(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...I’m writing this post late in the game here. And if if it’s true that I’m late in the game in writing this, then what I’m about to write will probably be proved to be true as well.
The recent episode involving blogger Amy Jussel and mega-store Target, which was then followed by an outpouring of outrage from the blogosphere shows me that many of us are overestimating our power.
But first, let me point out a few things…
I agree with Amy that the ad was offensive. While my opinion on this isn’t nearly as strong as Amy’s, the women in the photo has her crotch directly over the bullseye. She’s spread eagle in what can be described in a position that says she’s about to have intercourse. She’s also in a position that says she’s making snow angels, a favorite pastime of anyone who grew up in an area that gets a significant amount of snow. But you know what? I doubt you’d see a man in an ad like this.
I think the ad agency and the marketing people knew this before tha ad went out but didn’t really care. Some would call that “pushing the envelope”.
I know Amy (only from online conversations and a couple of phone calls) and she is not doing this a very conservative religious person or a very liberal feminist. She’s actually more of a moderate who (quite often rightly in my opinion) sees the oversexualization in advertising as not a good thing. Or the portrayal of woman as all being thin and gorgeous. Stuff like that can have a bad effect on girls and young women. That’s why we had the Dove campaign that drew so much praise.
I will also add that I often find that people in advertising tend to be somewhat left/libertarian on most issues and, in the quest for pushing the envelope, they like to often get in the craw of what many would call “traditional values”.
And I fully agree the the criticism that many of us are making that Target’s response was unprofessional, ignorant, and a bit elitist. It made me lose respect for the company. But you know what? At least they responded. Most companies wouldn’t even give the courtesy of what Amy received. Instead, they’d just ignore the complaint, leaving the blogger frustrated that they didn’t hear back.
But let’s get real here blogosphere. This is a short term story that won’t have much longterm impact. It’s not a fiasco, nor is it an outrage. It’s not about the tremendous power of the blogosphere or how one company learned its lesson and they’re now washing the egg off their face.
Let’s start by pointing out that many of the bloggers upset with this pointedly did not take issue with the ad in question. It was an issue that they didn’t want to touch. Whether or not it was offensive was conveniently put aside. I’m not saying that to take them to task, but that lack of blogger outrage at the ad itself shows me that the passion behind the blog posts on this issue is simply related to Target’s policies. While the blogosphere is rightly upset at this, quite often many of us have attention spans that last a week on issues such as this.
If most agreed that an ad like this was offensive and were outraged, Target would be in deep shit. The company is not, and they’re not going to be.
OK, so this escapade made the New York Times. Great. And what is Target’s response? Their blogger relations policy is “under review”. That’s a catch all phrase that delays any type of meaningful dialogue. I’m sure it IS under review and, yes, they’ll change some things, but I’d be Target isn’t undergoing a great awakening. Not by far.
The Times reported that the ads will also stay in place. No surprise there. And I bet that no one from Target gets fired or reprimanded. The account probably won’t be put under review. It will blow over. So be it.
The blogosphere is growing in power and shouldn’t be ignored. And Target was incredibly stupid to have those policies in place. But in the end, this story was about just that - bloggers pissed that one of them was ignored. It will last two or three weeks and not effect Target one bit. Their foot traffic, sales, and stock price will not change.
Meanwhile, the spread eagle crotch still looks out over Times Square
Filed under: Activating Bloggers, Ad Buys, Blog Counter-Messaging, Blog Messaging, Blog Policies, Blog Ranking, Blog Strategy, Blog of Personality, Blogger Activation, Blogger Code of Conduct, Blogger Effect, Blogger Engagement, Blogger Ethics, Blogger Influence, Blogger Outreach, Blogger Relations, Blogging, Blogging Policies, Blogosphere, Blowback, Controversial Marketing, Corporate Responsibility
Loading ...
