Archive for Responsibility
Barefoot Wine. Socially responsible advertising, One Beach at a time.
Posted by: | CommentsIn an effort to promote the importance of keeping our nation’s beaches clean and trash-free, Barefoot wine decided to do something a little unexpected when it comes to advertising.
They have long been a part of promoting beaches that are “barefoot” friendly and free of litter, and along with sponsoring the “One Beach” video about keeping our beaches trash-free, as well as their 2011 Beach Rescue Project, they have opted for a nontraditional ad: a 14×10 foot outdoor poster created entirely of 18,000 pieces of beach trash and mounted in the busy, touristy city of Venice Beach, California.
From their many beach rescue events, to their extensive promotion of doing your part, and their partnerships with Surfrider Foundation, they have found their niche in the world of social responsibility and are definitely trying to get people thinking about the effects of their actions.
As you can see, the outdoor advertisement stands out from any other ordinary poster or billboard and truly sets the agenda that littering, especially along our coastline, is not okay. Barefoot Wine realizes something needs to be done about this issue in order to turn the problem around and promote cleaner beach environments that are safer for wildlife and tourists alike.
The outdoor advertisement, which promotes their movie while also promoting their brand, influences individuals in a creative way by showing them just how dirty some of our nation’s beaches are. Barefoot Wine’s ad was created to draw people to the ad and capture attention, creating buzz about the topic along the way.
Although the advertisement definitely looks cool, most people who stumble upon this ad while at the beach will have a relatively low level of motivation to process its message. However, the fact that the ad stands apart from other traditional outdoor billboards and posters, takes the peripheral route when it comes to processing information. Consumers form positive attitudes about the advertisement’s message once they realize what the ad is made out of and true intent of the ad’s meaning. Those who are motivated enough by the ad’s message will actually take it a step further and watch the complete 30 minute “One Beach” video on YouTube, which details the extent of the issue.
It is pretty rare to see shock advertising done in a way that actually gets people thinking about a socially responsible topic, such as recycling and reducing waste, but the local California company definitely created an ad that is getting people talking. After commenting on Barefoot Wine’s facebook page, they even sent me a message with more information on the stories behind their One Beach film and campaign, which feature even more amazing details about the people in the video and the steps they are taking towards helping our environment and beaches than I had originally thought.
All in all, the interesting and socially responsible ad by Barefoot Wine really does a great job at persuading consumers of the need for a solution to this problem. Although they are indirectly promoting their wine brand, they are creating buzz about a topic that many people do care about, leading to positive emotions and feelings about the brand in the end. The fact that they truly do care about this initiative is very evident when looking not only at their advertisements, but also at their website and social media pages. The hope is that people passing this particular ad, while walking down the boardwalk, will form a positive attitude towards the brand’s message and advertisement, eventually increasing their liking towards the company as a whole.
Barefoot Wine: Beach Rescue Project
Barefoot Wine Dive Deeper: Stories Behind One Beach
Miracle on 34th Street
Posted by: | CommentsWalk into any major department store or any retailer for that matter, a consumer will know that the holiday season is approaching, specifically Christmas. There might be a small section dedicated to those who are still intending on celebrating Thanksgiving, but all in all, Christmas music, trees, lights, ribbons, garlands, and snowmen abound in many stores.
Macy’s is one such retailer that has been specifically tied to the holiday season through its long-standing name in the retail business, movies (namely Miracle on 34th Street), and the classic Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade. To reflect their years of bringing the holiday spirit, two years ago, Macy’s Department store advertised their brand through nostalgic marketing. Footage in the commercial showed clips from the late 1800s, the parade, movies that have used their name, and reality TV shows. The end of the commercial states, “Only one store has been part of your life for 150 years. That’s the Magic of Macy’s. This commercial works so well, because Macy’s has successfully branded their name by allowing people to remember a particular association with the store. It even allows for consumers to reinterpret their own memories of when they first saw or heard the original referenced clips. Even if a consumer was not there to walk into Macy’s in the late 1800s, they may remember a memory of watching the parade or watching a holiday classic such as Miracle on 34th street. This ad does appeal to consumers who have high MAO, because it allows the consumer to create a persona and image of what this brand represents and has done over the past 150 years. It allows the viewer to be part of the experience and to create a prototype of the Macy’s brand.
