Nuwe resepte

7 mees aanstootlike drankadvertensies

7 mees aanstootlike drankadvertensies

Die omstrede nuwe "Het jy melk?" veldtog is nie die eerste drankie -advertensie wat die massas aanstoot gegee het nie

U verwag dat drankmerke met omstrede advertensies sal verskyn. Dat bierondernemings advertensies sal voer wat 'n bietjie raserig is. Dat die promosiekolle van 'n energiedrank 'n bietjie eerbiedig sal wees. Maar een drink jou sou nie verwag dat u die middelpunt van 'n aanstootlike advertensieveldtogskandaal sal wees? Melk.

Die gesonde drank se beeld het onlangs gegaan uit "Het jy melk?" aan "Het twis" in 'n blits van 'n internet sekonde danksy 'n nuwe veldtog van die Kalifornië Melkverwerkerraad. Die reeks advertensies, getiteld 'Everything I Do is Wrong', skyn in die kollig op die ligter, snaakser kant van PMS. Op grond van navorsing wat beweer dat melk die simptome van PMS kan help verminder, word die advertensies gerig aan die arm, ongelukkige, hulpelose mans wat onderhewig is aan die maandelikse hormonale gemoedsveranderinge van hul vrouens en vriendinne. 'Ek is jammer dat ek geluister het na wat u gesê het en nie na wat u bedoel het nie,' lui een van die gestileerde beelde. Onder die teks is die prentjie van 'n ooglopend besorgde, grensbevange man, wat 'n arm melkkartonne omhels en een voorlopig vorentoe hou. Dapper ou.

As jy lag, ek is jammer, ons sukkel om jou te hoor oor die klank van menigte kwaai vroue wat woedend artikels, blogplasings en kommentaar in reaksie hierop tik.

Interessant genoeg is dit eintlik nie die eerste keer dat die melkbedryf die manlike reaksie-op-PMS-is-snaakse hoek in sy advertensies gebruik nie (sien advertensie hieronder van 2006). Dit is ook nie die eerste keer dat ander oënskynlik PG -drankies soos koeldrank en koffie die middelpunt van 'n hewige bemarkingsskandaal was nie.

Onder die annale van die advertensieveldtogte vir aanstootlike drankies sluit handelsmerke soos Pepsi (onthou u hul "dun" dieetblikke wat hulle in Februarie vrygestel het?) Of Folgers (wat eintlik 'n lang geskiedenis van die bekendstelling van beweerde seksistiese advertensies het).

Is u dors om te hoor van 'n paar advertensies wat u verseker kan laat struikel? Lees verder.

Klik hier vir die 7 mees aanstootlike skyfievertoning vir drankadvertensies.


Die mees aanstootlike advertensieveldtogte van 2011

Baie besighede besef dat verbruikers op soek is na handelsmerke wat omgee, handelsmerke wat in gesprek tree en handelsmerke wat die huidige neigings verstaan. Hierdie ondernemings pas by hierdie nuwe gevoelens aan en hul besighede floreer. Ander ondernemings het seksistiese advertensieveldtogte van stapel gestuur, groen optrede bespot, kommentaar en klagtes van kliënte onderdruk, en 'n genadelose aanval op plaaslike ondernemings uitgevoer, en verbruikers het hulself uitgespreek.

Groen is gewild. Daarom toon beskaamde groen inisiatiewe dat u nie net 'n idee het nie, maar ook 'n deel van die probleem is.

Ondanks die toenemende gewildheid (en wye mediaberigtheid) van fietsdelingsprogramme in stede en die aantal stede wat meer fietsrybane wil instel en fietspendel wil aanmoedig, het GM besluit om 'n advertensieveldtog te voer wat ontwerp is om fietsryers skaam te laat voel oor fietsry. Die veldtog, wat in universiteitsblaaie aangebied word en gemik is op huidige studente en onlangse studente, wys hoe 'n man op sy fiets ry en sy gesig bedek terwyl 'n meisie in haar (vermoedelik GM) motor ry. Die taglyn lui: Hou op trap … begin ryen 'n prentjie van 'n kleiner motor en 'n vragmotor van 8230.

Daar was 'n onmiddellike geskreeu. Fietsorganisasies, studente en selfs professore veroordeel die advertensie en alles waarvoor dit staan. GM het so vinnig teruggesak dat dit onmiddellik die advertensies laat vaar het en begin om verskoning vra via Facebook en deur elke ander soort sosiale media wat dit kan vind. Die maatskappy het op baie van die negatiewe opmerkings gereageer en om verskoning gevra.

Waarom word maatskappye nooit moeg om op vroue en meisies te spoeg om goed te verkoop nie?

Dr Pepper was moeg daarvoor om slegs koeldrank aan vroue te verkoop. Wie wil regtig 'n beroep doen op die demografie wat in elk geval meer as 80 persent van huishoudelike koopbesluite neem? Hulle besluit dus dat mans 'n beroep op mans moet doen om vroue uit te sluit. Op hul Facebook-blad het hulle selfs net mans (dit is buite perke vir vroue) aangemoedig om speletjies te speel waar hulle hoë hakke, eenhoorns en reënboë skiet.

Niemand was verbasend behalwe dr. Pepper nie, maar die veldtog het die meeste mans nie aangespreek nie (wat ietwat gerusstellend is) en omdat dit uit sy pad gegaan het om vroue te vervreem, het niemand oorgebly om dit te koop nie.

Sommige maatskappye dink nog steeds dat dit 'n goeie idee is om items te verkoop deur meisies te seksualiseer of seksistiese stereotipes te bevorder (of albei tegelyk). Abercrombie en Fitch was 'n herhaaldelike oortreder, en die afgelope jaar het gesinsgerigte kleinhandelaars Kmart en JCPenney by die klub aangesluit. JCPenney het hierdie t-hemp vinnig uit die voorraad gehaal nadat hy met klagtes oorstroom is, en 'n Kmart in Australië het om dieselfde rede hierdie string uit die rakke gehaal. Die stringtoue word gemaak deur Kmart se interne handelsmerk, Girl Xpress, en die persepsie was dat hulle dit aan jong meisies bemark. Kmart het dit ontken, maar sou nie sê dat die kliënt se ouderdomsgroep Girl Xpress daarop gemik was nie.

Om eerlik te wees, dit is moeilik om te sê wat die doel van hierdie veldtog was, maar wat dit ook al was, almal het dit vinnig uit die oog verloor. Een blogger het op die Facebook -blad van Chapstick gekla oor die gebruik van hierdie taai, onaantreklike prentjie van 'n vrou in 'n stywe jeans. Die maatskappy het haar opmerking onmiddellik uitgevee ('n ironie wat baie mense opgemerk het, in ag genome die uitnodiging van die onderneming om op hul bladsy gehoor te word). Ditto die negatiewe opmerkings wat daarna gekom het. Opmerkings soos, en nadat ek na hierdie foto gekyk het, weet ek waar ek my stokkie wil wegsteek, ”is nie deur die onderneming verwyder nie.

Binnekort was dit 'n stryd om te sien wie die vinnigste was, die kommentators of die sensors. Almal het vergeet van die advertensie wat die oorlog in die eerste plek veroorsaak het en hul woede gerig het op die onderneming wat die gesprek probeer beheer het. Dit is iets wat u net nie op sosiale media doen nie, en Chapstick het gekom uit 'n geringe verleentheid wat lyk soos 'n uiters dwase gorilla van 800 pond.

As u Goliat is, laat u omstanders werf om Dawid in stof te stamp, soos 'n nog groter boelie.

Dit is nie genoeg dat Amazon die pryse van die meeste plaaslike boekwinkels verlaag nie, maar nou moedig hulle verbruikers aan om by plaaslike ondernemings in te gaan, items te skandeer en die prys te vergelyk met dieselfde item op Amazon. Aangesien Amazon in baie gevalle nie verkoopsbelasting hef nie, kan die besparing aansienlik wees, wat veroorsaak dat baie kopers nie die item by die plaaslike onderneming koop nie en dit nie aanlyn koop nie.

