4 ms·
Can you imagine a marketing company ever approving a label like that? And it's so distinct, effective, and memorable.
by Judgmentality 6y ago
Can you imagine a marketing company ever approving a label like that? And it's so distinct, effective, and memorable.
- inakarmacoma 6y agoWell, memorable might be a bit debatable. It would make one impressive slam poetry performance to memorize. Distinctive, though, for sure.
- sharkweek 6y agoIt's such beautiful organic (* rimshot *) branding
- TylerE 6y agoI can actually. There was a whole fad of anti-marketing marketing for a while. Burt's Bees pushed that hard for a long time (and they are actually VERY corporate...there is a docu basically all about how the actual Burt got screwed in the whole deal)
- greesil 6y agoHow did the bees fare?
- colineartheta 6y agoVery corporate? Because they want to...make money, like companies are supposed to? Burt sold his rights to the product, including the usage of his name. As the documentary details, the fact that the company elected to basically keep him around out of good-will (is that how they screwed him?) doesn’t serve your point at all.
- dr_dshiv 6y agoMaking money is always just one of many motivations for company founders, company operators and company employees. Reducing the purpose of a company to a single motivation is unhealthy for all involved.
- colineartheta 6y agoPerhaps you didn’t read my comment: Burt’s Bees, the company, kept Burt around even when they didn’t have to. The OP argued that it was about the single motivation of money, and I offered up the evidence that it clearly wasn’t all about money, considering they then employed and recognized Burt for his contribution to the product. You’re rebuttal is against the wrong person.