It is interesting how much of a buzz the new Gillette "#MeToo/toxic masculinity" ad is creating, yet there is absolutely nothing new or innovative about the strategy. I emphasize the word "strategy".
Corporations and Mad-Men (if you will) have been using social issues to pull consumers' emotional strings as far back as the 1960s/70s if not earlier. In the early 1970s, two ads most noteworthy were the anti-litter ad that ended with the solitary tear rolling down the cheek of actor Iron Eyes Cody, and the Coca Cola ad offering diversity and tranquility with a youthful crowd singing "I want to teach the world to sing".
First and foremost, companies like Gillette and Coca Cola are about creating ads to increase sales. When ads do not increase sales or cause sales to decrease, they change strategies. Always. With that said, Gillette planned then crossed their fingers for the post-ad buzz of untold number of discussions and debates, as risky it sometimes is. For the company name is dropped in everyone of those conversations private and online, causing the ad to replay in the minds of those who liked or disliked it, over and over again without one extra advertising dollar spent. It is an advertiser's dream.
The equation is simple. If you like the ad, buy Gillette and more of it if you are already a patron. If you don't like the ad, stop buying Gillette. For those who never bought Gillette and never will, well to be brutally honest, your opinions matter little to none in the greater context of corporate marketing. And truthfully, the whole affair is amoral, I buy razors perceptively efficient as well preferably affordable, and could care less what others say and do.
No comments:
Post a Comment