The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]


Why Advertising And Media Needs To Stop Generalising …
January 25, 2008, 7:24 am
Filed under: Comment

Both Charles and I are huge fans of the book, Economic Hitman, so if this clip made an impression on you, I suggest you check it out … it explains alot and none of it is good.

.


23 Comments

That is simply brilliant.

Comment by Age

We’re actually about to do a small study to find out how Americans (from the most conservative to the most liberal cities) view people of Middle Eastern origin and this clip gives me a great idea how to do it.
Media and advertising has a huge influence in shaping peoples views on politics, culture and religion which is why this “one size fits all, lowest common denominator” approach should be resisted, because it is offensive and can have some very negative implications longer term.
Didn’t you do some study on how men are losing their self worth and that advertising’s continual mocking of modern man was playing a part in it?
I’m going to buy that bloody now, you’ve worn me down 🙂

Comment by Pete

Our jobs require us to find ways that will motivate the masses to fulfil our cliens goals – so we can’t get too specific or it won’t have the desired effect … however I also believe lowest common denominator strategies don’t work because they tend to either make no impression whatsoever, or alienate as many as they embrace.

To me, communication works when brands focus on values and cultures – things that really drive people even if they don’t realise it at first … things that affect, infiltrate and encourage the masses but on a level that is smart, interesting and emotional.

I guess this is why we have always had the belief our job is to move cultures, not categories and [hopefully] keep ‘lowest common denominators’ well away, ha!

As for the men’s self esteem thing – yep, it came out of some research we did for VB and it was facinating.

Infact at one point the brand idea was “Protecting The Value And Integrity Of Men” – where we would name and shame brands that took the piss for no reason. To be honest, I ended up making the decision to move away from this territory because I couldn’t trust the client to not fall into a Man vs Woman kinda campaign and that was the last thing it should of been or that I wanted it to be.

I’ve got the study somewhere if you want it – but I suppose it isn’t vital as you have a book to read first 🙂

Comment by Rob

This blog and comments like these make me feel better about working in this industry.

Comment by Age

Oh dear Age … there’s no hope for you then 🙂

Comment by Rob

Excellent and very moving.

I was thinking earlier on the way into the work that in terms of carbon footprints the Chinese probably did more to reduce their carbon footprint than the U.S. ever can or will through the one child per family. I also think that this video is symptomatic of the selfishness of the U.S. As long as its good back home the rest of the world is just for plundering.

Comment by Charles Frith

I think you’re being abit unfair there Charles – mainly because China didn’t instigate the one child policy for environmental reasons, so despite the benefit being potentially better than anything the US can achieve with their half-hearted, minimum-requirement attempts, it’s still abit like comparing apples with oranges.

On top of that Asia has this attitude that this is ‘their time’ so they’re going to fight against any environmental issues/pressures penalising their incredible growth … especially because they believe this situation was caused by Western countries actions rather than Asian. [Despite China having 4 times the population of the US]

If this post wasn’t about ‘anti-generalising’, I’d say the good ol’ USA is – at least politically speaking – a nation of self interest focused people/companies however as it is, I’ll end here except to acknowledge that the way the US Government keeps trying to blur the lines of responsibility makes me sick. 🙂

Comment by Robert

Can I get a copy of that report please Rob? Any time after you and Frith have concluded your inaugural meeting of the pan Asian People’s Revolutionary Front would be fine.

Comment by John

Yep. You’re right. The one child per family policy wasn’t created to reduce the carbon footprint. But that single act of frugal use of national resources is more than the U.S. has ever done.

I should run for president with slippery redefinitions like that 😉

You coming to the Jing squire?

Comment by Charles Frith

As it seems the fashion to align people on this blog with celebrities who embrace a particular attribute, I think Charles should be known as the “Alistair Campbell of advertising” for his skillful reinterpretation of his previous statement.

I haven’t seen something so entertaining since Lord King was in the high court.

Believe it or not Charles, I am complimenting you, it was wonderful stuff.

Nice post Robert. Two on the trot now, is that some kind of record and will you make it to 3?

Comment by Lee Hill

3 in a row?
That’s a bit unlikely, I expect one post on something dodgy and mildly offensive then a cracker on business ethics…

Comment by Rob Mortimer

Oi Mortimer, Campbell’s blog topic habits are as predictable as his shoeware so you can’t pretend to be all planner like just because you know on Monday his post is going to be back to the kinda shit I love but you serious bastards hate 🙂

Comment by Billy Whizz

Sorry mini-andy!
😉

Comment by Rob Mortimer

Let me get back to you whether I’m happy about that comment or not Mortimer 🙂

Comment by Billy Whizz

I found some useful insights into the American psyche here that maybe explains something

Comment by John

I don’t need to get back to you Dodds about what I think about that clip. Bastard, especially because it’s true.

And I’ve changed my mind about the content of Rob’s post on Monday, I’m going with serious because George is back that week.

Will lowly creative thrash intellectual planner types. If there’s any fucking justice the answer is yes. Good weekend all.

Comment by Billy Whizz

Oh you all have had a nice little time while I’ve been away haven’t you … and as much as it kills me, Billy’s late change of mind will sort-of prove to be a good decision because whilst my post this coming Monday is not as serious as the BLING thing I wrote earlier in the week, it’s far more focused than the Black Tea Latte.

How about we call it a draw?

And Charles, I agree with Lee – your comment was a masterclass in political quotation re-engineering, you are wasted in adland.

Comment by Robert

Oh, and I won’t know about the ‘jing’ till Monday probably.

Will let you know …

Comment by Rob

finally got to see that footage. wow.

“…[they]assume that i represent a people or that a people represent an evil or an evil is as simple as a flag and words on a page…”

word.

Comment by lauren

Charles is habitually wasted!

Comment by John

Hello Robert. Just so you know, we’ve sent an invitation to Suheir Hammad (the woman in the clip) to speak at one of our “Undiluted” lunches. We have our fingers crossed she agrees and if she does, we hope you can somehow come over and be part of it.
Peter, I’d love to know more about the research you’re undertaking so is it possible for me to call you on Monday and chat about it? If that’s not convenient, you can reach me on my cell anytime. Thanks.

Comment by Terri

Hi Terri, it’s been a long time. I tell you what, if you invite me to the undiluted lunch, you can have whatever information you want 🙂
I’m going to be in NYC on Wednesday so maybe we can catch up then? I’ll call you Monday.
Sorry for using your blog as my social planner Robert.

Comment by Pete

Just basking in the praise from Lee and Rob. Thanks Gents 🙂

Comment by Charles Frith




Comments are closed.