Sex doesn’t sell any more, activism does. And don’t the big brands know it
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia. And only a puritan society would find it bad.
Activism on the other hand can be a blunt instrument, which can also be totally bad. It's also usually a sign of a society in fight with itself. So it's kind of a mixed bag in itself (it's not just Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk, or the noble kind of activists. Any kind of loony can fathom themselves an activist. It can also be used as a cover for political intervention in some countries, exploited by politicians, and various other things).
Now, when brands are coming in, and big corps and big money, it's ever worse: it's activism with a profit motive. Or faux-activist messages that pander to the sentiment du jour. When brands get into politics and everyday life, everybody suffers. It's not like when you do it for profit you stop at the "good activism". If something oppressive is fashionable with their target demographic, they will just as well promote messages in its favor.
One can enjoy a healthy sex life and unrestricted informations about it, without having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen.
But I agree with you : commercial activism will probably end up in the same place... Maybe the problem is not the subject, but the existence of big interests willing to do anything to be associated with it.
In what country does this happen?
After advertisements for local colleges, the second most common Subway and MTA bus advertisements are for breast augmentation and men's/women's lingerie. I don't particularly have a problem with these sort of ads, but their ubiquity belies phozy1's point.
It's also worth noting that arguments akin to "sex happens in nature, therefore sex is good" are both appeals to nature and not particularly strong justifications for sexualization in advertising. It's possible to have a sexually open society (i.e., not a puritanical one) without plastering our public transport with glamorizations of surgery or $300 lingerie.
(Breasts obviously aren't genitals, I'm not sure why they're being mentioned)
I mean, seriously, the only people who argue this 'informal' reading are pedants like myself.
There's nothing wrong with it, but let's call it what it is. In context the point was reference to sex and genitalia, not the literal display of genitalia which I truly hope most of us would understand is not the case on the NYC metro (or any other, for that matter).
Of course here I am typing out a response to an outrageously pointless line of conversation that nobody in their right mind would consider serious, so for all I know that's the same kind of reasoning that led to my reply. I guess I'd just prefer to see less of this kind of noise here, and I'm sorry if I'm contributing to it.
The article does not mention intellectual discussion even once. What it mentions are things like trending on twitter and instant (over) reactions to any form of perceived good/evil. We are moving towards marketing that seeks to maximise gain in goodwill for minimal financial effort.
Ads are ads.
And my guess is that this won't last very long. Politics are volatile and companies don't advertise to have a positive impact but to sell stuff. Besides that, there is also a big chance of actually swaying people away from buying the advertized product after it became politized.
Ben and Jerry's is a prime example of this. They support Black Lives Matter in the US and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation in Germany. About the first I don't care that much but the latter makes me really angry. The Amadeu Antonio Foundation has a clear political agenda, is lead by a former StaSi-Member and was chosen to create the anti-hatespeech guidelines for Facebook in Germany (done by a member of the party Die Linke, the "feminist-socialist" party).
As long as they support such organizations I will not buy any B&J Icecream.
Whether or not that action is good or not (I think it is, under the same qualifications that make philanthropy good) can be subject to rigorous debate, but slapping the "virtue-signaling" label on it without acknowledging the state of affairs is a form of virtue-signaling with respect to others who share your political proclivities.
Edit: I don't know anything about the Amadeu Antonio Foundation or a whole lot about German politics as a whole. I could be wrong here but I'd imagine that there are a lot of former StaSi in German politics, in the same way that there were a lot of ex-Nazi-party members in power in Western Germany. That's not to minimize either, but to observe a general flaw in Democratic transitions - you can only sample your leaders from a qualified subset of the population, and that subset was just as qualified under autocracy as it is under democracy.
> choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support
Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.
It's important to question the motives of businesses (in fact, it's necessary), but it's also myopic to assume that financial gain is the only motive involved.
No, that's why I chose a different example.
The question is then whether that visibility was chosen over the organization's reputation for efficacy, which is very debatable. For example, BLM is in the forefront in the movement for law enforcement bodycams. It's once again up for debate whether that's a "good" thing, but it's undeniably a consequence of their activism.
