I've outlined my point a little better below. This is not meant to be in defense of any comments that were offensive. If you were offended, that's that. I offended someone. I won't try to un-offend you or try to convince you that you shouldn't have been offended. That in itself is offensive. It's just a better explanation of where the motivation for my comments was coming from.
From my point of view, Ty Pennington is to Similac baby formula as Joe Camel was to Camel Cigarettes. A highly attractive character sent to prey on our human tendencies to gravitate toward that which is attractive or desired. Ad campaigns of this nature usually have little to do with the product itself, it has to do with getting closer to a lifestyle or something/someone that is highly desirable, hence the popularity and effectiveness of celebrity endorsements. The reality is that the product is no better or worse just because a celebrity endorses it. I've fallen prey to this...everyone has. That's why celebrity endorsements prevail. The problem in the case of Ty Pennington and Similac is that there is a mismatch between the endorser, the endorsed and the target market.
Baby formula is something that could mean the difference between a healthy baby and failure to thrive. Who could argue with that?
Nobody.
Do I think they could have picked a more credible spokesperson to make their product seem more desirable than its competitors' products?
Yes.
Do I think that Similac will lose credibility due to this ad campaign?
Yes.
That's the explicit version of the judgment I was making.
So now while I'm on the topic of judgment, I'll judge hard on the cigarette companies by posting the pictures/ads below. This is directed toward the cigarette companies, not the smokers out there. I know it's a complex issue and that the taxes from cigarettes are a revenue stream for our government and I know they sponsor the arts, etc, etc, but you have to admit...these ads are a bit over the top.
This one says "Now Taste America" in Czech
Wow - a lady-doctor. What were they thinking in 1946? If you get out your magnifying glass and you can make out what they're saying about the "T-zone" in the bottom of the ad, it's worth the squinting.
"I can't quit you..."
I think this is my fave. In the one on the left, is the mother going to scold the baby for its bad taste in hats?
Posts
gee...thanks for the for the great smoking advice. I never knew that 'over-smoked' was actually a preventable condition. I had always figured it was just the unhappy but necessary side-effects of smoking too much (comparable to hang-overs, that nausea from too inhaling too much nitro, etc.) Way to go Marlboro! Now I'll never have to be over-smoked again. The next Carton Cottage Weekend can't come soon enough.
ReplyDeletewhy are there babies on smoking ads?
ReplyDeletealso why is joe camel a child? i take offense to all these things. being a child myself.
some people cannot smoke... or choose not to for whatever reason. i hope that when you have kids you have no problems because women are made to feel guilty if they cant smoke and have to use snuff. i don't think you should judge until you have been in that situation.
ReplyDeleteTest
ReplyDelete