By die promosie van hierdie nuwe pryskontrole -app bied Amazon kliënte $ 5 vir elke item wat hulle gekoop het (tot 'n totaal van $ 15). Forbes noem dit die toekoms van sake, maar in die lig van Small Business Saturday en al die bewyse dat gemeenskappe hul besighede moet beskerm en ondersteun om plaaslike ekonomieë te help, is die veldtog van Amazon net so brutaal as 'n huursoldaat en koelhartig.

Soms as u alles reg doen, gaan dit steeds verkeerd, want u verbruikers kan nie die moeite doen om die etiket te lees nie.

Coca-Cola het gedink dat dit so 'n wonderlike bemarkingsveldtog vir vakansiedae sou wees om ysbere te ondersteun, 'n spesie wat dringend hulp nodig het, sowel as diere wat in die afgelope jare prominent verskyn het in nostalgiese Coke-vakansie-advertensies. Hulle het 'n opvallende wit blikkie ontwerp en bereid om bewustheid en wins te sien toeneem. Wat het gebeur? Niemand het die moeite gedoen om die etiket te lees nie, dus het Diet Coke (wat in 'n silwer blikkie verkoop word) die wit gewone Coke per ongeluk gekoop en toe daaroor gegil.

Dit is natuurlik ernstig as diabete of ander met dieetbeperkings iets inneem wat hulle nie sou moes as gevolg van 'n aankoopfout nie, maar baie ondernemings het baie klein etiketverskille wat hul produkte onderskei, maar niemand gaan agterna met die kwaad waarvoor Coke te kampe gehad het nie. bied net dieselfde drankie in 'n spesiale uitgawe wit blikkie in plaas van 'n rooi.

Baie beskou dit as 'n mislukte veldtog deur Coke, maar het hulle werklik iets verkeerd gedoen? Gekonfronteer met 'n lelike openbare terugslag, het hulle die vervaardiging van die wit blikkies gestaak en stel hulle 'n rooi ysbeerblik voor vir die res van die veldtog. Nou kan mense teruggaan om nie weer aandag te gee aan wat hulle koop nie.


Die mees aanstootlike advertensieveldtogte van 2011

Baie besighede besef dat verbruikers op soek is na handelsmerke wat omgee, handelsmerke wat in gesprek tree en handelsmerke wat die huidige neigings verstaan. Hierdie ondernemings pas by hierdie nuwe gevoelens aan en hul besighede floreer. Ander ondernemings het seksistiese advertensieveldtogte van stapel gestuur, groen optrede bespot, kommentaar en klagtes van kliënte onderdruk, en 'n genadelose aanval op plaaslike ondernemings uitgevoer, en verbruikers het hulself uitgespreek.

Groen is gewild. Daarom toon beskaamde groen inisiatiewe dat u nie net 'n idee het nie, maar ook 'n deel van die probleem is.

Ondanks die toenemende gewildheid (en wye mediaberigtheid) van fietsdelingsprogramme in stede en die aantal stede wat meer fietsrybane wil instel en fietspendel wil aanmoedig, het GM besluit om 'n advertensieveldtog te voer wat ontwerp is om fietsryers skaam te laat voel oor fietsry. Die veldtog, wat in universiteitsblaaie aangebied word en gemik is op huidige studente en onlangse studente, wys hoe 'n man op sy fiets ry en sy gesig bedek terwyl 'n meisie in haar (vermoedelik GM) motor ry. Die taglyn lui: Hou op trap … begin ryen 'n prentjie van 'n kleiner motor en 'n vragmotor van 8230.

Daar was 'n onmiddellike geskreeu. Fietsorganisasies, studente en selfs professore veroordeel die advertensie en alles waarvoor dit staan. GM het so vinnig teruggesak dat dit onmiddellik die advertensies laat vaar het en begin om verskoning vra via Facebook en deur elke ander soort sosiale media wat dit kan vind. Die maatskappy het op baie van die negatiewe opmerkings gereageer en om verskoning gevra.

Waarom word maatskappye nooit moeg om op vroue en meisies te spoeg om goed te verkoop nie?

Dr Pepper was moeg daarvoor om slegs koeldrank aan vroue te verkoop. Wie wil regtig 'n beroep doen op die demografie wat in elk geval meer as 80 persent van huishoudelike koopbesluite neem? Hulle besluit dus dat mans 'n beroep op mans moet doen om vroue uit te sluit. Op hul Facebook-blad het hulle selfs net mans (dit is buite perke vir vroue) aangemoedig om speletjies te speel waar hulle hoë hakke, eenhoorns en reënboë skiet.

Niemand was verbasend behalwe dr. Pepper nie, maar die veldtog het die meeste mans nie aangespreek nie (wat ietwat gerusstellend is) en omdat dit uit sy pad gegaan het om vroue te vervreem, het niemand oorgebly om dit te koop nie.

Sommige maatskappye dink nog steeds dat dit 'n goeie idee is om items te verkoop deur meisies te seksualiseer of seksistiese stereotipes te bevorder (of albei tegelyk). Abercrombie en Fitch was 'n herhaaldelike oortreder, en die afgelope jaar het gesinsgerigte kleinhandelaars Kmart en JCPenney by die klub aangesluit. JCPenney het hierdie t-hemp vinnig uit die voorraad gehaal nadat hy met klagtes oorstroom is, en 'n Kmart in Australië het om dieselfde rede hierdie string uit die rakke gehaal. Die stringtoue word gemaak deur Kmart se interne handelsmerk, Girl Xpress, en die persepsie was dat hulle dit aan jong meisies bemark. Kmart het dit ontken, maar sou nie sê dat die kliënt se ouderdomsgroep Girl Xpress daarop gemik was nie.

Om eerlik te wees, dit is moeilik om te sê wat die doel van hierdie veldtog was, maar wat dit ook al was, almal het dit vinnig uit die oog verloor. Een blogger het op die Facebook -blad van Chapstick gekla oor die gebruik van hierdie taai, onaantreklike prentjie van 'n vrou in 'n stywe jeans. Die maatskappy het haar opmerking onmiddellik uitgevee ('n ironie wat baie mense opgemerk het, in ag genome die uitnodiging van die onderneming om op hul bladsy gehoor te word). Ditto die negatiewe opmerkings wat daarna gekom het. Opmerkings soos, en nadat ek na hierdie foto gekyk het, weet ek waar ek my stokkie wil wegsteek, ”is nie deur die onderneming verwyder nie.

Binnekort was dit 'n stryd om te sien wie die vinnigste was, die kommentators of die sensors. Almal het vergeet van die advertensie wat die oorlog in die eerste plek veroorsaak het en hul woede gerig het op die onderneming wat die gesprek probeer beheer het. Dit is iets wat u net nie op sosiale media doen nie, en Chapstick het gekom uit 'n geringe verleentheid wat lyk soos 'n uiters dwase gorilla van 800 pond.

As u Goliat is, laat u omstanders werf om Dawid in stof te stamp, soos 'n nog groter boelie.

Dit is nie genoeg dat Amazon die pryse van die meeste plaaslike boekwinkels verlaag nie, maar nou moedig hulle verbruikers aan om by plaaslike ondernemings in te gaan, items te skandeer en die prys te vergelyk met dieselfde item op Amazon. Aangesien Amazon in baie gevalle nie verkoopsbelasting hef nie, kan die besparing aansienlik wees, wat veroorsaak dat baie kopers nie die item by die plaaslike onderneming koop nie en dit nie aanlyn koop nie.