In terms of social responsibility, especially around the holiday seasons, in the past few years, Macy’s created a campaign called “Believe” and paired their name with Make-A-Wish. In every Macy’s department store, there was a mail box for Santa, and for each letter that was mailed, one dollar was given to the Make-A-Wish foundation. Essentially, the company would give up to $,1,000,000 to the foundation. There were a couple of commercials that were produced borrowing from the story, Yes, Virginia There is a Santa Claus.
2009
2010
The campaign was effective, because it reached the $1 million goal of giving to Make-A-Wish. This campaign not only captures a positive aspect of the season through giving, especially if child knows that by mailing their letter to Santa through Macy’s mailbox, they are helping other children, but it also gives a positive message to believing. The store is also promoting the idea that it is okay to believe and to be a kid.
Macy’s department store is placed in a positive light because it looks like a store that believes in the spirit of the season, even if they (the department store) are in the business of making money. The “Believe” campaign is currently underway and can be followed through the Macy’s Believe website.
It will be interesting to see how other companies will compete and roll out good tidings to all in this holiday season.
Controversy Over Proposed Food Marketing Guidelines
Posted by: | Comments
Ad Week recently reported that in response to pressure the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children is considering making changes to their proposed voluntary guidelines for food marketers targeting children. The controversy over the regulation is indicative of our increasing concern as a society over both childhood obesity and the effect advertising might have on that problem. In a nutshell, the plan proposed that marketers either change the formulation of certain products aimed at children to make the foods more healthy or cease marketing those products to children. While the proposal has a number of Senate Democrat supporters, it has generated strong criticism for being too heavy-handed (despite being completely voluntary) from both the advertising industry and GOP congressmen. While the goal of reducing childhood obesity is laudable, those in favor of increased regulation of advertising need to realize that, in this case, regulation of advertising may not achieve the desired effect.
At first glance it may seem like regulation is the way to go. While children aren’t making most of the final purchase decisions, they do play a strong role in influencing their parents’ decisions which is part of the rationale for marketing to children. Yet because children aren’t fully developed mentally, they may be more prone to impulsive behavior and less capable of making rational decisions, making them more likely to be misled by advertising. As childhood obesity is now widely recognized as a major social problem it therefore might seem like a no-brainer to push the kind of regulation the Interagency Working Group is proposing.
However in this case regulating marketing efforts may not be the best way to go about achieving the ultimate goal of promoting healthy eating during childhood. Faced with the prospect of the stick rather than the carrot, advertisers may simply find ways around the regulation while technically remaining in compliance. In fact this might already be happening to some extent. An earlier piece by Ad Week mentions a report by the Rudd Center noting that while advertisements for junk-food aimed at children are down, children’s exposure to junk-food product placement is up.
For their part, advertisers need to realize that concern over childhood obesity and worries that marketing efforts are exacerbating the problem aren’t going away. Rather than continually taking defensive action against this kind of regulation they need to consider the benefits of developing and advertising healthy products that kids actually like. Easier said than done, but considering the influence children have on family purchases how much easier would it be to increase sales if the foods they wanted didn’t cause parents concern?
Ad Week: Feds May Soften Controversial Food Marketing Guidelines
Ad Week: Study: Industry’s Found Sneaky Way to Keep Advertising Junk Food to Kids
Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children’s Guidelines
Imagination…Ecomagination at Work
Posted by: | CommentsDid you know that by submitting one photo that had water in it to GE’s ecoimagination website last year provided 480 gallons of clean drinking water to developing countries? By posting a wind photo, 4.5 KW hours of wind powered health clinics in rural Peru and by uploading a photo of light, 175 hours of solar power were given to families in East Timor. Through GE’s ecomagination website, GE encouraged a joint collaboration with Flickr members to take photos of these elements and “Tag Your Green” allowing for that one simple uploading of a photo affect lives across the globe. The campaign was very successful and GE achieved their goal of 10,000 photos for each nature element thus changing countless lives.
