Re-Civilize Yourself

Nivea caught flack in mid-August for an ad they presented with the tagline "Re-Civilize Yourself." The ad depicted a clean cut African American man preparing to throw the head of a man with a beard and natural afro. The viewer is supposed to believe this head is that of the man prior to using Nivea's new face and hair care line. There is also a tagline, urging the viewer to "Look like you give a damn."

The Nivea For Men Ad:


There were various other ads using the "Look like you give a damn" tagline, but only the ad featuring an African American model used the "re-civilize yourself" headline.  This forces me, as a viewer, in incur that Nivea is telling me that natural hair on a person of color is uncivilized.

People took to the internet and many African American men with afros posted pictures on Nivea's Facebook page, citing that their achievements were proof they were civilized, not the state of their hair.

People do seem to be split on the issue - a poll on Huffington Post's website shows an almost even split, with 49.07% stating they viewed the ad as offensive and 50.93% stating that it was just an "unfortunate coincidence."

How did Nivea respond?
Nivea pulled the ad immediately and posted the following on their Facebook page:

Thank you for caring enough to give us your feedback about the recent "Re-civilized" NIVEA FOR MEN ad. This ad was inappropriate and offensive. It was never our intention to offend anyone, and for this we are deeply sorry. This ad will never be used again. Diversity and equal opportunity are crucial values of our company.

 The company has a history of presenting ads that don't sit well with consumers, as outlined towards the end of this Good.is article about the current controversy.

Got Misogyny?

Earlier this summer, Got Milk? released a set of advertisements whose supposed end goal was to inform consumers that milk could aid in reducing the symptoms of Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) in women. Their efforts at getting this message across were a bit... misguided. They chose to focus on the male perspective of PMS - "Men Living with PMS"

There was also a microsite that accompanied the campaign: EverythingIDoIsWrong.org. According to the Media Decoder blog on the NY Times website, the microsite included content such as:

“pre-approved apologies” from men to the women in their lives with PMS like “I’m sorry for the thing or things I did or didn’t do” as well as features like an “emergency milk locator.”

A sample of the ads:







Some people believed the campaign to be in good humor, while others used various social media avenues to make their distaste for the ads clear.

So, how did Got Milk? respond to the criticism that their campaign was in poor taste and offensive to women who may be suffering from PMS or PMDD (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder)? 
I think they handled the criticism well - they have since updated the campaign's microsite, essentially creating an open forum for critics and admirers. EverythingIDoIsWrong.org now redirects to GotDiscussion.org, where Got Milk? has compiled responses from various news organizations. They show a relatively even representation of positive and negative articles, though many have claimed that in the "real world" the negative articles far outweigh the positive.

GotDiscussion.org:

The Media Decoder blog mentioned earlier also had some interesting thoughts on advertising in today's society:

The reaction to the campaign, and the subsequent changes, are indicative of the pitfalls in the age of social media to producing ads that seek to be noticed by being daring, provocative or shocking. 

The ability of consumers to quickly gather on Web sites like Facebook and Twitter and share their opinions with potentially millions of other consumers, as well as the creators of the ad campaigns they dislike, means that it is becoming harder for marketers to walk that fine line between getting noticed and getting berated.

The above quote really sums up what I'm trying to accomplish with this blog - the new-found ability of consumers to make their distaste heard, often 140 characters at time.

Digital Advertising

I started looking over my class schedule at the beginning of this semester - my last as an undergrad at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, Iowa. Perusing the list, I was most looking forward to my Digital Advertising class.

As part of that class, we have been tasked with creating and maintain a blog that relates in some way to digital advertising - anything past that general topic is up to the students. I want to use this blog to focus on how the internet has changed the way advertising - and the issues that people have with that advertising - is more widely spread due to the internet.

This topic came to light after seeing multiple advertising campaigns that were eventually discontinued due to negative responses from voices (bloggers especially) on the internet.  My second post quoted the NY Times blog Media Decoder, and sums up nicely what I'd like to accomplish with this blog:

The reaction to the campaign, and the subsequent changes, are indicative of the pitfalls in the age of social media to producing ads that seek to be noticed by being daring, provocative or shocking. 

The ability of consumers to quickly gather on Web sites like Facebook and Twitter and share their opinions with potentially millions of other consumers, as well as the creators of the ad campaigns they dislike, means that it is becoming harder for marketers to walk that fine line between getting noticed and getting berated.

Hopefully this will be an interesting journey!

(And YES - my blog header has a reference to The Real World. Deal with it.)