‘Every Dove rip-off gets exponentially more shit. It’s maths.’
Commenter Greg dropped that truthbomb on last week’s do-gooder ‘experiment’ from Ikea.
I think that he makes a great point. This new genre of ‘we’re so nice, and we can make you nicer’ advertising leaves an excremental taste in my mouth for a number of reasons, all of which I’m going to blather on about right now:
1. The arrogance, the fucking, fucking, massive, revolting fucking arrogance of these giant corporations and their high-handed de haut en bas didacticism, as if it’s their place to correct the public’s erroneous behaviour in the name of furniture, or soap, or ‘feminine hygeine’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs
2. None of them means it. They’re only doing it for money. If you doubt that in any way please bear in mind my oft-mentioned observation that Unilever makes Dove (all women are amazing and beautiful) and Lynx (all women are nowt but holes). Of course many corporations are now doing the CSR shiz that they ought to, but let’s not forget that Nike and The Gap happily used sweat shops to make most of their stuff before someone pointed that out to the rest of us and they changed their ways. I’m sure some companies are run in such a way that they always do the right thing, no matter what the cost, but most will just do whatever makes them the most money, so if they think they’ll lose sales because we hate them then they will try to make us like them.
3. The way these ads fool people into thinking they’re a new, nicer company (even though they really aren’t) is another nail in the coffin for truthful, believable, trustworthy advertising, and that coffin has so many nails it might as well be made of iron.
And it’s the disguises don’t just come in the form of those delightful experiments; they also sneak in by making a straight ad that enshrouds the collective of shitbags in a cloak of niceness. But when a company does all this shitty stuff (and this) then hits you with this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V-20Qe4M8Y
…You have to do a little sick in your mouth. I mean, if they were really the kind of lovely folks who ‘sponsored mums’ with that plinky music in the background they probably wouldn’t pollute the planet or treat their workers like poo.
*Sigh, vomit, etc.*
I love it when brands tell me how to live my life. We all need their guidance.
1. Tick – well said
2. Penn and Teleler defend sweat shops Pt 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-o1fj1rX7A
3. Tick – well said.
4. You can drop the s from maths – I know you want to.
I absolutely agree. Who asked brands to speak out on issues? No-fucking-one. No one gives a shit. By all means tell us why your product or service is worth our hard-earned cash, but keep your disingenuous noses out of our lives. If you’re interested Ben, I wrote a thing on the Dove campaign on this very subject here http://sellsellblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/dove-story.html
I don’t know. I hear what you’re saying that brands can be spineless / care where the money is, but, the end sometimes justifies the means.
It’s the classic charity argument. Loads of people who give money to charity want praise / to feel good / to do the activity they’re being sponsored for. Would you rather the charity only gets the money if they’re doing it for genuinely charitable reasons? Do they even exist?
Ads inform peoples’ behaviour. I’m female. I’d like more ads that say positive things about women (to counter the decades of obvious and subliminal negative messages about women) because ads have the power to normalise behaviour and attitudes and slowly change people and society.
Plus, just because a brand used to have shit behaviour, doesn’t mean they can’t improve and mean it later. Management changes, and the values of the brand are only those that management values enough to uphold.
Finally… are people fooled by it? I’m not sure. People mostly buy and ‘love’ brands while they serve a purpose for them / are priced right. We’re as fickle in our attachment to brands as brands sometimes seem about their attachment to doing good.
Good article. You are right these clients are two faced and money orientated. BUT I wonder if the CREATIVES or the agencies behind the work believe in it? Its funny when you think (as a creative) whether work is a reflection of your beliefs as a creative you have sold in to a client that ‘wants people to think it thinks that too’ as opposed to a reflection of the client. If a creative thinks its done right messgage wise and people lap it up is that ok? Or not?
Good post, S!S!.
Sing it gurl!
Thankyoumuchly, BK.
Drop the s from maths and I will stop reading this blog.
@malcome
No.
I can’t.
Fish in a barrel.
i agree but at the same time, i acknowledge the power and influence that brands and big corporate advertising has on people. case in point: what droga5 did for honeymaid graham crackers.
how the hell is a graham cracker going to tell me that same sex marriages are acceptable? but at the same time that’s just me talking. but because that message reaches millions of people, there will be at least a few people who 1) can’t think for themselves 2) might find credibility in the message if they see it on tv.
I saw this ad this morning and was scandalised. I’ve never seen two ads that are so similar!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wtJInEvqdU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJo9vnvrnss
In fairness the Berocca one was made in Singapore but I don’t know how they could have the audacity to run it here.