Since global warming and energy crisis have become buzzwords in the media, companies such as General Electric have decided to turn the negative connotations of the words to a call of action utilizing social media. Within doing this, they have created a branding moment that demonstrates their understanding for environmental concerns and how their brand in turn can contribute to a “greener” Earth by involving consumers. On the photoproject website, GE gives tribute to Social Vibe http://www.socialvibe.com/an engagement-marketing website whose belief is the brand should be in the hands of consumers. On SocialVibe’s website, the company portrays a large global cause platform that is meant to be indispensible to consumers. By pairing social media to contributing to the greater good, SocialVibe and General Electric have positioned the role of social media to become an agent of change.
Consumers are not only becoming the agents of change, but theopportunity to affect change is in their (the consumers) hands.
GE’s tagline is “Imagination at Work” and it is evident that their imagination is cognizant of the need to be relevant to the younger generation and the countless number of people who interact with social media daily. As evident of the 2010 campaign, they successfully completed their goal. By being aware of the use of social media in promoting a cause, the company is not only enacting change, but also linking their name to good works. General Electric does have quite an advantage for promoting a greener earth, but other companies could also join the cause of utilizing social media and sites such as Social Vibe to jumpstart change in the world. If by taking a picture of water, posting it on Flickr, and then GE’s website and that one photo changed the life of someone else in the world, think about what would happen if more companies joined in to this concept of taking social media to a whole other level. Imagination at Work.
Imagination at Work commercial: http://www.youtube.com/embed/CsW1JE4Hg14?rel=0
September 11: A Day to Remember or a Day to Market
Posted by: | CommentsSeptember 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.
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.
BP: Taking Responsibility or Polishing Up Public Image?
Posted by: | CommentsThough it seems like a distant memory to some, the fiery demise of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig occurred only six short months ago. Within this six-month time frame, BP has experienced relentless criticism from a surfeit of media, politicians, and Americans. (See: South Park’s interpretation or President Obama’s candid reaction)
Unlike the Exxon Valdez, BP faced a media landscape that disseminated information and images in a matter of seconds for the whole world to see. And while the Deepwater Horizon oil well was successfully capped in mid-July, enduring images of 4.9 million barrels of oil blanketing beaches, wetlands, and the ocean are engrained in the minds of Americans. Who could forget the oil-soaked pelican on the cover of Time magazine? Or the outraged shrimp boat captains advocating for financial assistance on the nightly news? The BP oilpocalypse is an unshakable memory.
In an effort to reshape public perception, BP spent $93 million in corporate advertising between April 2010 to July 2010 to inform Gulf Coast residents about the recovery effort. From a YouTube channel (with 5.8 million plus views to date) to national TV commercials, BP’s expansive Make It Right campaign delivers messages about the steps BP is taking to restore and revitalize the Gulf Coast in the wake of the oil spill disaster.
Initially, the campaign featured former BP CEO Tony Hayward assuring the American public that BP was taking responsibility for the spill by responding to claims at no expense to the American tax payer. However, the campaign quickly shifted its focus after heavy criticism about the message and the disgraced CEO.
Is it any coincidence that BP’s new messaging strategy incorporated iconic images from the spill? BP’s strategy is smart – reframe public perception by allowing the public to reinterpret BP’s role in the oil spill tragedy. In the BP Make It Right Wildlife commercial, Time‘s oil-soaked pelican is oil free and released into clean waters. In the Mississippi Fishermen message, the angry fisherman is happy once again and open for business. BP enhances the reinterpretation of their role in the disaster by recirculating the same message through a variety of different advertisements and vehicles that reinforce BP’s agenda – “BP has got to make things right and that’s why we are here”.
Once the well was capped, media coverage of the spill evaporated quickly. As a result, BP uses these messaging vehicles to improve the view of the organization in the eyes of the American public and company shareholders. The Make It Right messages provide insight into how BP continues to improve lives in the Gulf Coast area long after the TV cameras and journalists return to their news desks.
