Feb 16 Posted 4 years ago
I was reading about Fallacies and found this great article, and I must say, I agree with you all the way. Many smoke and mirrors from many companies are responsible for this race for the biggest reach without considering if it extends the brand core values or if it creates conversation that generates loyalty.
It's just a matter of eyeballs, wait, you mentioned it, it's called Television for some of us old-schoolers.
Great article, thorougly enjoyed it.
P.D. By the way, the site I found which I really liked was this: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com true to people and social media profiles alike.
Nov 16 Posted 4 years ago
Thanks for your comment. Of all of them, I've found the one that summarises the difference between our two persectives - to quote you:
"And finally, yes, the winners actually are the public, since millions of people have seen this video and enjoyed it, had a laugh, and no one lost."
My point is that in an age where authenticity and trust is the best case scenario, I feel that acting in a nonauthentic way (for humourous reasons or not) is sub-optimal. I think it's Bodyform who lost - and what they lost was the opportunity to authentically connect with the public.
The next time they try, there is a chance that people wonder whether, again, they're actually 'joking'.
That's it. That's all I'm saying.
Nov 15 Posted 4 years ago
This is written in response to your question: "How much authenticity do you think this generates for Bodyform? Really, how much? A lot? Not a lot? Let me know."
Very interesting article, although I'm not quite sure you have the words correct, and I respond only because this article of yours deserves the right words. So, I searched for a sufficent definition of the words "fallacy" and "paradox" within your articulation of the apparent borrowed metaphors between the bodyform advertising history that had earned Richard Neill some embarassment for his facebook comment. First of all, you never actually defined "fallacy of social media," but you should, or else it's not even meaningful. Here's how you do it: the fallacy of social media is, I presume, the assumption that any context suffices for meaningful context, even if no one else recognizes it. This is what got me, because that isn't a fallacy, but rather simple ignorance. Second, lacking meaningfulness does not render an argument paradoxical. Something is paradoxical only if it's intuitively wrong, erroneous, or bad in any way while it remains acceptable.
You wrote: "I have spent a great deal of time showing the agencies and brands that the syntax of social interactions is social capital, exchanged as social currencies, and such sharing is native to our modern context. However this point is not intended to divert our strategies from the principle fact contained in the first point above."
Lots of question begging going there! What is the syntax of social interactions? What is social currency and how is it exchanged? How is such sharing native to our modern context? In the last sentence, I think you mean to say "principal fact," not "principle fact."
Personally, I try to resist sarcasm as much as possible. Sarcasm is definitively fallacious. This means actively resisting the temptation to detect sarcasm, just in case there is any.
I differentiate between two sorts of sarcasm: (1) optimistic (with its tendency to lighten the load of loaded questions and settle the odds of an error as never being more important than the truth, e.g., "that's a good misinterpretation") and pessimistic (with its often harsh overtones of reactionary smearing, the essence of Richard's facebook comment). I think Bodyform's response is superb, albeit possibly embarassing to Richard. It looks like an expensive commercial, too, intended to surpass the attention span theater of comments from anyone.
Also, there is this, which may be relevant, from Auguest, 2011:
Nov 15 Posted 4 years ago
Hi Jonathan, I just read your above article, and feel a little compelled to write some comments on a few sections:
"The paradigm shift we are experiencing in the media landscape is not simply the addition of a new form of media, it is an enormous disruption to the way that business operates."
I think you mean "operated" here, with the emphasis on the past tense. 'The way business operates' is not by any means a static procedure trapped in a vaccuum and uneffected by the outside world. It is constantly changing at ALL levels, from local mom-and-pop shop to the largest corporations, and to suggest that a new form of media could 'disrupt' this is misleading. 'Interrupt' is better, and 'change' is correct, because it's changing the operation just like any new ideas do.
"1. Consistency, authenticity, transparency and honesty are the factors of growing a loyal fan base, or even simply raising the profile of a brand. Any damage or diversion to these factors results, always, in disloyalty and lack of trust.
2. Whilst the first point stands, the funky creative opportunities that are possible are far more attractive than looking inward for what a company really believes in, therefore a kick-ass video campaign mostly trumps a reflective purpose-driven business approach, agnostic of campaign
This paradox is what generates The Fallacy of Social Media."
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the paradox here. Yes, brands are built on consistency, authenticity, transparency and honesty, but they are also built on humor, engagement, and interest that often pushes those bounds. Look at any good brand ever, really, and you will see that being vanilla is not the way to grab attention. AND if you actually listened to not only the above Bodyform video, but similar content across 1000's of brands, you will see that the ARE reflective, purpose-driven business approaches. Saying with humor "we lied, they were metaphors" isn't saying "we lied," and yes, there is a major difference.
"Social interactions aren't actually a media in the same way as TV breaks are a media."
media (n) - the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely
Take out their examples and you get... "the means of communication...that reach or influence people widely."
So, yes, they are both media.
"Act like you're real? That's good?"
The quote that your referncing here was clearly stated to discredit the opposite notion, the notion that they ARE acting as if they not real. You're arguing symantecs to make a point, which discredits that point.
"By creating a false and sarcastic video clip, the message for those who don't work in the advertising industry is potentially a combination of:
1. So what do Bodyform really think?
2. Whatever that is, why don't they say it themselves?
3. Is being sarcastic ever really a productive approach?
4. Isn't this yet another artificial statement that just propels the view that advertisers are liars?"
Bodyform hires an agency not only to make good PR like this video and do commercials, but also to REPRESENT them. Do you really think that the real powers-that-be at bodyform didnt approve of this message? And YES, being sarcastic is ABSOLUTELY a productive and powerful approach, especially in response to sarcsasm. Why else would sarcasm be so pervasive throughout vital and pivotal aspects human history?
"Yes you can do campaigns, but the best way for your brand would be to have these support your actual mission. Not to dress up a mission in a campaign to go viral. No my friends, no."
They DO support the mission, it makes light on a socially 'taboo' subject, debunking discomfort around the topic.
And if you really believe that, where is the blame on the man who posted the comment?? Is he also not dressing up his 'mission' under the context of sarcasm and lack of understanding? Should he not also clearly state his objections and strive for authenticity? Should he not acutally support commercials with visual accounts of what he describes in his 'rant?' OF COURSE NOT, and Bodyform is simply playing into the joke.
"It is a self-serving, cancerous circle-jerk where the winners are nowhere near the members of the public."
And finally, yes, the winners actually are the public, since millions of people have seen this video and enjoyed it, had a laugh, and no one lost.
I am not one of those people who think that Social Media is the answer to everything, I still enjoy poster advertisements, magazines, and all 'traditional' media. But to think that business operates in a playbook is simply incorrect and shortsighted.
Webinars On Demand
May 09, 2017With all of the technologies available to marketers today, have we lost that personal touch? Join VP of Content Marketing for ON24, Mark Bornste...
April 05, 2017In the ever-changing world of digital marketing, operational efficiency, quick turn-around times, testing and adapting to change are crucial to...
Video is expected to account for three-quarters of all mobile traffic by 2020. But, creating powerful, effective video requires a significa...
Marketers are constantly seeking to engage with their buyers and drive actions that help buyers move rapidly through their customer lifecycl...