By die promosie van hierdie nuwe pryskontrole -app bied Amazon kliënte $ 5 vir elke item wat hulle gekoop het (tot 'n totaal van $ 15). Forbes noem dit die toekoms van sake, maar in die lig van Small Business Saturday en al die bewyse dat gemeenskappe hul besighede moet beskerm en ondersteun om plaaslike ekonomieë te help, is die veldtog van Amazon net so brutaal as 'n huursoldaat en koelhartig.

Soms as u alles reg doen, gaan dit steeds verkeerd, want u verbruikers kan nie die moeite doen om die etiket te lees nie.

Coca-Cola het gedink dat dit so 'n wonderlike bemarkingsveldtog vir vakansiedae sou wees om ysbere te ondersteun, 'n spesie wat dringend hulp nodig het, sowel as diere wat in die afgelope jare prominent verskyn het in nostalgiese Coke-vakansie-advertensies. Hulle het 'n opvallende wit blikkie ontwerp en bereid om bewustheid en wins te sien toeneem. Wat het gebeur? Niemand het die moeite gedoen om die etiket te lees nie, dus het Diet Coke (wat in 'n silwer blikkie verkoop word) die wit gewone Coke per ongeluk gekoop en toe daaroor gegil.

Dit is natuurlik ernstig as diabete of ander met dieetbeperkings iets inneem wat hulle nie sou moes as gevolg van 'n aankoopfout nie, maar baie ondernemings het baie klein etiketverskille wat hul produkte onderskei, maar niemand gaan agterna met die kwaad waarvoor Coke te kampe gehad het nie. bied net dieselfde drankie in 'n spesiale uitgawe wit blikkie in plaas van 'n rooi.

Baie beskou dit as 'n mislukte veldtog deur Coke, maar het hulle werklik iets verkeerd gedoen? Gekonfronteer met 'n lelike openbare terugslag, het hulle die vervaardiging van die wit blikkies gestaak en stel hulle 'n rooi ysbeerblik voor vir die res van die veldtog. Nou kan mense teruggaan om nie weer aandag te gee aan wat hulle koop nie.


Die mees aanstootlike advertensieveldtogte van 2011

Baie besighede besef dat verbruikers op soek is na handelsmerke wat omgee, handelsmerke wat in gesprek tree en handelsmerke wat die huidige neigings verstaan. Hierdie ondernemings pas by hierdie nuwe gevoelens aan en hul besighede floreer. Ander ondernemings het seksistiese advertensieveldtogte van stapel gestuur, groen optrede bespot, kommentaar en klagtes van kliënte onderdruk, en 'n genadelose aanval op plaaslike ondernemings uitgevoer, en verbruikers het hulself uitgespreek.

Groen is gewild. Daarom toon beskaamde groen inisiatiewe dat u nie net 'n idee het nie, maar ook 'n deel van die probleem is.

Ondanks die toenemende gewildheid (en wye mediaberigtheid) van fietsdelingsprogramme in stede en die aantal stede wat meer fietsrybane wil instel en fietspendel wil aanmoedig, het GM besluit om 'n advertensieveldtog te voer wat ontwerp is om fietsryers skaam te laat voel oor fietsry. Die veldtog, wat in universiteitsblaaie aangebied word en gemik is op huidige studente en onlangse studente, wys hoe 'n man op sy fiets ry en sy gesig bedek terwyl 'n meisie in haar (vermoedelik GM) motor ry. Die taglyn lui: Hou op trap … begin ryen 'n prentjie van 'n kleiner motor en 'n vragmotor van 8230.

Daar was 'n onmiddellike geskreeu. Fietsorganisasies, studente en selfs professore veroordeel die advertensie en alles waarvoor dit staan. GM het so vinnig teruggesak dat dit onmiddellik die advertensies laat vaar het en begin om verskoning vra via Facebook en deur elke ander soort sosiale media wat dit kan vind. Die maatskappy het op baie van die negatiewe opmerkings gereageer en om verskoning gevra.

Waarom word maatskappye nooit moeg om op vroue en meisies te spoeg om goed te verkoop nie?

Dr Pepper was moeg daarvoor om slegs koeldrank aan vroue te verkoop. Wie wil regtig 'n beroep doen op die demografie wat in elk geval meer as 80 persent van huishoudelike koopbesluite neem? Hulle besluit dus dat mans 'n beroep op mans moet doen om vroue uit te sluit. Op hul Facebook-blad het hulle selfs net mans (dit is buite perke vir vroue) aangemoedig om speletjies te speel waar hulle hoë hakke, eenhoorns en reënboë skiet.

Niemand was verbasend behalwe dr. Pepper nie, maar die veldtog het die meeste mans nie aangespreek nie (wat ietwat gerusstellend is) en omdat dit uit sy pad gegaan het om vroue te vervreem, het niemand oorgebly om dit te koop nie.

Sommige maatskappye dink nog steeds dat dit 'n goeie idee is om items te verkoop deur meisies te seksualiseer of seksistiese stereotipes te bevorder (of albei tegelyk). Abercrombie en Fitch was 'n herhaaldelike oortreder, en die afgelope jaar het gesinsgerigte kleinhandelaars Kmart en JCPenney by die klub aangesluit. JCPenney het hierdie t-hemp vinnig uit die voorraad gehaal nadat hy met klagtes oorstroom is, en 'n Kmart in Australië het om dieselfde rede hierdie string uit die rakke gehaal. Die stringtoue word gemaak deur Kmart se interne handelsmerk, Girl Xpress, en die persepsie was dat hulle dit aan jong meisies bemark. Kmart het dit ontken, maar sou nie sê dat die kliënt se ouderdomsgroep Girl Xpress daarop gemik was nie.

Om eerlik te wees, dit is moeilik om te sê wat die doel van hierdie veldtog was, maar wat dit ook al was, almal het dit vinnig uit die oog verloor. Een blogger het op die Facebook -blad van Chapstick gekla oor die gebruik van hierdie taai, onaantreklike prentjie van 'n vrou in 'n stywe jeans. Die maatskappy het haar opmerking onmiddellik uitgevee ('n ironie wat baie mense opgemerk het, in ag genome die uitnodiging van die onderneming om op hul bladsy gehoor te word). Ditto die negatiewe opmerkings wat daarna gekom het. Opmerkings soos, en nadat ek na hierdie foto gekyk het, weet ek waar ek my stokkie wil wegsteek, ”is nie deur die onderneming verwyder nie.

Binnekort was dit 'n stryd om te sien wie die vinnigste was, die kommentators of die sensors. Almal het vergeet van die advertensie wat die oorlog in die eerste plek veroorsaak het en hul woede gerig het op die onderneming wat die gesprek probeer beheer het. Dit is iets wat u net nie op sosiale media doen nie, en Chapstick het gekom uit 'n geringe verleentheid wat lyk soos 'n uiters dwase gorilla van 800 pond.

As u Goliat is, laat u omstanders werf om Dawid in stof te stamp, soos 'n nog groter boelie.

Dit is nie genoeg dat Amazon die pryse van die meeste plaaslike boekwinkels verlaag nie, maar nou moedig hulle verbruikers aan om by plaaslike ondernemings in te gaan, items te skandeer en die prys te vergelyk met dieselfde item op Amazon. Aangesien Amazon in baie gevalle nie verkoopsbelasting hef nie, kan die besparing aansienlik wees, wat veroorsaak dat baie kopers nie die item by die plaaslike onderneming koop nie en dit nie aanlyn koop nie.

By die promosie van hierdie nuwe pryskontrole -app bied Amazon kliënte $ 5 vir elke item wat hulle gekoop het (tot 'n totaal van $ 15). Forbes noem dit die toekoms van sake, maar in die lig van Small Business Saturday en al die bewyse dat gemeenskappe hul besighede moet beskerm en ondersteun om plaaslike ekonomieë te help, is die veldtog van Amazon net so brutaal as 'n huursoldaat en koelhartig.

Soms as u alles reg doen, gaan dit steeds verkeerd, want u verbruikers kan nie die moeite doen om die etiket te lees nie.

