I was originally going to post a discussion later next week about the fracas surrounding the Belvedere Vodka ad, but I’m really not sure what I could say that the folks at the Atlantic website haven’t already. There’s no question that the picture they created and ran on Face Book and Twitter was absurdly bad advertising, or that the decision to post the image where the public could see it was bad management, and I don’t see how any of my readers (assuming I have readers) would be likely to try anything similar. The company was clearly going for a unique (and possibly shocking) picture that would cut through the clutter of advertising produced by competitors selling other premium vodkas, as well as other products that could be used for the same purpose as vodka, and be remembered by the customer at the time a purchase decision was made. Just as clearly, an image that would widely be interpreted as a scene of sexual assault was a bad choice. The real question isn’t whether this ad crossed the line (it clearly did), but where the line is in the first place…
We’ve spoken in this space about the concept of “noise” in the communications sense, and how hard it is for any product advertising to cut through the noise generated by ads for competitors and substitute products. Just in the case of alcohol, the casual surfer will encounter dozens of ads just walking around, driving around, watching television or reading print media before they ever log into their web browser. If we’re going to convince potential customers to drink out product we will have to find some way to make them remember us when they are picking out a bottle, and being associated with something funny and different would be an excellent way to do that. Unfortunately, what constitutes funny, let along memorable, isn’t a universal value – and clearly, what some advertising people think is funny represents an offensive or horrifying image to other people…
Even worse, there exists a non-zero chance that an image like this one could be seen by someone has been sexually assaulted in the past, triggering a PTSD episode or other unpleasant experience – resulting in lawsuits, media outrage, being mocked by thousands of scruffy bloggers all over the Internet, and eventually a highly unfavorable image for the product. And while it is possible that any image selected for public display could be a trigger event, this is progressively less likely as the images become blander, less remarkable, or “safer” on some dimension. Unfortunately, as our advertising becomes safer and less remarkable, its effectiveness decreases and our ability to compete effectively lowers, possibly undermining our sales and threatening the survival of our company as a whole…
This leads me to ask whether the ethical responsibility of a company’s senior management team to offer good wages and benefits to its employees, purchases to its vendors, jobs and tax revenue to its community and returns on investments to its stockholders outweighs its responsibility to avoid causing psychological harm (and possibly unpleasant viewing experiences) for people who will be traumatized (or just disgusted) by using questionable advertising images? Clearly, there is a spectrum between the completely bland (a blue page with soothing white lettering?) and the offensive and completely insensitive (sexual assault used as a visual joke? Really?), but what point along that spectrum constitutes an acceptable choice?
Even in the most inoffensive and safe business unit that could possibly exist, a choice will sometimes come up between absolute safety that would destroy the company (and ruin the lives of all of its stakeholders) and absolute recklessness that would generate the highest profits (at the expense of innocent people), or some balance point in between – and that means that sooner or later, you will have to make such a decision regarding your own business. Where will you draw that line, when the moment comes?
It’s worth thinking about…
No comments:
Post a Comment