This is more anecdotal, but I don't think about B&J's BLM support when I go to buy ice cream. I buy Cherry Garcia because I like Cherry Garcia, and knowing that some of my money goes to a cause that I like is just a cherry on the top. This, in my mind, is no substantially different from choosing McDonald's over Burger King* and subsequently recognizing that a small part of your purchase goes towards their children's charity.
* Sorry. I don't eat at either of these, but they came to mind as institutions that engage in (less partisan) activism on behalf of orphans and children.
For example, a secret lobbyist could be doing virtue-signaling by advertisements and donations. Its common understanding that a lobbyist can and will change their views instantly when its profitable, and thus their actions aren't in honest support of the cause for which they are at some point supporting.
Lyft et al. have complex motives including financial gain, but that doesn't seem to detract from the fundamental good of their action. That's why I qualified it like philanthropy - we can immediately observe other motives for action (tax breaks, good standing among your wealthy peers), but these other motives don't negate any good done. The ACLU doesn't put their donations into red and green bank accounts based on who gives it.
It's a funny phrase this. Is any public statement about morality "virtue signalling"? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_.... - is the condemnation of same-sex marriage by a restaurant chain "virtue signalling", or something else? "Bigotry signalling"?
> Amadeu Antonio Foundation
"The Amadeu Antonio Stiftung is one of Germany's foremost, independent non-governmental organizations working to strengthen democratic civic society and eliminate neo-Nazism, right-wing extremism, and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and hate in Germany."
Could you tell us specifically what you object to here, or is it just some sort of guilt by association?
(Ben & Jerry's has always had a hippie-leftie flavour to its marketing, it's an inextricable part of the brand identity)
The Chick Fil A thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...) was the COO making comments and the charity making some donations. It wasn't part of a marketing campaign like the other examples in the Guardian article, but if it was - "Chick Fil A supports family values! Buy our stuff!" - then yes it would be virtue signalling.
> Could you tell us specifically what you object to here, or is it just some sort of guilt by association?
The parent has mentioned the you now have an ex-Stasi person drafting rules proposing rules about what you can and can't say, which seems pretty specific. Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.
But what's the actual content of the rules?
> Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.
I'm guessing you mean "hate speech law", because hate speech certainly turns up when defending religious homophobia, for example? But do you have an example of legitimate criticism of religion being shut down by hate speech law?
The German position on this is rather different to the American; Germany is used to bans on Swastikas and other symbols of the far-right, simply because they're not legitimate competitors in the marketplace of ideas but the kind of viral hatred that can lead to genocide.
Here's the UK Home Secretary suggesting tightening rules that allow UK firms to recruit workers from overseas, being investigated by police as matter of hatred of immigrants. The complainant in this case is Joshua Silver, a well known troll, however police are obliged to act:
(Also, that doesn't seem to be a "criticism of religion" either?)
I mentioned this in an earlier comment, but "ex-Stasi" and "East Germany" are inextricable. Governments aren't dispose-alls, and people working under governments do not always align politically with them. We should be eager to fault Nazi Germany for its crimes, but not so eager to fault every single citizen who became a member of the Nazi Party during its rule.
The article seems to imply that only those opposed to Trump/Brexit/etc. are worth marketing to, and those in support are inconsequential. That's nonsense. By basing marketing efforts on political stances they are creating as many detractors as fans.
Most people who view this negatively aren't going to tell them about it. To this day, I don't shop at Target, Starbucks, or Whole Foods because of their political stances on certain issues that are important to me. Uber and Lyft have now joined that list. I don't care to convince others to do the same, but I can't in good conscience support an organization that actively works against my interests.
My family once spent an average of $600 / month at Target. In 2014, they issued a statement [1], saying in part: "starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target." I respect their property rights so I now take my pistol with me to Kroger, along with my wallet.
[1]: https://corporate.target.com/article/2014/07/target-addresse...
Also, maybe don't spam your ads in the Boston metro area, when the nearest franchise is like 1000 miles away.