Did advertising kill a man at a Wal-Mart holiday sale?
Yesterday a lawsuit was filed implicating a retail store’s marketing campaign as at least partially culpable for the death of a security guard trampled at the opening of a Post-Thanksgiving Sale.
Let’s not even get started on the cruel ironies of Black Friday that converge here.
This is a sad story. Sad on so many levels. But ultimately it’s a story about bad strategies.
About retail marketers using (and yes, abusing) the old Rush technique. Letting slip that there’s gold to be found in the creek beds and aisle displays. But only if you get there before all the good claims are staked.
Then consumers, figuratively and unfortunately, literally falling for it. Going into Blitzkrieg shopping mode, which rarely results in: a) satisfying shopping experience or b) an actual value.
But it is worth discussion in the context of advertising’s societal role.
First, the good news. That anyone is acknowledging advertising’s ability to push people to acts of mindless desperation and incite near-riots is an acknowledgement that what we do really works.
(Now if only we could channel that kind of passion into acts of social and environmental activism.)
It may also signal a step towards a more interesting public dialogue about the true cultural effects of our profession.
But nevertheless, whether the suit succeeds or not, all the rest of the news for our industry is bad.
It was a bait and switch strategy that falls back on a sucker-born-every-minute mentality. It’s a pretty clear case of what works trumping what’s right. And I hope our industry comes to see that.
We should be making people more informed and aware in their purchasing decisions. Not more desperate and anxious.
People waited outside the store through a freezing night then rampaged when the ones who stayed in their cars rushed the doors. They crushed and killed a 6’5” doorman then complained when the store had to close. Don't we as an industry have an obligation to at least consider our role in that?
Piling On
Did advertising kill a man at a Wal-Mart holiday sale?
Yesterday a lawsuit was filed implicating a retail store’s marketing campaign as at least partially culpable for the death of a security guard trampled at the opening of a Post-Thanksgiving Sale.
Let’s not even get started on the cruel ironies of Black Friday that converge here.
This is a sad story. Sad on so many levels. But ultimately it’s a story about bad strategies.
About retail marketers using (and yes, abusing) the old Rush technique. Letting slip that there’s gold to be found in the creek beds and aisle displays. But only if you get there before all the good claims are staked.
Then consumers, figuratively and unfortunately, literally falling for it. Going into Blitzkrieg shopping mode, which rarely results in: a) satisfying shopping experience or b) an actual value.
But it is worth discussion in the context of advertising’s societal role.
First, the good news. That anyone is acknowledging advertising’s ability to push people to acts of mindless desperation and incite near-riots is an acknowledgement that what we do really works.
(Now if only we could channel that kind of passion into acts of social and environmental activism.)
It may also signal a step towards a more interesting public dialogue about the true cultural effects of our profession.
But nevertheless, whether the suit succeeds or not, all the rest of the news for our industry is bad.
It was a bait and switch strategy that falls back on a sucker-born-every-minute mentality. It’s a pretty clear case of what works trumping what’s right. And I hope our industry comes to see that.
We should be making people more informed and aware in their purchasing decisions. Not more desperate and anxious.
People waited outside the store through a freezing night then rampaged when the ones who stayed in their cars rushed the doors. They crushed and killed a 6’5” doorman then complained when the store had to close. Don't we as an industry have an obligation to at least consider our role in that?