Coca-Cola het gedink dat dit so 'n wonderlike bemarkingsveldtog vir vakansiedae sou wees om ysbere te ondersteun, 'n spesie wat dringend hulp nodig het, sowel as diere wat in die afgelope jare prominent verskyn het in nostalgiese Coke-vakansie-advertensies. Hulle het 'n opvallende wit blikkie ontwerp en bereid om bewustheid en wins te sien toeneem. Wat het gebeur? Niemand het die moeite gedoen om die etiket te lees nie, dus het Diet Coke (wat in 'n silwer blikkie verkoop word) die wit gewone Coke per ongeluk gekoop en toe daaroor gegil.

Dit is natuurlik ernstig as diabete of ander met dieetbeperkings iets inneem wat hulle nie sou moes as gevolg van 'n aankoopfout nie, maar baie ondernemings het baie klein etiketverskille wat hul produkte onderskei, maar niemand gaan agterna met die kwaad waarvoor Coke te kampe gehad het nie. bied net dieselfde drankie in 'n spesiale uitgawe wit blikkie in plaas van 'n rooi.

Baie beskou dit as 'n mislukte veldtog deur Coke, maar het hulle werklik iets verkeerd gedoen? Gekonfronteer met 'n lelike openbare terugslag, het hulle die vervaardiging van die wit blikkies gestaak en stel hulle 'n rooi ysbeerblik voor vir die res van die veldtog. Nou kan mense teruggaan om nie weer aandag te gee aan wat hulle koop nie.


Die mees aanstootlike advertensieveldtogte van 2011

Baie besighede besef dat verbruikers op soek is na handelsmerke wat omgee, handelsmerke wat in gesprek tree en handelsmerke wat die huidige neigings verstaan. Hierdie ondernemings pas by hierdie nuwe gevoelens aan en hul besighede floreer. Ander ondernemings het seksistiese advertensieveldtogte van stapel gestuur, groen optrede bespot, kommentaar en klagtes van kliënte onderdruk, en 'n genadelose aanval op plaaslike ondernemings uitgevoer, en verbruikers het hulself uitgespreek.

Groen is gewild. Daarom toon beskaamde groen inisiatiewe dat u nie net 'n idee het nie, maar ook 'n deel van die probleem is.

Ondanks die toenemende gewildheid (en wye mediaberigtheid) van fietsdelingsprogramme in stede en die aantal stede wat meer fietsrybane wil instel en fietspendel wil aanmoedig, het GM besluit om 'n advertensieveldtog te voer wat ontwerp is om fietsryers skaam te laat voel oor fietsry. Die veldtog, wat in universiteitsblaaie aangebied word en gemik is op huidige studente en onlangse studente, wys hoe 'n man op sy fiets ry en sy gesig bedek terwyl 'n meisie in haar (vermoedelik GM) motor ry. Die taglyn lui: Hou op trap … begin ryen 'n prentjie van 'n kleiner motor en 'n vragmotor van 8230.

Daar was 'n onmiddellike geskreeu. Fietsorganisasies, studente en selfs professore veroordeel die advertensie en alles waarvoor dit staan. GM het so vinnig teruggesak dat dit onmiddellik die advertensies laat vaar het en begin om verskoning vra via Facebook en deur elke ander soort sosiale media wat dit kan vind. Die maatskappy het op baie van die negatiewe opmerkings gereageer en om verskoning gevra.

Waarom word maatskappye nooit moeg om op vroue en meisies te spoeg om goed te verkoop nie?

Dr Pepper was moeg daarvoor om slegs koeldrank aan vroue te verkoop. Wie wil regtig 'n beroep doen op die demografie wat in elk geval meer as 80 persent van huishoudelike koopbesluite neem? Hulle besluit dus dat mans 'n beroep op mans moet doen om vroue uit te sluit. Op hul Facebook-blad het hulle selfs net mans (dit is buite perke vir vroue) aangemoedig om speletjies te speel waar hulle hoë hakke, eenhoorns en reënboë skiet.

Niemand was verbasend behalwe dr. Pepper nie, maar die veldtog het die meeste mans nie aangespreek nie (wat ietwat gerusstellend is) en omdat dit uit sy pad gegaan het om vroue te vervreem, het niemand oorgebly om dit te koop nie.

Sommige maatskappye dink nog steeds dat dit 'n goeie idee is om items te verkoop deur meisies te seksualiseer of seksistiese stereotipes te bevorder (of albei tegelyk). Abercrombie en Fitch was 'n herhaaldelike oortreder, en die afgelope jaar het gesinsgerigte kleinhandelaars Kmart en JCPenney by die klub aangesluit. JCPenney het hierdie t-hemp vinnig uit die voorraad gehaal nadat hy met klagtes oorstroom is, en 'n Kmart in Australië het om dieselfde rede hierdie string uit die rakke gehaal. Die stringtoue word gemaak deur Kmart se interne handelsmerk, Girl Xpress, en die persepsie was dat hulle dit aan jong meisies bemark. Kmart het dit ontken, maar sou nie sê dat die kliënt se ouderdomsgroep Girl Xpress daarop gemik was nie.

Om eerlik te wees, dit is moeilik om te sê wat die doel van hierdie veldtog was, maar wat dit ook al was, almal het dit vinnig uit die oog verloor. Een blogger het op die Facebook -blad van Chapstick gekla oor die gebruik van hierdie taai, onaantreklike prentjie van 'n vrou in 'n stywe jeans. Die maatskappy het haar opmerking onmiddellik uitgevee ('n ironie wat baie mense opgemerk het, in ag genome die uitnodiging van die onderneming om op hul bladsy gehoor te word). Ditto die negatiewe opmerkings wat daarna gekom het. Opmerkings soos, en nadat ek na hierdie foto gekyk het, weet ek waar ek my stokkie wil wegsteek, ”is nie deur die onderneming verwyder nie.

Binnekort was dit 'n stryd om te sien wie die vinnigste was, die kommentators of die sensors. Almal het vergeet van die advertensie wat die oorlog in die eerste plek veroorsaak het en hul woede gerig het op die onderneming wat die gesprek probeer beheer het. Dit is iets wat u net nie op sosiale media doen nie, en Chapstick het gekom uit 'n geringe verleentheid wat lyk soos 'n uiters dwase gorilla van 800 pond.

As u Goliat is, laat u omstanders werf om Dawid in stof te stamp, soos 'n nog groter boelie.

Dit is nie genoeg dat Amazon die pryse van die meeste plaaslike boekwinkels verlaag nie, maar nou moedig hulle verbruikers aan om by plaaslike ondernemings in te gaan, items te skandeer en die prys te vergelyk met dieselfde item op Amazon. Aangesien Amazon in baie gevalle nie verkoopsbelasting hef nie, kan die besparing aansienlik wees, wat veroorsaak dat baie kopers nie die item by die plaaslike onderneming koop nie en dit nie aanlyn koop nie.

By die promosie van hierdie nuwe pryskontrole -app bied Amazon kliënte $ 5 vir elke item wat hulle gekoop het (tot 'n totaal van $ 15). Forbes noem dit die toekoms van sake, maar in die lig van Small Business Saturday en al die bewyse dat gemeenskappe hul besighede moet beskerm en ondersteun om plaaslike ekonomieë te help, is die veldtog van Amazon net so brutaal as 'n huursoldaat en koelhartig.

Soms as u alles reg doen, gaan dit steeds verkeerd, want u verbruikers kan nie die moeite doen om die etiket te lees nie.

Coca-Cola het gedink dat dit so 'n wonderlike bemarkingsveldtog vir vakansiedae sou wees om ysbere te ondersteun, 'n spesie wat dringend hulp nodig het, sowel as diere wat in die afgelope jare prominent verskyn het in nostalgiese Coke-vakansie-advertensies. Hulle het 'n opvallende wit blikkie ontwerp en bereid om bewustheid en wins te sien toeneem. Wat het gebeur? Niemand het die moeite gedoen om die etiket te lees nie, dus het Diet Coke (wat in 'n silwer blikkie verkoop word) die wit gewone Coke per ongeluk gekoop en toe daaroor gegil.

