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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
It's a funny phrase this. Is any public statement about morality "virtue signalling"? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_.... - is the condemnation of same-sex marriage by a restaurant chain "virtue signalling", or something else? "Bigotry signalling"?
> Amadeu Antonio Foundation
"The Amadeu Antonio Stiftung is one of Germany's foremost, independent non-governmental organizations working to strengthen democratic civic society and eliminate neo-Nazism, right-wing extremism, and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and hate in Germany."
Could you tell us specifically what you object to here, or is it just some sort of guilt by association?
(Ben & Jerry's has always had a hippie-leftie flavour to its marketing, it's an inextricable part of the brand identity)
The article seems to imply that only those opposed to Trump/Brexit/etc. are worth marketing to, and those in support are inconsequential. That's nonsense. By basing marketing efforts on political stances they are creating as many detractors as fans.
Most people who view this negatively aren't going to tell them about it. To this day, I don't shop at Target, Starbucks, or Whole Foods because of their political stances on certain issues that are important to me. Uber and Lyft have now joined that list. I don't care to convince others to do the same, but I can't in good conscience support an organization that actively works against my interests.
My family once spent an average of $600 / month at Target. In 2014, they issued a statement [1], saying in part: "starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target." I respect their property rights so I now take my pistol with me to Kroger, along with my wallet.
[+] [-] phozy1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] denizen_kane|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josefx|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fullshark|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beaconstudios|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktRolster|9 years ago|reply
Ads are ads.
[+] [-] alivingspirit|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helthanatos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tnmrnis|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pjc50|9 years ago|reply
It's a funny phrase this. Is any public statement about morality "virtue signalling"? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_.... - is the condemnation of same-sex marriage by a restaurant chain "virtue signalling", or something else? "Bigotry signalling"?
> Amadeu Antonio Foundation
"The Amadeu Antonio Stiftung is one of Germany's foremost, independent non-governmental organizations working to strengthen democratic civic society and eliminate neo-Nazism, right-wing extremism, and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and hate in Germany."
Could you tell us specifically what you object to here, or is it just some sort of guilt by association?
(Ben & Jerry's has always had a hippie-leftie flavour to its marketing, it's an inextricable part of the brand identity)
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|9 years ago|reply
The article seems to imply that only those opposed to Trump/Brexit/etc. are worth marketing to, and those in support are inconsequential. That's nonsense. By basing marketing efforts on political stances they are creating as many detractors as fans.
Most people who view this negatively aren't going to tell them about it. To this day, I don't shop at Target, Starbucks, or Whole Foods because of their political stances on certain issues that are important to me. Uber and Lyft have now joined that list. I don't care to convince others to do the same, but I can't in good conscience support an organization that actively works against my interests.
My family once spent an average of $600 / month at Target. In 2014, they issued a statement [1], saying in part: "starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target." I respect their property rights so I now take my pistol with me to Kroger, along with my wallet.
[1]: https://corporate.target.com/article/2014/07/target-addresse...
[+] [-] douche|9 years ago|reply
Also, maybe don't spam your ads in the Boston metro area, when the nearest franchise is like 1000 miles away.