7 ms·

Sex doesn’t sell any more, activism does. And don’t the big brands know it

45 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

phozy1 10y ago
I'm kinda lost. This seems like a good thing? We can move forward, past weird times sex based marketing, and go towards an intellectual discussion of a subject.
- denizen_kane 10y ago
  This makes any non-branded, non-funded activism effort more difficult. If your actions are drowned out by crowds of hash-tagged brand-led marketing campaigns, it becomes much harder to actually gripe about real issues and expect anyone to hear you. Imagine Nike selling black hoodies for a "#Ferguson" campaign, or other such hypothetical scenarios.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Since you mention Ferguson, brands can themselves be activism, like FUBU.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I'm kinda lost. This seems like a good thing? We can move forward, past weird times sex based marketing, and go towards an intellectual discussion of a subject Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia. And only a puritan society would find it bad. Activism on the other hand can be a blunt instrument, which can also be totally bad. It's also usually a sign of a society in fight with itself. So it's kind of a mixed bag in itself (it's not just Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk, or the noble kind of activists. Any kind of loony can fathom themselves an activist. It can also be used as a cover for political intervention in some countries, exploited by politicians, and various other things). Now, when brands are coming in, and big corps and big money, it's ever worse: it's activism with a profit motive. Or faux-activist messages that pander to the sentiment du jour. When brands get into politics and everyday life, everybody suffers. It's not like when you do it for profit you stop at the "good activism". If something oppressive is fashionable with their target demographic, they will just as well promote messages in its favor.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    > Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia. And only a puritan society would find it bad. One can enjoy a healthy sex life and unrestricted informations about it, without having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen. But I agree with you : commercial activism will probably end up in the same place... Maybe the problem is not the subject, but the existence of big interests willing to do anything to be associated with it.
    - nailer 10y ago
      > having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen. In what country does this happen?
      - woodruffw 10y ago
        Speaking as someone who rode the NYC subway throughout their childhood and adolescence: After advertisements for local colleges, the second most common Subway and MTA bus advertisements are for breast augmentation and men's/women's lingerie. I don't particularly have a problem with these sort of ads, but their ubiquity belies phozy1's point. It's also worth noting that arguments akin to "sex happens in nature, therefore sex is good" are both appeals to nature and not particularly strong justifications for sexualization in advertising. It's possible to have a sexually open society (i.e., not a puritanical one) without plastering our public transport with glamorizations of surgery or $300 lingerie.
        nailer 10y ago
        I doubt NY would let underwear ads including genitals on the subway. (Breasts obviously aren't genitals, I'm not sure why they're being mentioned)
        woodruffw 10y ago
        It would behoove you to read more charitably. Neither I nor the GGP mean naked people; I don't think most large companies even consider placing ads with nudity in them in most public places.
- fullshark 10y ago
  I'd rather have sex in my commercials than virtue-signaling.
  - jetru 10y ago
    Let's be fair, it's not really virtue-signalling. They DID do something. Virtue-signalling is when no action was taken or no effort was applied. If they had proclaimed or denounced or simply made ad campaigns, that would be virtue-signalling.
  - ionised 10y ago
    I'd rather have people stop using the term 'virtue-signalling'
    - thescribe 10y ago
      I'd rather have people stop virtue-signaling.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  It's not really moving on, it's just showing how different things are being used to manipulate us. Like the one example they give about the same company running ads to "accept your body" at the same time running other ads "your body must be perfect." Ads are ads.
- josefx 10y ago
  > and go towards an intellectual discussion of a subject. The article does not mention intellectual discussion even once. What it mentions are things like trending on twitter and instant (over) reactions to any form of perceived good/evil. We are moving towards marketing that seeks to maximise gain in goodwill for minimal financial effort.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  intellectual discussion doesn't really come into it. Brand activism just seems to encourage taking black-and-white stances on every issue, a problem that seems endemic to current politics. Very few issues are as clear-cut as they are presented by activists on either side.
tnmrnis 10y ago
All they do is virtue signalling. And my guess is that this won't last very long. Politics are volatile and companies don't advertise to have a positive impact but to sell stuff. Besides that, there is also a big chance of actually swaying people away from buying the advertized product after it became politized. Ben and Jerry's is a prime example of this. They support Black Lives Matter in the US and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation in Germany. About the first I don't care that much but the latter makes me really angry. The Amadeu Antonio Foundation has a clear political agenda, is lead by a former StaSi-Member and was chosen to create the anti-hatespeech guidelines for Facebook in Germany (done by a member of the party Die Linke, the "feminist-socialist" party). As long as they support such organizations I will not buy any B&J Icecream.
- woodruffw 10y ago
  Please don't use "virtue-signaling" to mean "I don't agree with it." Virtue-signaling (as far as I can tell) refers to being all talk and no action, while public support in the form of advertisements and donations to non-profits is definitely a form of action. Whether or not that action is good or not (I think it is, under the same qualifications that make philanthropy good) can be subject to rigorous debate, but slapping the "virtue-signaling" label on it without acknowledging the state of affairs is a form of virtue-signaling with respect to others who share your political proclivities. Edit: I don't know anything about the Amadeu Antonio Foundation or a whole lot about German politics as a whole. I could be wrong here but I'd imagine that there are a lot of former StaSi in German politics, in the same way that there were a lot of ex-Nazi-party members in power in Western Germany. That's not to minimize either, but to observe a general flaw in Democratic transitions - you can only sample your leaders from a qualified subset of the population, and that subset was just as qualified under autocracy as it is under democracy.
  - tnmrnis 10y ago
    I would define virtue-signalling rather by the intention of what they do. They don't support those organizations out of an intrinsic motivation but to sell stuff to their followers. The intention is not to do good but to appear as an organization that does good. While I don't have any proof for this being their motivation, choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support.
douche 10y ago
Somebody needs to tell Hardee's and Carl Jr... Also, maybe don't spam your ads in the Boston metro area, when the nearest franchise is like 1000 miles away.
alivingspirit 10y ago
I don't see the problem here. The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics comes to mind. https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
helthanatos 10y ago
I don't like sex selling nor do I like activism selling. If companies would stop trying to manipulate government, it would be much easier to purchase from them without feeling guilty. There is a problem of government involvement with business and it must stop. No special favors and no outrageous requirements for businesses. Activism is one of the quickest ways for me to dislike a company. Donate money to charity, donate it to random organizations I don't care. Don't act like you're doing it from the good of your heart, though.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

