
Sex doesn’t sell any more, activism does. And don’t the big brands know it - DiabloD3
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/activism-sells-brands-social-conscience-advertising
======
phozy1
I'm kinda lost. This seems like a good thing? We can move forward, past weird
times sex based marketing, and go towards an intellectual discussion of a
subject.

~~~
coldtea
> _I 'm kinda lost. This seems like a good thing? We can move forward, past
> weird times sex based marketing, and go towards an intellectual discussion
> of a subject_

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.

~~~
pyrale
> Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia.
> And only a puritan society would find it bad.

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.

~~~
nailer
> having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or
> watch a screen.

In what country does this happen?

~~~
woodruffw
Speaking as someone who rode the NYC subway throughout their childhood and
adolescence:

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.

~~~
nailer
I doubt NY would let underwear ads including genitals on the subway.

(Breasts obviously aren't genitals, I'm not sure why they're being mentioned)

~~~
woodruffw
It would behoove you to read more charitably. Neither I nor the GGP mean
_naked people_ ; I don't think most large companies even _consider_ placing
ads with nudity in them in most public places.

~~~
nailer
The GPP said 'genitalia forced upon them'. Read charitably, it should probably
still actually invoice genitalia.

~~~
mercer
Read not just charitably, but informally, it should involve either a bulge or
a prominent shot of the genital area, since that is something we (generally,
hopefully) don't do unless we want to call it out.

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.

------
alivingspirit
I don't see the problem here. The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics comes to
mind. [https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-
eth...](https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/)

------
helthanatos
I don't like sex selling nor do I like activism selling. If companies would
stop trying to manipulate government, it would be much easier to purchase from
them without feeling guilty. There is a problem of government involvement with
business and it must stop. No special favors and no outrageous requirements
for businesses. Activism is one of the quickest ways for me to dislike a
company. Donate money to charity, donate it to random organizations I don't
care. Don't act like you're doing it from the good of your heart, though.

------
tnmrnis
All they do is virtue signalling.

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.

~~~
woodruffw
Please don't use "virtue-signaling" to mean "I don't agree with it." Virtue-
signaling (as far as I can tell) refers to being all talk and no action, while
public support in the form of advertisements and donations to non-profits is
_definitely_ a form of action.

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.

~~~
belorn
Reading the definition on Wikipedia, "all talk and no action" isn't it.
virtue-signaling means to platitudinous and superficial support a socially
progressive view in order to enhance ones standing within that social group.

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.

~~~
woodruffw
Which begs the question: What's so superficial about giving $1 million to the
ACLU?

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.

------
douche
Somebody needs to tell Hardee's and Carl Jr...

Also, maybe don't spam your ads in the Boston metro area, when the nearest
franchise is like 1000 miles away.

