Textappeal Blog

The news:

A print ad from the maker of Absolut vodka earlier this year produced an ad featuring a map showing much of the US as a part of Mexico as it used to be. The ad only ran in a Mexican celebrity gossip magazine. However, it was posted on blogs and eventually picked up by the mass media crowd, drawing a negative response from Americans many of whom felt Absolut should be boycotted for the affront.

Behind the news:

Not everyone knows the history behind this episode, but it goes back to 1846 when the U.S. and Mexico entered into a war which lasted 2 years. In 1848, at the conclusion of the U.S.- Mexican War, the two countries signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The treaty called for Mexico to give up almost half of its territory, which included modern-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. In return, the U.S. paid $15 million in compensation for war-related damage to Mexican land.

The reaction to this ad is a testament to the fact that we are operating in a borderless world. With the advent of the internet and new communications technologies, there is nowhere to hide. Even if an ad is intended and perfectly suitable for one market, if it is offensive to another market, the chances are that it will get picked up and have negative repercussions on the brand equity.

© Textappeal 2009

The news:

Apparently, “karma” is the reason for the massive, devastating earthquakes in China. According to Sharon Stone what goes around comes around and the natural disaster is a karmic result of China’s ill treatment of its Tibetan neighbours. Stone made the comments to a television reporter at the Cannes Film Festival. Needless to say her comments caused outrage in China and further abroad, and Dior subsequently pulled all its print ads in the region. No doubt China is too vast a potential market for the luxury goods industry to offend. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ru1gfM5gCn0

Behind the news:

Celebrity endorsement can have a powerful impact on a brand – both positive and negative. They can help a brand cut through the clutter and capture the attention of the consumer. A well chosen celeb can be persuasive for the target market – acting as a reflection of themselves or what they aspire to be. However, the use of celebrity carries with it some inherent risks. As we see here, a change in the popularity or image of a celebrity can have an adverse impact on a brand (other issues are loss of credibility due to over-endorsing, or simply falling out of the spotlight). It is not always easy to predict how a celebrity will act in the future, but it is important to analyse how much of a liability someone may be prior to using them, how important and visible they will be in a campaign overall, and how important a particular market is to the business – all of which will increase or decrease the overall level of risk.

© Textappeal 2009

The news:

In August, London Mayor Boris Johnson was accused of being “rude, arrogant and disrespectful” for accepting the Olympic flag with one hand, putting his hands in his pockets and not buttoning up his jacket. As explained by one Chinese blogger: “At such a formal occasion, he should have buttoned his jacket. If you dress informally or not properly, it can be seen as disrespect to the host (in China). “When he was stepping to the stage and down, he put his hand in the pocket of his jacket. This shows he was extremely casual, he did not seem to take this occasion seriously. “After he took over the Olympic flag, he simply passed it to the Chinese standard-bearer. He was the only person who took the flag with one hand. This is very disrespectful to the Olympic flag.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2626544/Chinese-media-mocks-London-2012-Olympic-handover-performance.html

Behind the news:

I first heard this one from Boris Johnson himself. He told me how he shocked the Chinese nation at the Beijing Olympics, adding provocatively “We’re British, why shouldn’t we do things the British way?” Being somewhat eccentric and making fun of oneself and others is well accepted in Britain, almost even a sport. However less individualistic societies such as China, the concept of “preserving face” – i.e. to not be embarrassed in social and public situations – is highly valued. It is difficult for many Chinese people to understand why you would want to make your hosts or yourself look silly. With China as today’s biggest growth market for many brands, loss of face in advertising can have significant commercial impact. French car manufacturer Citroen demonstrated its “revolutionary” qualities with a humorous image of the revolutionary Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung, in an advertisement that only appeared in Europe. When it was circulated in China via Internet, 70 percent of people surveyed felt insulted and stated that they would not consider buying a Citroen car. © Textappeal 2009

The news:

The US based computer firm used a cover version of Glitter’s 1973 song ‘Do You Wanna Touch Me’ to promote its TouchSmart TV and he could have received up to £100,000 in royalties.

Gary Glitter (real name Paul Francis Gadd) was returned to the UK in August after spending 27 months in a Vietnam jail for abusing two young girls in 2006. Needless to say his popularity in Europe waned after the child sexual abuse scandal broke.

The advert is being screened across America as part of a new marketing campaign, but has now been pulled in the UK and is under review in other markets. The US heads were warned of the potential issue of releasing the ad in Europe for this very reason, but the decision was taken to go ahead.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UR830Os72k0

Behind the news:

As a UK citizen, Gary Glitter’s notoriety is more pronounced in UK and Europe than in the US. The sentiments against him are so strong that this ad was boycotted despite the fact that the actual version in the ad was sung by Joan Jett.

No one anywhere in the world is going to condone child abuse. So any direct association to a convicted child abuser is likely going to lead to controversy, especially when the felon in question will be paid a hefty sum in royalties.

The completely valid counter argument of course is that this should be about music and not about the person behind it. Irrespective of Glitter’s dubious character, he has written a successful song. The reality for many consumers, however, is that the mere association with such a despicable act is enough to turn people off.

© Textappeal 2009

The news:

An Iraqi journalist, who threw a shoe at US president George W. Bush during a press conference, has become something of a hero in much of the Arab world, with hundreds protesting his release from prison.

Muntader al Zaidi was taken into custody and is being tried for his actions; he faces up to 15 years of imprisonment. Al Zaidi has quickly risen to legendary status for this – one Saudi reportedly offered to pay $10 million for the shoe in question. And the Turkish shoemaker who made the shoes is receiving new requests from all over the world. For Westerners the throwing of a shoe at a major political figure certainly classes as extremely bizarre and certainly shockingly unprofessional behaviour, but in the Arab world it is a much deeper insult.

Behind the news:

This incident is more symbolic than just the projecting of an object at a major international figure. In the Arab world the shoe and the sole of the foot is deeply offensive. In Arab culture it’s considered rude even to display the sole of one’s shoe to a fellow human being. Just changing the phrase ‘I’m going to thump you.’ To ‘I’m going to thump you with my shoe’ can escalate a situation. The sensitivity is related to the fact shoes are considered ritually unclean in the Muslim faith. As a result, it is common practice to leave shoes at the front of the house or outside the Mosque.

© Textappeal 2009