Now that's just a stupid commercial. Don't tell me about the product, don't tell me why the product is something I need in my life or something I should buy because it offers me performance, value, prestige, etc (all the points of advertising). Meanwhile, the German company Audi doesn't seem at all concerned enough to address the fact that Gender equality in the German workplace is not a given: Women earn almost a quarter less than men on average, and government figures on International Women's Day show women are underrepresented in top jobs. instead, they'd prefer to hop on the political bandwagon.
Not all commercials describe the product; some are feel-good and values-driven. Coke doesn't talk about its ingredients in its commercials and how they will make you fat and sick. Rather, their commercials are more geared to the celebration of life (go figure), and it seems to work for them quite well. Now, obviously Coke and Audi are two very different products, but I would think that an advertising campaign can be broken into component parts with some ads focused on product design and performance, some on the prestige and/or cutting edge elements, and some on values. I think the intention is for it to be a symbiotic mix. So I don't think you should judge an entire campaign by a single component. The values message itself is a good one. And I think that the more it is ingrained in the collective consciousness, so to speak, the better chance it has of becoming the standard by which we all live. All meaningful journeys begin and continue with individual steps. I would argue that this is a step in the right direction. Can you really argue with that?
Not when you elected the Snowflake in Chief, who gets upset and has to lash out at the slightest criticism or provocation, each and every time. He may not have time for a President's Daily Briefing, but he always has time to counter the smallest slight on Twitter.
I guess I'm more of a classical CPG guy. A commercial should talk about the product, and why the consumer should buy it. It can be funny, situational, etc. You want it to be memorable. It should never, ever risk alienating people who would buy it just to make a statement. Not to say the message is partisan, but in this polarized world, do you think more conservatives or more liberals buy Audis? Why would you risk it? Even if it only results in the loss of one customer....why do it?
Please tell me who this ad alienates and why. I suspect that the Bud and Audi people know what they're doing. They're both world class companies and, while everyone is prone to some error, let's not necessarily and automatically assume that this is one of them. Perhaps the companies see which way the winds are blowing and wish to set their sails accordingly. Either way, the only people who would find either commercial offensive or alienating are those who most reasonable people would find offensive. I found both ads to be uplifting and empowering. I think most modern companies would want to be associated with those kinds of values. Not only because it's the right thing to do, but because the antithesis is slowly dying out, hopefully, and with luck, within the next generation or two. Both companies have been around for awhile, and I think they are endeavoring to carve themselves on the right side of history going forward. Don't use Trump as a counterargument. He's just one step back in an otherwise steady trend in a progressive direction. Buy the dip.
I think the ads run the risk of alienating people who are conservative and will interpret the ad as folks in this forum (like AAA) interpreted it. Now, I know what your response is going to be: "So companies should base their advertising on the views of extreme nutjobs...etc". Companies are in the business to make profit, not to pick a side on social issues. Even folks who you adamantly disagree with politically buy things, and no shareholder wants the company they've invested in to alienate even one customer, no matter how "crazy" someone thinks that customer is (and I'm not saying they're crazy). It's just bad business. As far as Bud and Audi "knowing what they are doing", we've had this discussion before - you and I. I'm sure the people at Coke knew what they were doing, or thought they did, when they introduced New Coke. More recently, I'm sure the people at Kelloggs knew what they were doing, or Starbucks, or any number of other companies who have waded into the social pool and gotten a beat down for their efforts. Everything looks good in the board room. I used to think all these board members were brilliant as well - they had to be to get there, right? Then I got into the board room and was shocked at how many folks with bad ideas were there with me and got there by good luck or circumstance, not by skill. The company you run is there to make money. Make profit. Not score political points. Go post on Facebook privately if you like that. I realize that you, a liberal, would find both ads to be empowering. The messages are right up your alley. But you're thinking like a citizen, and not a CEO.
Just because there may have been some missteps by some companies from time to time, you can't now assume they'll always get it wrong. I suspect that these companies did their research, which included representative focus groups, and went with what the numbers suggested. Sometimes those numbers are not genuinely representative and so you have the missteps. But is that how you're now going to bet every time? Perhaps the idea of appealing to the lowest common denominator has run its course, at least for some companies and/or some products. Maybe that's no longer where the best bang for the buck resides for those products/companies. Guys like AAA will always be offended at the slightest thing. I doubt it pays to walk on those eggshells. Meanwhile, let me ask you again: which part of the ads, specifically, could possible be offensive to a reasonable and decent human being? AAA is the consummate snowflake here. Snowflakes melt. That is their nature. Whatever messages were conveyed were not overt or in-your-face. They were an appeal to our better angels. Opportunity for those who strive. Meritocracy: equal treatment for equal effort. How are these things political? And if they are, who wants to be on the other side of it. And as for those who are, fuck 'em.
I'm not assuming anything will happen to Bud or Audi at all based on past results. All I'm saying is why chance it? There's absolutely no upside (at least not in the way shareholders want "return" to come from risk) so why engage in the risk? To make a political statement? Just stay out of it. You're making an unfair statement by saying "the idea of appealing to the lowest common denominator"...again, just because people don't share your values or support what you think they should, doesn't make those people inferior. It just makes them have different values. The content of the ads is not in question. I happen to think they are noble messages. I just also happen to think they don't belong in product advertisement of a company whose primary objective is to maximize profit.