Yet, are these messages necessary? Does a $93 million campaign justify the means?
Some may argue that BP should be syphoning advertising dollars into the bank accounts of those impacted financially by the spill. And though this is a valid argument, BP must generate revenue in order to pay the hefty price of their transgressions. The mismanagement of the crisis in the early months of the spill is indefensible, yet the steps BP is currently taking to “right their wrongs” should be commended. If deemed a success, BP is faced with a unique opportunity to parlay this initiative into a model to follow for future crisis communication advertising.
Though the line is thin, BP has to take responsibility for the spill in order to polish their public image because the implications of this campaign are crucial to BP’s future success. After all, memories are powerful predictors of future behaviors.
What’s better, Pepsi or Coke?
Posted by: | CommentsA Coca Cola truck driver, who cannot resist the Pepsi Max for its taste, has been recorded by the Pepsi truck driver. And then the video has been sent to YouTube immediately.
Does this story sound familiar? Yes, it is a remake of the 1995 Pepsi commercial – only tiny changes in product and characters, as well as the contemporary social media – YouTube.
Truly, this commercial is undoubtedly a direct comparative message which emphasizes the “better taste” of Pepsi Max than Coke Zero. There are several scenes conveying this idea: 1) the Coke truck driver asked for confirmation: zero calories? It seems that he cannot believe that this product is zero calories – it doesn’t taste like that. What’s the implication? Usually people have the impression that something good for your health (i.e. zero calories) tastes bad. If you cannot decide whether this implies a better flavor, there are other two scenes. 2) The Coke trucker drinks a lot more. 3) The serving people’s conversation “maybe he likes this”. Why the trucker’s behavior can lead you to believe that Pepsi Max has a better flavor? First, you will never drink like that when it tastes bad. Second, remember he is working for Coca Cola. One of the assumption could be that he knew how the Coca Cola tastes. The taste of Pepsi Max seems to be so good that he cannot believe it is zero calories, and he forgets his employer, which is very important for him – or he may get fired.
In the book, it says that comparative advertising, especially the direct ones may remind the consumer of the named competitor, and may contribute to positive association to the competitor or heighten competitors’ awareness. However, the case here is that everybody knows Pepsi and Coke: whenever talking about soft drinks or cola, these two brands will be the first come to mind. Further, is this information less incredible because of being showed in a comparative way? Probably not. It seems widely acknowledged in the U.S. that Pepsi and Coke taste differently. So the problem for this commercial is whether it successfully conveys the idea that Pepsi Max’s flavor is purportedly MUCH better than that of Coke Zero. That is to say, no matter what is the attitude of the consumer (before or after watching the ads), as long as the audience realize “Pepsi Max has a good flavor even it is zero calories,” or “Pepsi Max tastes differently from Coke Zero,” this ads achieves its goal: differentiation.
Throughout the 1 minute commercial, there are a lot of things repeatedly tell you the idea “Zero Calories, Max Pepsi Taste”. Thus for a consumer who likes to devote much effort to processing marketing information in an elaborative and laborative way, this ads seems effective. And it usually help the consumers form a positive attitude towards Pepsi Max. Maybe next time if he/she want to have some soft drinks of zero calories, he will try Pepsi Max because he/she wants to feel better (good taste implies a good feeling).
Nevertheless, this comparison has risks. Taste is a subjective issue, so it depends on the personal preference. For consumers who like the taste, the ads will intensify their positive attitude; while for the ones who prefer Coke’s flavor, they may consider this ads incredible and might generate counterarguments toward Pepsi, toward the brand rather than the product itself.
However, is it possible for us to analyze the ads in a different perspective rather than a cognitive-based, high-effort route to persuasion? What if view it as a low-effort route?
In a cognitive perspective, this commercial repeatedly tells its audience two simple arguments: zero calories and better taste. And one of the unconscious influence theories or techniques it applies is Thin-Slice Judgment: the Coke trucker drinks Pepsi Max in a way that we will interpret as liking and then generate an association of good flavor. Also, how about the characters in the ads, the truckers that represent two brand? It seems that the trucker for Pepsi (the source) is more likable, or attractive. He is much younger, more handsome, sensitive and technique savvy (iphone, and YouTube) – is that consistent with the schema or associations Pepsi has tried to build from their first launch in the market? Pepsi is for youth, right? And perhaps it could be one of the reasons that Pepsi decided to remake the commercial by using a same plot.