45 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

I'm kinda lost. This seems like a good thing? We can move forward, past weird times sex based marketing, and go towards an intellectual discussion of a subject.

denizen_kane 10y ago
This makes any non-branded, non-funded activism effort more difficult. If your actions are drowned out by crowds of hash-tagged brand-led marketing campaigns, it becomes much harder to actually gripe about real issues and expect anyone to hear you. Imagine Nike selling black hoodies for a "#Ferguson" campaign, or other such hypothetical scenarios.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Since you mention Ferguson, brands can themselves be activism, like FUBU.
coldtea 10y ago
>I'm kinda lost. This seems like a good thing? We can move forward, past weird times sex based marketing, and go towards an intellectual discussion of a subject Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia. And only a puritan society would find it bad. Activism on the other hand can be a blunt instrument, which can also be totally bad. It's also usually a sign of a society in fight with itself. So it's kind of a mixed bag in itself (it's not just Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk, or the noble kind of activists. Any kind of loony can fathom themselves an activist. It can also be used as a cover for political intervention in some countries, exploited by politicians, and various other things). Now, when brands are coming in, and big corps and big money, it's ever worse: it's activism with a profit motive. Or faux-activist messages that pander to the sentiment du jour. When brands get into politics and everyday life, everybody suffers. It's not like when you do it for profit you stop at the "good activism". If something oppressive is fashionable with their target demographic, they will just as well promote messages in its favor.
- pyrale 10y ago
  > Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia. And only a puritan society would find it bad. One can enjoy a healthy sex life and unrestricted informations about it, without having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen. But I agree with you : commercial activism will probably end up in the same place... Maybe the problem is not the subject, but the existence of big interests willing to do anything to be associated with it.
  - nailer 10y ago
    > having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen. In what country does this happen?
    - woodruffw 10y ago
      Speaking as someone who rode the NYC subway throughout their childhood and adolescence: After advertisements for local colleges, the second most common Subway and MTA bus advertisements are for breast augmentation and men's/women's lingerie. I don't particularly have a problem with these sort of ads, but their ubiquity belies phozy1's point. It's also worth noting that arguments akin to "sex happens in nature, therefore sex is good" are both appeals to nature and not particularly strong justifications for sexualization in advertising. It's possible to have a sexually open society (i.e., not a puritanical one) without plastering our public transport with glamorizations of surgery or $300 lingerie.
      - nailer 10y ago
        I doubt NY would let underwear ads including genitals on the subway. (Breasts obviously aren't genitals, I'm not sure why they're being mentioned)
        woodruffw 10y ago
        It would behoove you to read more charitably. Neither I nor the GGP mean naked people; I don't think most large companies even consider placing ads with nudity in them in most public places.
fullshark 10y ago
I'd rather have sex in my commercials than virtue-signaling.
- jetru 10y ago
  Let's be fair, it's not really virtue-signalling. They DID do something. Virtue-signalling is when no action was taken or no effort was applied. If they had proclaimed or denounced or simply made ad campaigns, that would be virtue-signalling.
- ionised 10y ago
  I'd rather have people stop using the term 'virtue-signalling'
  - thescribe 10y ago
    I'd rather have people stop virtue-signaling.
ktRolster 10y ago
It's not really moving on, it's just showing how different things are being used to manipulate us. Like the one example they give about the same company running ads to "accept your body" at the same time running other ads "your body must be perfect." Ads are ads.
josefx 10y ago
> and go towards an intellectual discussion of a subject. The article does not mention intellectual discussion even once. What it mentions are things like trending on twitter and instant (over) reactions to any form of perceived good/evil. We are moving towards marketing that seeks to maximise gain in goodwill for minimal financial effort.
beaconstudios 10y ago
intellectual discussion doesn't really come into it. Brand activism just seems to encourage taking black-and-white stances on every issue, a problem that seems endemic to current politics. Very few issues are as clear-cut as they are presented by activists on either side.