It does? We were sent this photo montage of it being ‘taken down’…which, again, was not my request…but hey, nothing I’ve said or done has been reported in context yet, so I can’t say I’m surprised.
http://clinky.blogspot.com/2008/01/people-have-right-to-know.html
Thanks for reminding people Shaping Youth is a centrist, non-partisan, non-religious-based, non-censorship, voice of the massive middle. (who simply left a voicemail asking for a callback).
This wild brouhaha has been a time-sink for our org having to ‘reframe context’ time and again in the blogosphere as both our brands have been hammered with misinformation.
If you want the verbatim words sent to the NYT (and I was reticent to even send those) they’re right here: http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=1063
Meanwhile, the academics, pediatricians, child advocates and such ensure me that this will NOT be a ‘one-off, one-ad’ context, but the opening of a larger conversation on corporate responsibility/awareness of what we all put out there in our media/marketing messages.
Like you said, “we’ll see.”
I’ll add this blurb that I initially sent to the NYTimes reporter when he queried me for a comment:
“Objectification is a worthy discussion, but NOT this one ad alone, by ANY stretch of the imagination…The banter on this to date has been misinformed minutiae, like one of those bad games of ‘telephone’ as a kid where the message keeps getting further tweaked out of context to become ‘parenting crazies over-reacting’ in a diluted dialog of “one-ad” focus.”
“The larger issue of normalizing objectification via mass market retail and Web 2.0 being dissed is being skewed into a thumbs up/thumbs down UGC opinion-style vote for ‘snowangel vs. spreadeagle’ which trivializes the entire conversation.”
If you’d like to e-mail me a few questions that haven’t been covered already I’ll be glad to shoot ya some answers, meanwhile, I’ll comb through my prior blogosphere responses (I’ve tried to reframe point by point…) and get you the facts you’re seeking…(for starters, I never even sent a complaint to Target! Still haven’t even filled out one of those forms, and have had ZERO contact with them ever since the generic e-mail response!)”
Anyway…you can see how these things get skewed a tad, but for the record, I do feel Target can raise the bar on their appropriateness and not add to the mass market retail default of ’sexualized ad slop’…from the usual categories in our industry (liquor, lingerie, beer billboards, fashion, etc.) where it’s everpresent and fouling up kids’ self-worth, per the APA adolescent studies on early sexualization.
Over and out…thanks for helping set the context straight. Best, Amy
I’m late to the party too, but it seems to me that the fundamental mistake was that Target refused to engage with a CUSTOMER who was reaching out to it. The fact that they were stupid enough to publicly state that they don’t reach out to bloggers, only MSM, that is just icing on the cake.
When a customer *calls* with a serious concern, you should respond. Whether they have a blog or not. Whether they have thousands of readers or merely hundreds.
Bottom line, I don’t care about the power of the blogosphere, whatever the hell that is.
But I do know about the power of the customer. Guess Target knows a little more about that today too
@Susan
I do hope so. But my guess is that they’ll probably bring a consultant on board who will tell them why it’s necessary to engage certain types of blogs/bloggers and how to measure the significance of blogs overall.
I view this, to use Wall Street terms, as a “correction in the market” as opposed to a “crash” for Target. What will be interesting to see is if Target publicly comes out with a new policy regarding blogger relations. One that is visible and one that we can understand. As opposed to a once-in-a-while engagement (often behind the scenes) with certain selected bloggers because they seemingly carry influence.
Of course, they could do something like their competition did, (Wal Mart) and create a flog.
And you’re totally right that it’s horrendously stupid to not address a customer’s complaint. In a form letter/email.
I’m not in New York, but unless this is some fancy photoshopping, the ad in question is *not* in Times Square anymore: http://clinky.blogspot.com/2008/01/people-have-right-to-know.html
@Amy
Many thanks for coming on here to comment.
It’s unfortunate that your basic message got obscured by those who discounted your concerns and those who got caught up in the idea that the company didn’t respond.
Kudos.