This commercial chooses appropriate music, moderate level of humor, and evokes familiarity, and maybe a good mood – that’s mainly effective for the consumer who processes the message emotionally on low-effort base.
From the discussion above, we would learn that ads can synthesize techniques and theories to influence audience’s attitude in several different ways, and increase the likelihood of raising positive attitude as a whole. For example, processing in emotional way requires the participation of cognition, while in turn elements evoking good mood or pleasant feelings make consumers more willing to devote effort to processing. And it does not necessarily mean complexity to them. This commercial is a good example.
What about ethical issues? Often, for a comparative ads, it is easier to be accused for misleading or untruthful message because their competitor will scrutinize it. But there is no material claim here, taste is subjective and no way to test the BETTER flavor. And Pepsi is very smart that there is no direct expression of BETTER – it is a comparison, but you cannot find any comparison LITERALLY. Well, at first glance there seems to be nothing unethical.
But, can you remember that the Pepsi trucker records the Coke trucker and send the video to YouTube without permission? It is one of the interesting points in the commercial, where debates arise. Is it right for him to do this while the Coke trucker may get fired and be accused by his surroundings even the public? And is it legal to record or photograph others and then distribute the photos or video (usually it will exert negative influence on the person’s life) without permission? Is it a violation to privacy? Maybe Pepsi just want to link the old plot to contemporary context. And it seems nothing wrong to do this because everybody does so in daily life. The majority of people won’t realize this – we take it for granted. Who is to blame? Pepsi, the advertiser? Maybe not. Actually, it just honestly reflected a social issue. Thus, it should be our responsibility, to think more.
Anyway, I should admit that I have held a positive attitude toward Pepsi. All of my opinions here are more or less affected by this attitude. And this commercial did enhance my attitude.
But you, my friends, what’s your choice, Pepsi Max or Coke Zero?
“Don’t be a Sue” – Members Project from American Express
Posted by: | CommentsDo you record your TV’s shows and fast forward through commercials? Or scan through the other channels to avoid advertisements while you anxiously wait for your show to come back on? With recent technology, it is becoming easier and easier for people to avoid advertisements, specifically commercials. This raises a great concern for advertisers because they now have to develop other ways to reach their audience in order to grasp their attention and maintain the exposure to the public that they once had. As we all know, our attention is limited. While watching TV, you can also be talking to friend, on the Internet, eating food, etc. To have a successful commercial, the advertiser need to figure out a way to gain the viewers undivided attention and distract them from other tasks such as talking or browsing the Internet. The standard 30 second advertisement during a commercial break is definitely not as effective as it used to be.
Knowing this information, American Express has taken it upon themselves to create a new form of advertising which is both effective and grasps consumer attention. Members Project from American Express partnered with FOX’s popular hit TV show Glee on a brand new type of campaign. Members Project is a program devoted to making a difference through volunteering, voting, or donating to charity. The program strives to gain people to volunteer and donate to a variety of charities, organizations, etc. in order to make our world a better place. To advertise the program, American Express decided to work with the inspirational characters on Glee in order to inspire viewers, gain attention, and educate the audience on the Members Project.
Together, FOX and American Express have created a new type of commercial which incorporates the characters of the TV show Glee as they speak about Members Project. The main voice in the commercials is actress Jane Lynch, who plays Sue Sylvester on Glee. The unique part of the commercials is that Jane Lynch is not standing as a spokesperson for the Members Project, but rather her character of Sue is the lead voice of the advertisement. This creates an interesting way to communicate a message because it adds an element of surprise, which in turn draws consumer attention.
