I'm sorry but I find this kind of nitpicking in bad form. People are going out and taking action to bring attention to a problem in what is obviously the best way they can do so. If you have an idea about improving marketing, why not spend that energy helping/proposing something and volunteering?
Aside from that, I think there is more to consider than just what will appeal to public opinion; dry attempts to shift one’s words to match opinion polls is how many politicians lose elections by coming off as pandering. There is a sense of urgency and emotion in the original phrase that might be important in the broader picture and in the long term.
It's a matter of perspective. When you run a business, all of your public communication is marketing communication. That's why they're phrased in the positive, and they're not necessarily highlighting the shortcomings they're aware of.
The arguments in this campaign feel poorly made, and with poor justifications. Some feel like they are made in bad faith.
The problem is, maybe this is the best that can be done for a general audience? The media fails to get the nuance right, and it's clear that general audiences are unable to understand most nuanced arguments, so maybe something incorrect/bad-faith, but that argues in vaguely the right direction is better than not challenging these companies at all?
I understand the sentiment, but isn't that unlikely? That's like asking startups to stop using the long landing page design that's become so popular lately. The PR department (if the resources even exist) is interested (usually) in expressing information without "rocking the boat", one way to do that is probably to avoid treading new ground where prose/wording is concerned.
All the more reason to note the distinction between words and deeds (marketing/reality). If we point out the lack of clothes, refuse to discuss talking-head spin and instead stick to reality and actions, I think we'll be better off.
We (private citizens) aren't served by allowing that marketing to be perpetuated as truth.
Even if the original message did not have all this nonsense, it was likely edited by PR flacks for a "positive" spin. That's one industry (PR) ready for some refreshing new approaches...
Brushing over the core issue as if someone else is certainly going to solve it in a timely fashion through sheer pressure in a way that is going to turn out preferable to advertisement.
I wasn't really. Just trying to give useful feedback. I'm probably not alone in finding these tacky/empty. As you point out yourself, we are already bombarded by ads with unsincere words. This feels like just adding to the mix, though kind words are, arguably, better than what we see in ads.
Anyway, if the goal is to brighten someone's day, an innocent joke or a little pun may be much more effective. I feel like lighter words are better than emotionally loaded ones when interact with complete strangers.
What are you trying to achieve with complaining about a good cause?
Our intent is to set a tone for this kind of thing. We are a well known company in the technology sector, so showcasing this creates a model for others to be inspired by. When decision makers at other companies see this, ones who might also care about this cause, it creates opportunities and materials for them to have these conversations within their own teams.
Marketing is not inherently evil as you make it out to be.
Yeah, we're definitely sending almost exactly the opposite message that we intended, on a slide that had a lot of verbal context put around it. I just updated it to make it more clear and remove the quote. No point to it that can't be conveyed in a clearer way. Thanks for the feedback!
Aside from that, I think there is more to consider than just what will appeal to public opinion; dry attempts to shift one’s words to match opinion polls is how many politicians lose elections by coming off as pandering. There is a sense of urgency and emotion in the original phrase that might be important in the broader picture and in the long term.
reply