a bit more confusing. I think this ad is also a good example of how people really do look for the bad, or assume the worst, especially with all the hype concerning racial slurs etc. and how it is so important for agencies to really take this into account.
Chocolates Not So Bad
Posted by: | Comments
Mars, a huge chocolate manufactuer (M&Ms, Snickers, Twix and Dove to name a few) has assured that it will team up with the Rainforest Alliance in order to make their chocolate more sustainable, and they want to only use sustainable cocoa by 2020. This is huge, because human trafficking and child labor are a huge problem in African cocoa farms so much of the worlds chocolate is linked to abuse. With Mars being such a huge chocolate producer, if they really are to be completely sustainable by 2020, this could mean huge benefits to farmers and wildlife. I would certainly feel better about myself if I could rest assured that a slave had nothing to do with my Snickers bar. I think this will have a very positive impact on the Mars company and others should follow. I think Cadbury has taken a step towards more sustainable cocoa production as well!
Fighting Fire with Fire
Posted by: | Commentshttp://adage.com/globalnews/article?article_id=143598
I found this article on Advertising Age and thought it was pretty neat. Actimel, a pro-biotic yogurt sold in Argentina was faced with a dilemma: a viral email claimed that Actimel was “addictive, destroyed the stomachs natural flora and couldharm children’s health.” We all know how negative word of mouth can be extremely detrimental to a company and its reputation. What Actimel did to fight back was pretty innovative. As opposed to just denying the e-mail through PR objectives, Actimel fought back. As a matter of fact, initially they responded to bloggers and even ran a TV spot claiming you could “trust” Actimel (anyone reminded of the CEO of Domino’s YouTube apology?) but they decided to take a more innovative approach. They created a website called Creador de Rumores where visitors can create their own rumors (about themselves) claiming they have won a trip to the World Cup in South Africa etc. and submit a picture of themselves along with the fake rumor. It sort of reminds me of a play on “sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me.” By creating a website that ridicules the impact of rumors and pokes fun at them while engaging consumers in a form of entertainment, Actimel positioned itself as a confident, trustworthy company. Good job Actimel!
Cyberbullying
Posted by: | CommentsIt’s all interesting to see the causes that the Ad Council chooses to create spots for. This ad focuses on the issue of cyberbullying. Although cyberbullying is a relatively new form of harassment, it is a major issue that is not addressed near enough. Cyberbullying has even been related to an increase in suicides among 10-19 year olds.
I think this ad does a great job of showing us that internet bashing is just as painful as being insulted in person. I also really like how the little girl’s speech catches the viewer off guard. I’m not sure what I was expecting to hear come out of her mouth, but I was certainly not prepared to hear so many rude insults! The commercial cuts back and forth between the girl’s speech, and close ups of “Patty’s” face as she listens to what her peers think of her. Patty’s emotional transition from being flattered that she was the topic of interest, to embarrassed by what is actually said is pretty powerful, especially since she is so young.
I would imagine this was an effective campaign not only because of the well written script, but also because of the ad’s call to action… or anti-action at the end of the commercial when it tells people how to stop cyberbullying: don’t write it, don’t forward it, etc.
Adopt A Shelter Dog!
Posted by: | CommentsI love this Pedigree Campaign! I’ve worked in shelters before and know how hard it can be to get people to adopt their animals. There is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing an animal stay in the shelter for extended periods of time. I think Pedigree did a great job of choosing a cause that relates to their product. By linking themselves with shelters, their efforts seem legitimate. I honestly believe that the people at Pedigree want to help shelter dogs; that they’re not just using this campaign as a way to boost their sales. Do these ads change the way you guys see shelter animals?
The video I really wanted to put on here isn’t on youtube so I’ve posted the link below. I think the best part of the ad is the tag line “Don’t pity a shelter dog, adopt one”. It speaks to the people watching the TV who might otherwise be moved by the commercial, but ultimately don’t act on their emotions.
I’m not in the market to get a dog at this point in my life, but when I am ready, I know I’ll choose a shelter animal! Way to go Pedigree! wanted to post, but could only find one that would let me show the video on here.
