"And advertisers know that trying to capture lightning twice with the same idea as the first time often fails as it waters down the "magic" that made the first so successful"
Precisely why ad agencies are dubious about handing money to a company who starts every headline with "ten things we're (fill in the verb)."
Beyond "not being effective at sales" or the "no guarantees it will go viral" arguments, is the larger fact that you are getting the exact same execution regardless of your brand. This does not make for good marketing. This does not make for anything "sticky." Hell the point of advertising is to reinforce a message.
But how many times will you revisit a Buzzfeed top ten list? Answer: You won't. So even if you did the job of sharing it doesn't mean you will have any retention of what you just shared.
Conservatives may have tapped in to it, but unless you utilize the message properly it doesn't matter. Hey, remember when we in America were told Vote As If Your Life Depends On It? Yup. Don't forget, advertising works in exactly the same way as propaganda because they are cut from the same cloth. The more times you see a message, the more its reinforced.
I want to say this first in case this becomes a tl;dr post: Make no mistake, I love your idealism. I love the drive and the belief to try and change corporate society. I just don't buy in to it.
Not all brands are neutral, obviously. But we have enough lobbyists on K street already and I do not want more than is already there. Indeed, I want less.
I can understand if brands with a specific cultural tie want to take a stand in certain cases. And in certain cases it would make sense. If Newman's Own or Tom's take a stand, it's because it was built into their brand DNA. To try and attaching societal, moral or political DNA to brands that don't have it already ingrained, or to culturally innocuous brands is either ludicrous or faulty.
Coke says it's for polar bears and we jump down their throat because of greenwashing and destroying the environment.
Every October, bands swathe themselves in pink and people call bullshit on it, because what does Vavoline have to do with breast cancer.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Here's something else: As you said, advertising spreads culturally invasive messages. Very true. The majority of which attempt to persuade people to buy by promising us things that cant be delivered at best, or are outright lies at worst. So knowing a brand communication is built on shaky ground already, why on earth would i believe their ethical political or social stance?
Besides, any brand can do this just to look good. Greenwashing and cultural philanthropy are pejoratives that have entered our lexicon for this very reason. It's easy enough for a brand to call itself "All natural," when they're not. This only leads to feel-good fakery. So what does it prove?
The point is, if we are mistrustful of brand advertising so much so that Adbusters makes a living calling brands out, then why should we believe a brand when it takes a social stand/ How much does it really mean if a brand holds up a solidarity first? I truly think you are attaching way too much hope and good faith to corporate society in general.
And I also see the flaws to it, too. Take the video game brand perpetuating violence in society being used to celebrate marriage equality on the blog. That's one hell of a mixed message to send, which is why I am dubious at best.
There is currently 1 user online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
