You would think so soon after the
controversy surrounding BiM and Lionsgate companies would be trying to keep a
low profile regarding controversial content in advertisements. But then again
you can never be too sure where discontent and anger may arise when awareness
tools like Twitter and Facebook can be used to generate overall public
awareness.
You may notice some key differences between
the ways Coke have dealt with their varied messaging across markets compared to
BiM. The most striking difference is that there is no hint of a public apology
or any indication that the decision to remove the gay marriage messaging from
the Ireland campaign is controversial or wrong. But could the very fact that Coke has chosen
to exclude material in this manner contradict the overall message of positivity
surrounding the campaign.
Coke have defended their decision by
stating that they have only chosen content relevant to the markets it is shown
in. Is this the messaging which is supposed to justify the use of an St
Patrick’s Day scene over the support of Gay Marriage?
It is no surprise that Coke have
experienced the backlash they have taking into consideration the weak reasoning
behind the change in creative messaging. By arguing the use of what is
culturally relevant could it not also be said that the Irish advertising
contradicts the overall meaning of the campaign? This certainly appears to be the view of key
institutions in the homosexual community.
Yet again we are faced with another example
of why companies like Coke and Lionsgate need to think very carefully about the
way they choose to message integrated campaigns across markets. Companies are
becoming increasingly accountable for actions not just in one market but
globally. There is no doubt Coke were looking to support a key subject of
equality in some markets but if it is a good enough cause to support in one
market it should be a goos enough cause to support universally.
No comments:
Post a Comment