Advertising Redemption. Army Strong. Army Wrong
Redemption is an odd word.
It pretty much always means that one has done something bad.
And, truth be told, I have done a few naughty things in the name of my occupation. Because I have held a few impressive sounding marketing and advertising positions, I was provided the enviable opportunity to “come clean”. What I mean by that is that two years ago I published a book from McGraw Hill titled Living Brands, Collaboration + Innovation = Customer Fascination. www.livingbrandslivingmedia.com.
It’s a really good book and McGraw Hill is a great company, allowing me to voice some radical theories – radical by business book standards anyway. I had hoped to title the book, Corporate Whores and Profit Pimps, in response to an epiphany I had had, which, at the time, inspired me to do something that would make me feel good about having worked in industries which were fundamentally advanced exercises in propaganda, mental manipulation and that promoted wanton consumerism that threatened to extinguish mankind and the planet. It was pretty heavy stuff.
So, my book has the nerve to suggest that we end the sort of neo-Freudian, fear-based marketing that creates artificial demand and spend more time truly looking at our fellow human beings – empowering them to voice their needs organically through any of the number of technological marvels now available. And, my theory – which I must say, based upon many of the things I have seen since the book’s publication, has proven itself remarkably prophetic – another word for true. And, since voicing my business heresy, I find I am working more than ever – it is definitive proof that there is still a chance to do both well and do good.
So, why this blog? The fact is, as nice and forward-thinking as they are, McGraw Hill was against fucking – or so it seemed. In one of the book’s interviews, I wanted to use a quote containing the word fuck. I also slipped a fuck into another section – just for fun. When my wonderful editor said one fuck was enough – I laid down the law: “If I can’t have multiple fucks, I don’t want to fuck at all.” Of course, I was kidding. But, my hope is that cyberspace will allow me to more closely scrutinize the real world of consumerism and marketing – a world where people fuck and get fucked every day. I don’t want to fuck the world. I just want to make the world fucking better – (that’s a metaphor by the way).
What You Can Expect from My Blog:
Once a week, I am going to survey marketing and advertising examples and respond to outmoded, unethical practices, suggesting how they may have better connected with the real world – thus “redeeming” those practices in the process. Since this entry is already a little long – I will provide a quick example for now. This fuck will have to be a quickie. But you should get the point.
Old-School Marketing Law: Guilt is the mother of all sales. Make a person feel inadequate and he or she will buy into anything.
Current Example: Army Strong Advertising Campaign. “You made them strong; we’ll make them army strong.”
Conclusion: Army Strong is really Army Wrong. The agency responsible for this piece of trash should be put behind enemy lines with a water pistol. To play upon subliminal parental pride in an effort to engage parents in persuading young persons – many of whose judgment skills are not yet even fully developed - to join the Army is about as low as it goes. Stalin and Hitler would have been proud. This is not a political statement – it is an ethical position. It’s not the war I am protesting (although it’s well worth protesting), it’s the way the client (the army) and the advertising agency (I am still tracking it down) have created a message that tries to address the need of parents to do right by their children – but ends up twisting these good intentions into something nothing short of evil propaganda.
Remedy: Had the commercial been honest – stating that the army is seeking out persons of fortitude and that such persons are rare – the element of manipulation would not have been as overt – although it would have still existed. Had the commercial stated that the army is confronting a difficult task and needs assistance – downplaying its central role – then the need of some individuals to express their strength through what they believe to be patriotic contribution would have been legitimately addressed. Now, I might have disagreed with the outcome. But, the advertiser would have been absolved. As a note here, lest any of you come to the conclusion that I believe that the end justifies the means, you have me all wrong. I just happen to believe that culture owns commerce – not the other way around. And, changing culture is another subject. A bigger subject. And, my head can only wrap itself around one subject at a time – at least for now.
Raymond Nadeau is the author of the New York Times Business best-seller, Living Brands. He is also secretly pro-communist - or at least populist. He wants to change the world through branding - Prada for the People - Luis Vuitton for all.
here’s some interesting research on the “Be All You Can Be” Army campaign on CURRENT soldiers (rather than prospective soldiers):
the opinions of current soldiers regarding the most expensive campaign ever used by the U.S. Military: the Army’s “Be All You Can Be” campaign.
The campaign emphasizes the role of the army in providing instrumental and intrinsic rewards to soldiers.
Although the campaign is aimed at potential enlistees, active duty soldiers attend to the same media channels and content and thus also receive high exposure to the advertisements. Results of focus group interviews with 87 male and 27 female soldiers indicate soldiers believe there is a wide gap between the promises of Army advertising and the actual performance of the Army in keeping its promises. This perception was expressed by many soldiers as disillusionment, frustration, and anger.
The advertisements appear to damage soldier morale, commitment to the military, and reenlistment potential.
For both ethical and pragmatic reasons it is suggested that future advertising should be designed with a concern for both effectiveness and honesty and that future advertisements should be concerned with increased sensitivity for the immediate and long-term effects on both the target audience of potential recruits and the unintended audience of active duty soldiers.
http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/369
good call RN…and is “enemy lines” a dated concept?
So, who are gonna be the next four years worth of swine willing to sign their life and conscience away so they can have the honor of being willing to come home in a bodybag for the maggots of this nation?