Dit is natuurlik ernstig as diabete of ander met dieetbeperkings iets inneem wat hulle nie sou moes as gevolg van 'n aankoopfout nie, maar baie ondernemings het baie klein etiketverskille wat hul produkte onderskei, maar niemand gaan agterna met die kwaad waarvoor Coke te kampe gehad het nie. bied net dieselfde drankie in 'n spesiale uitgawe wit blikkie in plaas van 'n rooi.

Baie beskou dit as 'n mislukte veldtog deur Coke, maar het hulle werklik iets verkeerd gedoen? Gekonfronteer met 'n lelike openbare terugslag, het hulle die vervaardiging van die wit blikkies gestaak en stel hulle 'n rooi ysbeerblik voor vir die res van die veldtog. Nou kan mense teruggaan om nie weer aandag te gee aan wat hulle koop nie.


Die mees aanstootlike advertensieveldtogte van 2011

Baie besighede besef dat verbruikers op soek is na handelsmerke wat omgee, handelsmerke wat in gesprek tree en handelsmerke wat die huidige neigings verstaan. Hierdie ondernemings pas by hierdie nuwe gevoelens aan en hul besighede floreer. Ander ondernemings het seksistiese advertensieveldtogte van stapel gestuur, groen optrede bespot, kommentaar en klagtes van kliënte onderdruk, en 'n genadelose aanval op plaaslike ondernemings uitgevoer, en verbruikers het hulself uitgespreek.

Groen is gewild. Daarom toon beskaamde groen inisiatiewe dat u nie net 'n idee het nie, maar ook 'n deel van die probleem is.

Ondanks die toenemende gewildheid (en wye mediaberigtheid) van fietsdelingsprogramme in stede en die aantal stede wat meer fietsrybane wil instel en fietspendel wil aanmoedig, het GM besluit om 'n advertensieveldtog te voer wat ontwerp is om fietsryers skaam te laat voel oor fietsry. Die veldtog, wat in universiteitsblaaie aangebied word en gemik is op huidige studente en onlangse studente, wys hoe 'n man op sy fiets ry en sy gesig bedek terwyl 'n meisie in haar (vermoedelik GM) motor ry. Die taglyn lui: Hou op trap … begin ryen 'n prentjie van 'n kleiner motor en 'n vragmotor van 8230.

Daar was 'n onmiddellike geskreeu. Fietsorganisasies, studente en selfs professore veroordeel die advertensie en alles waarvoor dit staan. GM het so vinnig teruggesak dat dit onmiddellik die advertensies laat vaar het en begin om verskoning vra via Facebook en deur elke ander soort sosiale media wat dit kan vind. Die maatskappy het op baie van die negatiewe opmerkings gereageer en om verskoning gevra.

Waarom word maatskappye nooit moeg om op vroue en meisies te spoeg om goed te verkoop nie?

Dr Pepper was moeg daarvoor om slegs koeldrank aan vroue te verkoop. Wie wil regtig 'n beroep doen op die demografie wat in elk geval meer as 80 persent van huishoudelike koopbesluite neem? Hulle besluit dus dat mans 'n beroep op mans moet doen om vroue uit te sluit. Op hul Facebook-blad het hulle selfs net mans (dit is buite perke vir vroue) aangemoedig om speletjies te speel waar hulle hoë hakke, eenhoorns en reënboë skiet.

Niemand was verbasend behalwe dr. Pepper nie, maar die veldtog het die meeste mans nie aangespreek nie (wat ietwat gerusstellend is) en omdat dit uit sy pad gegaan het om vroue te vervreem, het niemand oorgebly om dit te koop nie.

Sommige maatskappye dink nog steeds dat dit 'n goeie idee is om items te verkoop deur meisies te seksualiseer of seksistiese stereotipes te bevorder (of albei tegelyk). Abercrombie en Fitch was 'n herhaaldelike oortreder, en die afgelope jaar het gesinsgerigte kleinhandelaars Kmart en JCPenney by die klub aangesluit. JCPenney het hierdie t-hemp vinnig uit die voorraad gehaal nadat hy met klagtes oorstroom is, en 'n Kmart in Australië het om dieselfde rede hierdie string uit die rakke gehaal. Die stringtoue word gemaak deur Kmart se interne handelsmerk, Girl Xpress, en die persepsie was dat hulle dit aan jong meisies bemark. Kmart het dit ontken, maar sou nie sê dat die kliënt se ouderdomsgroep Girl Xpress daarop gemik was nie.

Om eerlik te wees, dit is moeilik om te sê wat die doel van hierdie veldtog was, maar wat dit ook al was, almal het dit vinnig uit die oog verloor. Een blogger het op die Facebook -blad van Chapstick gekla oor die gebruik van hierdie taai, onaantreklike prentjie van 'n vrou in 'n stywe jeans. Die maatskappy het haar opmerking onmiddellik uitgevee ('n ironie wat baie mense opgemerk het, in ag genome die uitnodiging van die onderneming om op hul bladsy gehoor te word). Ditto die negatiewe opmerkings wat daarna gekom het. Opmerkings soos, en nadat ek na hierdie foto gekyk het, weet ek waar ek my stokkie wil wegsteek, ”is nie deur die onderneming verwyder nie.

Binnekort was dit 'n stryd om te sien wie die vinnigste was, die kommentators of die sensors. Almal het vergeet van die advertensie wat die oorlog in die eerste plek veroorsaak het en hul woede gerig het op die onderneming wat die gesprek probeer beheer het. Dit is iets wat u net nie op sosiale media doen nie, en Chapstick het gekom uit 'n geringe verleentheid wat lyk soos 'n uiters dwase gorilla van 800 pond.

As u Goliat is, laat u omstanders werf om Dawid in stof te stamp, soos 'n nog groter boelie.

Dit is nie genoeg dat Amazon die pryse van die meeste plaaslike boekwinkels verlaag nie, maar nou moedig hulle verbruikers aan om by plaaslike ondernemings in te gaan, items te skandeer en die prys te vergelyk met dieselfde item op Amazon. Since in many instances, Amazon doesn’t charge sales tax, the savings can be significant, causing many shoppers to not buy the item at the local business and buy the item online.

When promoting this new price check app, Amazon offered customers $5 for each item they bought using it (up to a total of $15). Forbes calls it the future of business, but in the face of Small Business Saturday and all the evidence that communities need to patronize and support local businesses to help local economies, Amazon’s campaign is as brazen as it is mercenary and cold-hearted.

Sometimes when you do everything right, it still goes wrong because your consumers can’t be bothered to read the label.

Coca-Cola thought it would be such a terrific holiday-cause marketing campaign to support polar bears, a species in dire need of help as well as animals that have been prominently featured in nostalgic Coke holiday ads in years past. They designed an eye-catching white can and prepared to watch awareness and profits grow. What happened? No one bothered to read the label, so Diet Coke (which is sold in a silver can) drinkers bought the white regular Coke by accident and then screamed about it.

Of course it is serious when diabetics or others with dietary restrictions consume something they shouldn’t due to a purchasing mistake, but many companies have very slight label differences that distinguish their products, but no one goes after them with the viciousness that Coke faced for simply offering the same drink in a special issue white can instead of a red one.

Many see this as a failed campaign by Coke, but did they really do anything wrong? Faced with an ugly public backlash, they have halted the manufacture of the white cans and are introducing a red polar bear can for the rest of the campaign. Now people can go back to not paying attention to what they buy again.


The Most Offensive Ad Campaigns of 2011

Many businesses are realizing that consumers are looking for brands that care, brands that engage in dialogue, and brands that understand current trends. These companies are adapting to these new sensibilities and their businesses are thriving. Other companies have launched sexist ad campaigns, derided green actions, squelched customer’s comments and complaints, and mounted a merciless attack on local businesses, and consumers have spoken out.

