4 ms·

And yet this went up. I understand it’s easy to just say “marketing teams don’t understand anything,“ but I have worked with many and they are incredibly sensit

And yet this went up. I understand it’s easy to just say “marketing teams don’t understand anything,“ but I have worked with many and they are incredibly sensitive to negative feelings/reactions. They get it wrong but they tend to air on the side of caution which means the vast majority of the time they avoid situations like this incredibly intentionally.

tw04 9mo ago
> I have worked with many and they are incredibly sensitive to negative feelings/reactions. And yet there are countless examples that show the exact opposite. This made it through one of the largest marketing budgets in the world… https://youtu.be/uwvAgDCOdU4 https://youtu.be/uwvAgDCOdU4
- Forgeties79 9mo ago
  All of y'all keep saying variations of this yet the whole point is it’s the exception to the rule. The vast majority of ads aren’t controversial. That’s why it’s such a big deal when one is. It’s newsworthy and everyone has an opinion on that one ad.
  - tw04 9mo ago
    The claim wasn’t ads not being controversial… the claim was that the marketers intentionally made an ad that would outrage consumers and incite them to not only not buy the product, but actively abandon already purchased product. The justification was marketers at large corporations don’t mess up and that’s both ridiculous and provably false.
Intermernet 9mo ago
>they tend to air on the side of caution Completely off topic, and for future reference, it's "err" not "air". Completely fine mistake, stupid homophones and all. Just thought you'd like to know. Also, these things happen to me all the time if I use voice dictation. I don't trust it because of edge cases like this.
- Forgeties79 9mo ago
  Voice to text, should’ve proofread better
  - Intermernet 9mo ago
    Probably, but I didn't dictate that comment.
    - Forgeties79 9mo ago
      No I meant on my end, sorry wasn’t trying to be rude to you. “I used voice to text and I should I’ve proofread it better” is what I was saying.
      - thrownthatway 9mo ago
        It’s proof reading all the way drown.
        defrost 9mo ago
        I sea.
      - Intermernet 8mo ago
        Dammit, we got stuck in recursive ambiguity land :-)
staticassertion 9mo ago
Marketing teams are constantly out of touch with the message they want to convey vs the message that gets conveyed. The creative team is usually not even talking to the other teams that would drive decisions like this - they almost exclusively are an isolated team (purposefully, like how engineers are often isolated from customers) that talks to a separate marketing team that then manages things like legal/compliance, which then bubbles up to other orgs etc. The people creating ads are just organizationally isolated in most cases.
- Forgeties79 9mo ago
  I worked in that world for a solid decade as a “creative” (video production) and when it comes to the big dogs, that is absolutely not true. They are incredibly top down and have to review everything. We have to pitch our ideas even when we’re in the door. They have strict brand bibles we have to adhere to. Ones that gave us free rein were the exception, not the rule. Sometimes it was for no other reason than a bunch of people in house felt they needed to justify their existence, but regardless that’s how it was 90% of the time.
  - staticassertion 9mo ago
    I feel like what you're saying is compatible. I'm not suggesting that things aren't top down or that you wouldn't have brand guidelines, that's actually exactly what I'm suggesting. I just mean that there is organizational isolation between creative teams and other teams, just as there is organizational isolation between engineering and other teams. So it is unsurprising to me that a creative team might have been given brand guidelines and a goal, like "hey we want to sell this, we want people happy with this" (much more concretely, obviously) and that could lead to this sort of ad, and I think that's probably more plausible than the team going "we're going to psyop everyone into surveillance statehood".
  - esafak 9mo ago
    Are any of these brand bibles public?
    - 9mo ago
throwawayqqq11 9mo ago
> on the side of caution which means the vast majority of the time they avoid situations like this They'll avoid negative perception because this is their job, the message is still arbitrary.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> they get it wrong but they tend to air on the side of caution Then this guy [1] walks into the room and says no, be bold, who could possibly object to my life's work, and he gets his way because he's signing the cheque. [1] https://x.com/pavandavuluri/status/1987942909635854336 https://x.com/pavandavuluri/status/1987942909635854336

tw04 9mo ago

> I have worked with many and they are incredibly sensitive to negative feelings/reactions. And yet there are countless examples that show the exact opposite. This made it through one of the largest marketing budgets in the world… https://youtu.be/uwvAgDCOdU4 https://youtu.be/uwvAgDCOdU4

Forgeties79 9mo ago
All of y'all keep saying variations of this yet the whole point is it’s the exception to the rule. The vast majority of ads aren’t controversial. That’s why it’s such a big deal when one is. It’s newsworthy and everyone has an opinion on that one ad.
- tw04 9mo ago
  The claim wasn’t ads not being controversial… the claim was that the marketers intentionally made an ad that would outrage consumers and incite them to not only not buy the product, but actively abandon already purchased product. The justification was marketers at large corporations don’t mess up and that’s both ridiculous and provably false.

Intermernet 9mo ago

>they tend to air on the side of caution Completely off topic, and for future reference, it's "err" not "air". Completely fine mistake, stupid homophones and all. Just thought you'd like to know. Also, these things happen to me all the time if I use voice dictation. I don't trust it because of edge cases like this.

Forgeties79 9mo ago
Voice to text, should’ve proofread better
- Intermernet 9mo ago
  Probably, but I didn't dictate that comment.
  - Forgeties79 9mo ago
    No I meant on my end, sorry wasn’t trying to be rude to you. “I used voice to text and I should I’ve proofread it better” is what I was saying.
    - thrownthatway 9mo ago
      It’s proof reading all the way drown.
      - defrost 9mo ago
        I sea.
    - Intermernet 8mo ago
      Dammit, we got stuck in recursive ambiguity land :-)

staticassertion 9mo ago

Marketing teams are constantly out of touch with the message they want to convey vs the message that gets conveyed. The creative team is usually not even talking to the other teams that would drive decisions like this - they almost exclusively are an isolated team (purposefully, like how engineers are often isolated from customers) that talks to a separate marketing team that then manages things like legal/compliance, which then bubbles up to other orgs etc. The people creating ads are just organizationally isolated in most cases.

Forgeties79 9mo ago
I worked in that world for a solid decade as a “creative” (video production) and when it comes to the big dogs, that is absolutely not true. They are incredibly top down and have to review everything. We have to pitch our ideas even when we’re in the door. They have strict brand bibles we have to adhere to. Ones that gave us free rein were the exception, not the rule. Sometimes it was for no other reason than a bunch of people in house felt they needed to justify their existence, but regardless that’s how it was 90% of the time.
- staticassertion 9mo ago
  I feel like what you're saying is compatible. I'm not suggesting that things aren't top down or that you wouldn't have brand guidelines, that's actually exactly what I'm suggesting. I just mean that there is organizational isolation between creative teams and other teams, just as there is organizational isolation between engineering and other teams. So it is unsurprising to me that a creative team might have been given brand guidelines and a goal, like "hey we want to sell this, we want people happy with this" (much more concretely, obviously) and that could lead to this sort of ad, and I think that's probably more plausible than the team going "we're going to psyop everyone into surveillance statehood".
- esafak 9mo ago
  Are any of these brand bibles public?
  - 9mo ago

throwawayqqq11 9mo ago

> on the side of caution which means the vast majority of the time they avoid situations like this They'll avoid negative perception because this is their job, the message is still arbitrary.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> they get it wrong but they tend to air on the side of caution Then this guy [1] walks into the room and says no, be bold, who could possibly object to my life's work, and he gets his way because he's signing the cheque. [1] https://x.com/pavandavuluri/status/1987942909635854336 https://x.com/pavandavuluri/status/1987942909635854336