Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally I don't watch TV nor do I oppose gay marriage, but from a business sense perspective my gut says that while it might make sense for a new brand without much to lose and a need to grab market share, when an established brand that is already almost universally used gets into politics, on whatever side, that they alienate more people into stopping buying their product than they encourage people to start buying their product, because everyone who prefers Tylenol instead of Advil and brand instead of generic already does buy from them. They have something to lose and nothing to gain.
I would be uncomfortable with this if I owned their shares because I think it reflects their marketing department putting their own personal politics over good business, regardless of the fact that I agree with their politics. I don't own any though (outside of index funds), and since I agree with their politics this isn't going to alter my purchasing behavior at all, but I can see how someone who disagrees could see this and start buying generic (which they probably should regardless, no sense in paying more for brand).
When I think of aspirin, I don't think of family and fighting for family. I think of: make my headache go away
What does Tylenol have to do with gay marriage, or interracial couples? If they want to put those people in there, then just put those people in the ad without making a big scene about it, narrated by an incredibly irritating voice. (Seriously, the narrator annoyed me, the commercial just made me smh.)
If the commercial made you smack your head, you might need some Tylenol now?
Ah, but an established brand can get stale and wants to not only maintain their market share but increase it. I see this as more of a re-branding. Although, I am not familiar with their past marketing. I can't imagine the previous Ad was set in 1835 South Carolina and opened with slaves picking cotton while a white women lounged under a magnolia tree being fanned and doted on by her 4 lady slaves. Tagline: Slaves - when life was grand!
Gary, the gay head of Marketing, did not just decide on this campaign. He (presuming he exists) may have helped it along but, believe me when I tell you that, no one person could of been 100% behind this. They don't just throw Ad campaigns out willy nilly. Some here may believe that these types of campaigns shape society. Others would say they just reflect society. I go with mirroring society because, as you point out, no large company wants to lose market share.
I do agree with you that this does to a large extent reflect the direction of present day society (the guys story-boarding the ad are as much part of it as their audience), and likelier than not in 20 years running an ad opposing gay marriage will be as suicidal as one supporting slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
