The cans, cups, and bottles of Coke sold in Australia don't contribute to obesity or tooth decay, and they don't contain enough caffeine to worry about. Or at least that's what the ads claimed.
Oops.No, they weren't a slip, per se: the ads, which ran last October, were purposeful declarations of a "motherhood and myth-busting" campaign featuring an actress named Kerry Armstrong. It was intended to "help balance the debate," according to a company spokesman.They certainly weren't intended to inspire anybody to drink Coke.Download Coke Ad.
The nature of debate sure gets complicated in our Age of Internet Bloviation. People still reach their own conclusions, which are judgments, or opinions, based on their understanding of facts and of other judgments and opinions. This is separate from online conversation (or the versation that most commonly passes for it) amounts to declaring opinions, not shaping or changing them. Actual debate occurs within individuals, or among very small, intimate, non-anonymous groups.
By offering its own interpretation of the facts, Coke missed the mark...and the debate. It wasn't credible for it to present its opinions. A declaration of the facts would have been far more relevant and useful.This is a key point, in my dimly lit opinion. Debates based on other debates are a glorified echo chamber, or mirror, and I'm not sure it's terribly effective or commercially reasonable for companies to participate at that level. None of us want businesses telling us how to interpret things.
When a company chooses to populate an online dialogue with content that isn't factual -- whether entertaining or interpretive (i.e. branding) -- it has decided, whether consciously or not, to waste our time. Nobody wants to debate with a brand. We just want to know things. So, for instance, when Coke chose to debate a "myth" that consuming it makes you fat, it incorrectly chose to state that "not one single product makes you fat," and that its ingredients on the label, and availability of water and juice products, make it a "...part of a healthy balanced diet and active lifestyle." Blah blah blah.
How about a simple declaration of calorie count, and an admonition to drink responsibly? The claims for tooth rot were equally disingenuous, and the claim that cocaine has never been an "added ingredient" to the secret recipe is a not-so-deft twist on the facts (it wasn't "added" because it came naturally from the coca leaves). The Australian authorities who care about truth in advertising have decided to pull the ads (almost a half year after they first appeared), and they weren't conceived as a social media strategy, per se (rather, the content was presented in a good 'ol fashioned print ad).
But isn't all media social? Statements, ads, declarations, product experiences...they're all fodder of conversation and for subsequent debate. There are endless rounds of judgments and opinions woven thereby, and therefrom, so the job of corporate involvement is to provide basic facts.Coke is no more good for you than the spin of branding is good for business.
Link to original post