Green is popular. Therefore, shaming green initiatives shows you are not only clueless, but part of the problem.

Despite the rising popularity (and wide media coverage) of bike sharing programs in cities and the number of cities looking to institute more bike lanes and encourage bicycle commuting, GM decided to run an ad campaign designed to make bicyclists feel ashamed of biking. The campaign, run in college magazines and aimed at current students and recent grads, shows a guy riding his bike and covering his face as a girl rides by in her (presumably GM) car. The tag line reads: Stop pedaling…start driving, and shows a picture of a smaller car, and a … truck.

There was an immediate outcry. Bicycling organizations, students and even professors condemned the ad and everything it stood for. GM backpedaled so fast that it immediately yanked the ads and began apologizing via Facebook and through every other type of social media it could find. The company responded to many of the negative comments and apologized.

Why do companies never tire of spitting on women and girls to sell stuff?

Dr. Pepper was tired of selling diet soda only to women. Who really wants to appeal to the demographic that makes over 80 percent of household buying decisions anyway? So they decided the way to appeal to men was to make a point of excluding women. On their Facebook page they even encouraged male-only users (it is off-limits to women) to play games where they shoot high heels, unicorns and rainbows.

Surprising no one but Dr. Pepper, the campaign didn’t appeal to most men (which is somewhat reassuring) and since it went out of its way to alienate women, no one was left to buy it.

Some companies still think it’s a good idea to sell items by sexualizing girls or promoting sexist stereotypes (or both at the same time). Abercrombie and Fitch has been a repeat offender, and this past year, family-oriented retailers Kmart and JCPenney joined the club. JCPenney quickly took this t-shirt out of inventory after being flooded with complaints, and a Kmart located in Australia took these thongs off the shelves for the same reason. The thongs are made by Kmart’s inhouse brand, Girl Xpress and the perception was that they were marketing them toward young girls. Kmart denied it, but wouldn’t state the customer age range Girl Xpress was targeting.

To be honest, it’s hard to tell what the point of this campaign was supposed to be, but whatever it was, everyone quickly lost sight of it. One blogger complained on Chapstick’s Facebook page about the use of this tacky, unattractive picture of a woman’s derriere in tight jeans. The company promptly deleted her comment (an irony many have pointed out considering the company’s invitation to be heard on their page). Ditto the negative comments that came after it. However, comments like, “after looking at this pic i know right where i wanna hide my chapstick,” were not deleted by the company.

Soon it was a battle to see who was faster, the commenters or the censors. Everyone forgot about the ad that sparked the war in the first place and directed their fury at the company who tried to control the conversation. That is something you just don’t do in social media and Chapstick came out of what could have been a minor embarrassment looking like an exceedingly foolish, 800-pound gorilla.

When you are Goliath, recruiting bystanders to pound David into dust makes you look like an even bigger bully.

It’s not enough that Amazon undercuts the prices of most local bookstores, but now they are encouraging consumers to go into local businesses, scan items and compare the price with the same item on Amazon. Since in many instances, Amazon doesn’t charge sales tax, the savings can be significant, causing many shoppers to not buy the item at the local business and buy the item online.

When promoting this new price check app, Amazon offered customers $5 for each item they bought using it (up to a total of $15). Forbes calls it the future of business, but in the face of Small Business Saturday and all the evidence that communities need to patronize and support local businesses to help local economies, Amazon’s campaign is as brazen as it is mercenary and cold-hearted.

Sometimes when you do everything right, it still goes wrong because your consumers can’t be bothered to read the label.

Coca-Cola thought it would be such a terrific holiday-cause marketing campaign to support polar bears, a species in dire need of help as well as animals that have been prominently featured in nostalgic Coke holiday ads in years past. They designed an eye-catching white can and prepared to watch awareness and profits grow. What happened? No one bothered to read the label, so Diet Coke (which is sold in a silver can) drinkers bought the white regular Coke by accident and then screamed about it.

Of course it is serious when diabetics or others with dietary restrictions consume something they shouldn’t due to a purchasing mistake, but many companies have very slight label differences that distinguish their products, but no one goes after them with the viciousness that Coke faced for simply offering the same drink in a special issue white can instead of a red one.

Many see this as a failed campaign by Coke, but did they really do anything wrong? Faced with an ugly public backlash, they have halted the manufacture of the white cans and are introducing a red polar bear can for the rest of the campaign. Now people can go back to not paying attention to what they buy again.


The Most Offensive Ad Campaigns of 2011

Many businesses are realizing that consumers are looking for brands that care, brands that engage in dialogue, and brands that understand current trends. These companies are adapting to these new sensibilities and their businesses are thriving. Other companies have launched sexist ad campaigns, derided green actions, squelched customer’s comments and complaints, and mounted a merciless attack on local businesses, and consumers have spoken out.

Green is popular. Therefore, shaming green initiatives shows you are not only clueless, but part of the problem.

Despite the rising popularity (and wide media coverage) of bike sharing programs in cities and the number of cities looking to institute more bike lanes and encourage bicycle commuting, GM decided to run an ad campaign designed to make bicyclists feel ashamed of biking. The campaign, run in college magazines and aimed at current students and recent grads, shows a guy riding his bike and covering his face as a girl rides by in her (presumably GM) car. The tag line reads: Stop pedaling…start driving, and shows a picture of a smaller car, and a … truck.

There was an immediate outcry. Bicycling organizations, students and even professors condemned the ad and everything it stood for. GM backpedaled so fast that it immediately yanked the ads and began apologizing via Facebook and through every other type of social media it could find. The company responded to many of the negative comments and apologized.

Why do companies never tire of spitting on women and girls to sell stuff?

Dr. Pepper was tired of selling diet soda only to women. Who really wants to appeal to the demographic that makes over 80 percent of household buying decisions anyway? So they decided the way to appeal to men was to make a point of excluding women. On their Facebook page they even encouraged male-only users (it is off-limits to women) to play games where they shoot high heels, unicorns and rainbows.

Surprising no one but Dr. Pepper, the campaign didn’t appeal to most men (which is somewhat reassuring) and since it went out of its way to alienate women, no one was left to buy it.

Some companies still think it’s a good idea to sell items by sexualizing girls or promoting sexist stereotypes (or both at the same time). Abercrombie and Fitch has been a repeat offender, and this past year, family-oriented retailers Kmart and JCPenney joined the club. JCPenney quickly took this t-shirt out of inventory after being flooded with complaints, and a Kmart located in Australia took these thongs off the shelves for the same reason. The thongs are made by Kmart’s inhouse brand, Girl Xpress and the perception was that they were marketing them toward young girls. Kmart denied it, but wouldn’t state the customer age range Girl Xpress was targeting.

To be honest, it’s hard to tell what the point of this campaign was supposed to be, but whatever it was, everyone quickly lost sight of it. One blogger complained on Chapstick’s Facebook page about the use of this tacky, unattractive picture of a woman’s derriere in tight jeans. The company promptly deleted her comment (an irony many have pointed out considering the company’s invitation to be heard on their page). Ditto the negative comments that came after it. However, comments like, “after looking at this pic i know right where i wanna hide my chapstick,” were not deleted by the company.

Soon it was a battle to see who was faster, the commenters or the censors. Everyone forgot about the ad that sparked the war in the first place and directed their fury at the company who tried to control the conversation. That is something you just don’t do in social media and Chapstick came out of what could have been a minor embarrassment looking like an exceedingly foolish, 800-pound gorilla.

When you are Goliath, recruiting bystanders to pound David into dust makes you look like an even bigger bully.

It’s not enough that Amazon undercuts the prices of most local bookstores, but now they are encouraging consumers to go into local businesses, scan items and compare the price with the same item on Amazon. Since in many instances, Amazon doesn’t charge sales tax, the savings can be significant, causing many shoppers to not buy the item at the local business and buy the item online.