When first viewing the commercials, the viewer anticipates hearing the perspective of Jane Lynch. However, the viewer soon realizes that she is portraying her character of Sue in the commercial. For those of you unfamiliar with Glee, the character of Sue Sylvester has an “I hate everyone” attitude which is depicted in a comedic sense on the show. The commercials feature the characters of Glee doing a variety of charity work such as collecting old books and instruments to donate to other organizations. Following, Sue comes into the picture and questions why they are donating to charity. The characters of Glee are used to inspire people to take action. The clear conflict between Sue and the students is used to spark attention and interest. Would you rather be involved and donate to charity? Or be like Sue?
The new campaign educated Glee viewers on what the Members Project is and how they can get involved. By using Glee characters, the audience will be inspired because they can easily relate to the characters and see how they can take action as well. These commercials are targeted directly towards the Glee fan base. By incorporating characters of the show into the advertisements viewers can easily understand and relate to the advertised product. This new form of product placement has had an extremely positive reaction from viewers and has gained a lot of attention in the media. The shows fan base has commented on the new ads through the Internet and Facebook and the response has been nothing but positive.
The commercials have many positive features which are reflected by its success. For one, this is a new kind of product placement which incorporates the characters from the show. This concept in and of itself is new and unique to the industry and adds a shock factor to the commercials which automatically gains the viewers’ attention. FOX and American Express have blurred the lines between product placement, entertainment, and commercials. The ads are also socially responsible in that they are promoting community service and doing good deeds which has been highly praised by viewers. Overall, this will most likely lead as an example for other advertisers in the industry to incorporate characters from shows directly into their ads in order to grasp consumer attention. Do you think this new concept of product placement will be incorporated by other TV shows in the future? So far, with the success of the Glee Members Project…I would think so!
Socially Responsible Social Media?
Posted by: | CommentsSocial media is truly the wild, wild, west of the advertising industry.
This is especially true when deciding how to regulate information as it is disseminated throughout social media channels. The regulatory bodies are struggling to police an overwhelming amount of new content (the internet) while staying current by creating and enforcing applicable regulations.
One example of regulation in the new medium comes from the Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications. The FDA was able to find and reprimand a pharmaceutical company based on its use of social media.
The company, Novartis, was providing information through a Facebook sharing widget on the company’s US consumer website. The widget is simply a clickable button (Pictured below) that will allow consumers to share the Novartis generated content with everyone in their Facebook and Twitter networks.
The content would be shared without the normal regulations placed on pharmaceutical companies such as conveying risks, directing them to more information or possible side effects.
In a letter sent to Novartis, the FDA stated that the shared content is deceptive because it “makes representations about the efficacy of Tasigna but fails to communicate ANY risk information associated with the use of this drug”. Tasigna is a drug that treats chronic myloid leukemia and the FDA realized that the risk to consumers was substantial.In this case, the FDA was fortunate to catch the unintentional deceptive practices but the era of relying on regulators to help weed-out misleading messages is over.
Social media has many murky areas for advertisers, including marketing of alcohol. In the past, manufacturers have required everyone to enter their birth date when entering their private website while Facebook and Twitter don’t require a minimum age to access content. The general rule in television advertising is that the general audience for the ad should not have more than 30% of the audience under 21. With social media, curious consumers of any age can access pictures of adults at various stages of intoxication, read comments advocating the use of alcohol, see promotions, and play games directly on the libation manufacturer’s page.
The Federal Trade Commission and consumer watchdog groups are doing their best to monitor alcohol-related content, but are having little success because of the overwhelming number of outlets.
So where does the responsibility fall?
The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the institution of advertising, now more than ever. Advertisers and other message builders must step-up and take responsibility to police their own actions and realize the impact that the institution has on society. Not only does the institution of Advertising reflect societal and cultural beliefs, it also models ‘rules’ of behavior. If agencies continue to use misleading practices and model negative behavior they could change the normative values of society.
These ideas are especially important when addressing the issue of social media because the enormous volume of messages shared daily can never be monitored comprehensively. So with the shift of power from the few traditional gatekeepers to the general public, the institution of advertising must mirror this move and take on more responsibility.
In the fast evolving and quickly changing landscape of social media, the responsibility must shift toward individual agencies to produce work that is beyond the obligation to the client by serving the good of society.
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.
