https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h Epic Style en-us 2022-02-08 09:27:56 UTC 2025-04-22 13:03:57 UTC hello@padlet.com huntertang300 https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035052195 “The Choice” was a short advertisement on YouTube uploaded by Procter & Gamble.  It was part of their campaign to appear progressive on the topic of racial inequality and gain support as a company that aligns with public interests.  Most of the video is of close up shots of black and white skin, close enough to see every wrinkle, with text about racial inequality overlaid.  It was an interesting video, but it lacks connection to anything real.  The text was, while not wrong, also not really evidence of a real effort to help.  To make it better, I would suggest adding minority celebrities that are universally liked.]]> 2022-02-08 09:34:42 UTC https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035052195 huntertang300 https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035105724 In P&G's advertisement "Widen the Screen", there is almost no mention of anything related to the brand or products that this video was meant to promote.  The focus is of course on making an association between P&G and progressive stances on race.  There were a lot of good ideas presented in the advertisement, but there was no evidence that P&G actually were using their position to do anything about it other than this campaign that directly benefits their brand.  If I were them, I would couple this campaign with some sort of actual real world evidence of helping black communities like a donation or a dedicated branch that is focused on promotions that actually propagate helpful behaviors.]]> 2022-02-08 10:05:40 UTC https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035105724 huntertang300 https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035106045 Technically, its more about what wasn't written, but in June of 2020, companies like BMW, HP, PayPal, Pepsi, Doritos, and Adobe decided to boycott Facebook to protest the platform’s irresponsible propagation of hate speech, racism, and misleading voter information.  This movement caused a lot of advertisers to pull out, but many returned shortly afterwards.  The companies who pulled out made the decision to show their commitment against companies like Facebook that are basically universally disliked.  Taking a stance against Facebook is a sure-fire way to increase a company's positive sentiment in the public's eye.  The actual extent that it hurt Facebook, however, was very insignificant and temporary.  Facebook actually relies on a lot more than just large advertisers as they have a lot of small businesses that rely on Facebook advertisements and can't afford to pull out.  Most people probably wont be putting a small business on blast for using Facebook anyways, so much of Facebook's income was completely unaffected.  In the end, though, I think the companies that wanted the good publicity got what they needed and they did it by saving money on advertisements at the same time.  I think they really should have actually committed fully to it or not done anything at all, since crawling back to Facebook after June is over is hardly a good look, though most people probably forgot about it by that time anyways.]]> 2022-02-08 10:05:49 UTC https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035106045 huntertang300 https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035248900 Blackout Tuesday was a hashtag and movement started on social media that many companies participated in.  Participating companies would post purely black images, often with some text on it that supported the BLM movement.  The movement was actually poorly received by the BLM movement, however and many articles criticized the companies that posted black squares on Instagram and twitter for being unhelpful and harming the BLM movement.  This was an example of brand activism gone wrong and some of the posts are deleted now.]]> 2022-02-08 11:34:25 UTC https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035248900 huntertang300 https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035249318 This article from adage.com was about how companies capitalized on George Floyd's death to ensure their brand had something progressive to say about the topic.  Brands like Nike, Disney, and Netflix spoke out about his death.  This just shows how companies have begun to react faster to the current events with the increasing speed of the news cycle.  Most companies are just scrambling to have a stance on everything just so people don't accuse them of being complicit in racism.]]> 2022-02-08 11:34:37 UTC https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035249318 huntertang300 https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035909036 Nike used a lot of different tactics to try and convince people that they are supportive of the black lives matter cause.

Nike made sure that they had a lot of star power in their ad.  Specifically, it uses stars who are from groups that are historically discriminated against.  It opens on Lebron James and goes from there.  It uses them to make people think that the people who are discriminated against are supportive of the ad and Nike's messaging.

The director creates a sense of connection between the viewer and the people who are in the video.  Most of them are making eye contact, most of the shots are close ups and focus on the actions of the subject.  Everytime there is a close up, the director likes to zoom out in the next shot to show some sort of larger movement to represent the way that these people are a part of larger communities and movements.

In general, the focus on a connection between the viewer and celebrities while maintaining a relatable theme is impressively good at conveying the message of support for the cause.  The way the director makes a personal connection with celebrities while also connecting to the general public by showcasing the bigger picture and thereby almost including the viewer in the ad.

I think Nike's message, when viewed in a vacuum, would be mostly viewed favorably by most people.  It may seem at first like powerful, risky ad that makes people think that Nike is so concerned about the issue that they are putting out this ad to support the cause.  If you look at it closer, though, it is actually quite a safe ad.  It actually doesn't really say much of anything and the only stance you could say it takes is the "racism is bad" stance, which makes for quite a safe ad.  Personally, behind the theatrics and direction techniques, I find the message hollow since there seems to be no real solution provided and no legitimate message packed inside of it.

I think the article is explaining that other people are starting to see that side of the companies as well.  People are looking at the actual moves that companies make to support the cause.  Talk is cheap and people are realizing that brand activism doesn't equal actual support.  Luckily for Nike, they have taken brand activism to the next level and actually made real moves to market themselves as supporting the cause.  Nike now has 52% minorities as employees.  I don't know what percent are actually in positions of power and how many are just janitors, but they have the statistics to points to and advertise themselves as progressive safely.Nike used a lot of different tactics to try and convince people that they are supportive of the black lives matter cause.

Nike made sure that they had a lot of star power in their ad.  Specifically, it uses stars who are from groups that are historically discriminated against.  It opens on Lebron James and goes from there.  It uses them to make people think that the people who are discriminated against are supportive of the ad and Nike's messaging.

The director creates a sense of connection between the viewer and the people who are in the video.  Most of them are making eye contact, most of the shots are close ups and focus on the actions of the subject.  Everytime there is a close up, the director likes to zoom out in the next shot to show some sort of larger movement to represent the way that these people are a part of larger communities and movements.

In general, the focus on a connection between the viewer and celebrities while maintaining a relatable theme is impressively good at conveying the message of support for the cause.  The way the director makes a personal connection with celebrities while also connecting to the general public by showcasing the bigger picture and thereby almost including the viewer in the ad.

I think Nike's message, when viewed in a vacuum, would be mostly viewed favorably by most people.  It may seem at first like powerful, risky ad that makes people think that Nike is so concerned about the issue that they are putting out this ad to support the cause.  If you look at it closer, though, it is actually quite a safe ad.  It actually doesn't really say much of anything and the only stance you could say it takes is the "racism is bad" stance, which makes for quite a safe ad.  Personally, behind the theatrics and direction techniques, I find the message hollow since there seems to be no real solution provided and no legitimate message packed inside of it.

I think the article is explaining that other people are starting to see that side of the companies as well.  People are looking at the actual moves that companies make to support the cause.  Talk is cheap and people are realizing that brand activism doesn't equal actual support.  Luckily for Nike, they have taken brand activism to the next level and actually made real moves to market themselves as supporting the cause.  Nike now has 52% minorities as employees.  I don't know what percent are actually in positions of power and how many are just janitors, but they have the statistics to points to and advertise themselves as progressive safely.]]> 2022-02-08 16:25:25 UTC https://padlet.com/huntertang300/wd9yjbhzth15bl9h/wish/2035909036