When promoting this new price check app, Amazon offered customers $5 for each item they bought using it (up to a total of $15). Forbes calls it the future of business, but in the face of Small Business Saturday and all the evidence that communities need to patronize and support local businesses to help local economies, Amazon’s campaign is as brazen as it is mercenary and cold-hearted.

Sometimes when you do everything right, it still goes wrong because your consumers can’t be bothered to read the label.

Coca-Cola thought it would be such a terrific holiday-cause marketing campaign to support polar bears, a species in dire need of help as well as animals that have been prominently featured in nostalgic Coke holiday ads in years past. They designed an eye-catching white can and prepared to watch awareness and profits grow. What happened? No one bothered to read the label, so Diet Coke (which is sold in a silver can) drinkers bought the white regular Coke by accident and then screamed about it.

Of course it is serious when diabetics or others with dietary restrictions consume something they shouldn’t due to a purchasing mistake, but many companies have very slight label differences that distinguish their products, but no one goes after them with the viciousness that Coke faced for simply offering the same drink in a special issue white can instead of a red one.

Many see this as a failed campaign by Coke, but did they really do anything wrong? Faced with an ugly public backlash, they have halted the manufacture of the white cans and are introducing a red polar bear can for the rest of the campaign. Now people can go back to not paying attention to what they buy again.


The Most Offensive Ad Campaigns of 2011

Many businesses are realizing that consumers are looking for brands that care, brands that engage in dialogue, and brands that understand current trends. These companies are adapting to these new sensibilities and their businesses are thriving. Other companies have launched sexist ad campaigns, derided green actions, squelched customer’s comments and complaints, and mounted a merciless attack on local businesses, and consumers have spoken out.

Green is popular. Therefore, shaming green initiatives shows you are not only clueless, but part of the problem.

Despite the rising popularity (and wide media coverage) of bike sharing programs in cities and the number of cities looking to institute more bike lanes and encourage bicycle commuting, GM decided to run an ad campaign designed to make bicyclists feel ashamed of biking. The campaign, run in college magazines and aimed at current students and recent grads, shows a guy riding his bike and covering his face as a girl rides by in her (presumably GM) car. The tag line reads: Stop pedaling…start driving, and shows a picture of a smaller car, and a … truck.

There was an immediate outcry. Bicycling organizations, students and even professors condemned the ad and everything it stood for. GM backpedaled so fast that it immediately yanked the ads and began apologizing via Facebook and through every other type of social media it could find. The company responded to many of the negative comments and apologized.

Why do companies never tire of spitting on women and girls to sell stuff?

Dr. Pepper was tired of selling diet soda only to women. Who really wants to appeal to the demographic that makes over 80 percent of household buying decisions anyway? So they decided the way to appeal to men was to make a point of excluding women. On their Facebook page they even encouraged male-only users (it is off-limits to women) to play games where they shoot high heels, unicorns and rainbows.

Surprising no one but Dr. Pepper, the campaign didn’t appeal to most men (which is somewhat reassuring) and since it went out of its way to alienate women, no one was left to buy it.

Some companies still think it’s a good idea to sell items by sexualizing girls or promoting sexist stereotypes (or both at the same time). Abercrombie and Fitch has been a repeat offender, and this past year, family-oriented retailers Kmart and JCPenney joined the club. JCPenney quickly took this t-shirt out of inventory after being flooded with complaints, and a Kmart located in Australia took these thongs off the shelves for the same reason. The thongs are made by Kmart’s inhouse brand, Girl Xpress and the perception was that they were marketing them toward young girls. Kmart denied it, but wouldn’t state the customer age range Girl Xpress was targeting.

To be honest, it’s hard to tell what the point of this campaign was supposed to be, but whatever it was, everyone quickly lost sight of it. One blogger complained on Chapstick’s Facebook page about the use of this tacky, unattractive picture of a woman’s derriere in tight jeans. The company promptly deleted her comment (an irony many have pointed out considering the company’s invitation to be heard on their page). Ditto the negative comments that came after it. However, comments like, “after looking at this pic i know right where i wanna hide my chapstick,” were not deleted by the company.

Soon it was a battle to see who was faster, the commenters or the censors. Everyone forgot about the ad that sparked the war in the first place and directed their fury at the company who tried to control the conversation. That is something you just don’t do in social media and Chapstick came out of what could have been a minor embarrassment looking like an exceedingly foolish, 800-pound gorilla.

When you are Goliath, recruiting bystanders to pound David into dust makes you look like an even bigger bully.

It’s not enough that Amazon undercuts the prices of most local bookstores, but now they are encouraging consumers to go into local businesses, scan items and compare the price with the same item on Amazon. Since in many instances, Amazon doesn’t charge sales tax, the savings can be significant, causing many shoppers to not buy the item at the local business and buy the item online.

When promoting this new price check app, Amazon offered customers $5 for each item they bought using it (up to a total of $15). Forbes calls it the future of business, but in the face of Small Business Saturday and all the evidence that communities need to patronize and support local businesses to help local economies, Amazon’s campaign is as brazen as it is mercenary and cold-hearted.

Sometimes when you do everything right, it still goes wrong because your consumers can’t be bothered to read the label.

Coca-Cola thought it would be such a terrific holiday-cause marketing campaign to support polar bears, a species in dire need of help as well as animals that have been prominently featured in nostalgic Coke holiday ads in years past. They designed an eye-catching white can and prepared to watch awareness and profits grow. What happened? No one bothered to read the label, so Diet Coke (which is sold in a silver can) drinkers bought the white regular Coke by accident and then screamed about it.

Of course it is serious when diabetics or others with dietary restrictions consume something they shouldn’t due to a purchasing mistake, but many companies have very slight label differences that distinguish their products, but no one goes after them with the viciousness that Coke faced for simply offering the same drink in a special issue white can instead of a red one.

Many see this as a failed campaign by Coke, but did they really do anything wrong? Faced with an ugly public backlash, they have halted the manufacture of the white cans and are introducing a red polar bear can for the rest of the campaign. Now people can go back to not paying attention to what they buy again.


The Most Offensive Ad Campaigns of 2011

Many businesses are realizing that consumers are looking for brands that care, brands that engage in dialogue, and brands that understand current trends. These companies are adapting to these new sensibilities and their businesses are thriving. Other companies have launched sexist ad campaigns, derided green actions, squelched customer’s comments and complaints, and mounted a merciless attack on local businesses, and consumers have spoken out.

Green is popular. Therefore, shaming green initiatives shows you are not only clueless, but part of the problem.

Despite the rising popularity (and wide media coverage) of bike sharing programs in cities and the number of cities looking to institute more bike lanes and encourage bicycle commuting, GM decided to run an ad campaign designed to make bicyclists feel ashamed of biking. The campaign, run in college magazines and aimed at current students and recent grads, shows a guy riding his bike and covering his face as a girl rides by in her (presumably GM) car. The tag line reads: Stop pedaling…start driving, and shows a picture of a smaller car, and a … truck.

There was an immediate outcry. Bicycling organizations, students and even professors condemned the ad and everything it stood for. GM backpedaled so fast that it immediately yanked the ads and began apologizing via Facebook and through every other type of social media it could find. The company responded to many of the negative comments and apologized.

Why do companies never tire of spitting on women and girls to sell stuff?

Dr. Pepper was tired of selling diet soda only to women. Who really wants to appeal to the demographic that makes over 80 percent of household buying decisions anyway? So they decided the way to appeal to men was to make a point of excluding women. On their Facebook page they even encouraged male-only users (it is off-limits to women) to play games where they shoot high heels, unicorns and rainbows.

Surprising no one but Dr. Pepper, the campaign didn’t appeal to most men (which is somewhat reassuring) and since it went out of its way to alienate women, no one was left to buy it.