tnmrnis 10y ago

All they do is virtue signalling. And my guess is that this won't last very long. Politics are volatile and companies don't advertise to have a positive impact but to sell stuff. Besides that, there is also a big chance of actually swaying people away from buying the advertized product after it became politized. Ben and Jerry's is a prime example of this. They support Black Lives Matter in the US and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation in Germany. About the first I don't care that much but the latter makes me really angry. The Amadeu Antonio Foundation has a clear political agenda, is lead by a former StaSi-Member and was chosen to create the anti-hatespeech guidelines for Facebook in Germany (done by a member of the party Die Linke, the "feminist-socialist" party). As long as they support such organizations I will not buy any B&J Icecream.

woodruffw 10y ago
Please don't use "virtue-signaling" to mean "I don't agree with it." Virtue-signaling (as far as I can tell) refers to being all talk and no action, while public support in the form of advertisements and donations to non-profits is definitely a form of action. Whether or not that action is good or not (I think it is, under the same qualifications that make philanthropy good) can be subject to rigorous debate, but slapping the "virtue-signaling" label on it without acknowledging the state of affairs is a form of virtue-signaling with respect to others who share your political proclivities. Edit: I don't know anything about the Amadeu Antonio Foundation or a whole lot about German politics as a whole. I could be wrong here but I'd imagine that there are a lot of former StaSi in German politics, in the same way that there were a lot of ex-Nazi-party members in power in Western Germany. That's not to minimize either, but to observe a general flaw in Democratic transitions - you can only sample your leaders from a qualified subset of the population, and that subset was just as qualified under autocracy as it is under democracy.
- tnmrnis 10y ago
  I would define virtue-signalling rather by the intention of what they do. They don't support those organizations out of an intrinsic motivation but to sell stuff to their followers. The intention is not to do good but to appear as an organization that does good. While I don't have any proof for this being their motivation, choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support.

douche 10y ago

Somebody needs to tell Hardee's and Carl Jr... Also, maybe don't spam your ads in the Boston metro area, when the nearest franchise is like 1000 miles away.

alivingspirit 10y ago

I don't see the problem here. The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics comes to mind. https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

helthanatos 10y ago

I don't like sex selling nor do I like activism selling. If companies would stop trying to manipulate government, it would be much easier to purchase from them without feeling guilty. There is a problem of government involvement with business and it must stop. No special favors and no outrageous requirements for businesses. Activism is one of the quickest ways for me to dislike a company. Donate money to charity, donate it to random organizations I don't care. Don't act like you're doing it from the good of your heart, though.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]