Some companies still think it’s a good idea to sell items by sexualizing girls or promoting sexist stereotypes (or both at the same time). Abercrombie and Fitch has been a repeat offender, and this past year, family-oriented retailers Kmart and JCPenney joined the club. JCPenney quickly took this t-shirt out of inventory after being flooded with complaints, and a Kmart located in Australia took these thongs off the shelves for the same reason. The thongs are made by Kmart’s inhouse brand, Girl Xpress and the perception was that they were marketing them toward young girls. Kmart denied it, but wouldn’t state the customer age range Girl Xpress was targeting.

To be honest, it’s hard to tell what the point of this campaign was supposed to be, but whatever it was, everyone quickly lost sight of it. One blogger complained on Chapstick’s Facebook page about the use of this tacky, unattractive picture of a woman’s derriere in tight jeans. The company promptly deleted her comment (an irony many have pointed out considering the company’s invitation to be heard on their page). Ditto the negative comments that came after it. However, comments like, “after looking at this pic i know right where i wanna hide my chapstick,” were not deleted by the company.

Soon it was a battle to see who was faster, the commenters or the censors. Everyone forgot about the ad that sparked the war in the first place and directed their fury at the company who tried to control the conversation. That is something you just don’t do in social media and Chapstick came out of what could have been a minor embarrassment looking like an exceedingly foolish, 800-pound gorilla.

When you are Goliath, recruiting bystanders to pound David into dust makes you look like an even bigger bully.

It’s not enough that Amazon undercuts the prices of most local bookstores, but now they are encouraging consumers to go into local businesses, scan items and compare the price with the same item on Amazon. Since in many instances, Amazon doesn’t charge sales tax, the savings can be significant, causing many shoppers to not buy the item at the local business and buy the item online.

When promoting this new price check app, Amazon offered customers $5 for each item they bought using it (up to a total of $15). Forbes calls it the future of business, but in the face of Small Business Saturday and all the evidence that communities need to patronize and support local businesses to help local economies, Amazon’s campaign is as brazen as it is mercenary and cold-hearted.

Sometimes when you do everything right, it still goes wrong because your consumers can’t be bothered to read the label.

Coca-Cola thought it would be such a terrific holiday-cause marketing campaign to support polar bears, a species in dire need of help as well as animals that have been prominently featured in nostalgic Coke holiday ads in years past. They designed an eye-catching white can and prepared to watch awareness and profits grow. What happened? No one bothered to read the label, so Diet Coke (which is sold in a silver can) drinkers bought the white regular Coke by accident and then screamed about it.

Of course it is serious when diabetics or others with dietary restrictions consume something they shouldn’t due to a purchasing mistake, but many companies have very slight label differences that distinguish their products, but no one goes after them with the viciousness that Coke faced for simply offering the same drink in a special issue white can instead of a red one.

Many see this as a failed campaign by Coke, but did they really do anything wrong? Faced with an ugly public backlash, they have halted the manufacture of the white cans and are introducing a red polar bear can for the rest of the campaign. Now people can go back to not paying attention to what they buy again.


The Most Offensive Ad Campaigns of 2011

Many businesses are realizing that consumers are looking for brands that care, brands that engage in dialogue, and brands that understand current trends. These companies are adapting to these new sensibilities and their businesses are thriving. Other companies have launched sexist ad campaigns, derided green actions, squelched customer’s comments and complaints, and mounted a merciless attack on local businesses, and consumers have spoken out.

Green is popular. Therefore, shaming green initiatives shows you are not only clueless, but part of the problem.

Despite the rising popularity (and wide media coverage) of bike sharing programs in cities and the number of cities looking to institute more bike lanes and encourage bicycle commuting, GM decided to run an ad campaign designed to make bicyclists feel ashamed of biking. The campaign, run in college magazines and aimed at current students and recent grads, shows a guy riding his bike and covering his face as a girl rides by in her (presumably GM) car. The tag line reads: Stop pedaling…start driving, and shows a picture of a smaller car, and a … truck.

There was an immediate outcry. Bicycling organizations, students and even professors condemned the ad and everything it stood for. GM backpedaled so fast that it immediately yanked the ads and began apologizing via Facebook and through every other type of social media it could find. The company responded to many of the negative comments and apologized.

Why do companies never tire of spitting on women and girls to sell stuff?

Dr. Pepper was tired of selling diet soda only to women. Who really wants to appeal to the demographic that makes over 80 percent of household buying decisions anyway? So they decided the way to appeal to men was to make a point of excluding women. On their Facebook page they even encouraged male-only users (it is off-limits to women) to play games where they shoot high heels, unicorns and rainbows.

Surprising no one but Dr. Pepper, the campaign didn’t appeal to most men (which is somewhat reassuring) and since it went out of its way to alienate women, no one was left to buy it.

Some companies still think it’s a good idea to sell items by sexualizing girls or promoting sexist stereotypes (or both at the same time). Abercrombie and Fitch has been a repeat offender, and this past year, family-oriented retailers Kmart and JCPenney joined the club. JCPenney quickly took this t-shirt out of inventory after being flooded with complaints, and a Kmart located in Australia took these thongs off the shelves for the same reason. The thongs are made by Kmart’s inhouse brand, Girl Xpress and the perception was that they were marketing them toward young girls. Kmart denied it, but wouldn’t state the customer age range Girl Xpress was targeting.

To be honest, it’s hard to tell what the point of this campaign was supposed to be, but whatever it was, everyone quickly lost sight of it. One blogger complained on Chapstick’s Facebook page about the use of this tacky, unattractive picture of a woman’s derriere in tight jeans. The company promptly deleted her comment (an irony many have pointed out considering the company’s invitation to be heard on their page). Ditto the negative comments that came after it. However, comments like, “after looking at this pic i know right where i wanna hide my chapstick,” were not deleted by the company.

Soon it was a battle to see who was faster, the commenters or the censors. Everyone forgot about the ad that sparked the war in the first place and directed their fury at the company who tried to control the conversation. That is something you just don’t do in social media and Chapstick came out of what could have been a minor embarrassment looking like an exceedingly foolish, 800-pound gorilla.

When you are Goliath, recruiting bystanders to pound David into dust makes you look like an even bigger bully.

It’s not enough that Amazon undercuts the prices of most local bookstores, but now they are encouraging consumers to go into local businesses, scan items and compare the price with the same item on Amazon. Since in many instances, Amazon doesn’t charge sales tax, the savings can be significant, causing many shoppers to not buy the item at the local business and buy the item online.

When promoting this new price check app, Amazon offered customers $5 for each item they bought using it (up to a total of $15). Forbes calls it the future of business, but in the face of Small Business Saturday and all the evidence that communities need to patronize and support local businesses to help local economies, Amazon’s campaign is as brazen as it is mercenary and cold-hearted.

Sometimes when you do everything right, it still goes wrong because your consumers can’t be bothered to read the label.

Coca-Cola thought it would be such a terrific holiday-cause marketing campaign to support polar bears, a species in dire need of help as well as animals that have been prominently featured in nostalgic Coke holiday ads in years past. They designed an eye-catching white can and prepared to watch awareness and profits grow. What happened? No one bothered to read the label, so Diet Coke (which is sold in a silver can) drinkers bought the white regular Coke by accident and then screamed about it.

Of course it is serious when diabetics or others with dietary restrictions consume something they shouldn’t due to a purchasing mistake, but many companies have very slight label differences that distinguish their products, but no one goes after them with the viciousness that Coke faced for simply offering the same drink in a special issue white can instead of a red one.

Many see this as a failed campaign by Coke, but did they really do anything wrong? Faced with an ugly public backlash, they have halted the manufacture of the white cans and are introducing a red polar bear can for the rest of the campaign. Now people can go back to not paying attention to what they buy again.


Kyk die video: - Dodavanje Oglasa (Oktober 2021).