Marketing – Page 3 – Colin McMahon

Support Patriotism, not Profiteering, with this Year's Boston Marathon

Posted on April 16, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Last year, the city where I grew up suffered a cowardly and inhumane attack from two individuals. To say that it was a shocking day would be an understatement. We all see pictures and hear of the war, terrorism, and horror that goes on around the world but: it is different when it’s your city, when you know that your family and friends were there. The Boston Marathon bombing was nothing short of a tragedy. If there was one silver lining, however, it was how everyone responded. I wasn’t home at the time, but I saw the things happening and many of them made me proud of where I come from. There may have been no more powerful moment than this:

Two days after the bombing, that happened at a Boston Bruins game. A simple gesture made powerful in the number of people performing it, and through the emotion that it conveyed. It was a genuine moment, there really is nothing more accurate than that. Boston galvanized itself in the days following the attack and everyone wanted to show support. As this is America, it was done with merchandizing:

For the record, the official Boston Strong website is connected to the One Fund, the charity set up to give direct relief to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings. If you show your support through them, you will actually be contributing to a good cause. However, and this is really sad to say, there are many other “Boston Strong” products out there with no affiliation to any charity.

It is difficult to fully argue against these products, because some of them do help people. Yet when the bombings happened, I remember the reaction of my city; I remember the message being delivered: “this will not define us.” There was a power in that message because it told the criminals involved that they had failed. They would not get famous – they would get arrested and the city would move on. Obviously, we remember those whose lives were affected, and in some cases cut brutally short, by the bombings. But is this really remembering them?

This is marketing. Boston Strong has become a brand, and to me that is sad. No one wants to feel powerless, and the bombings made us all (everyone in or who knew someone in Boston) feel that way. Yet I must be clear: buying a t-shirt is not taking power back for Boston. When those runners involved continued to run to donate blood in the minutes directly following the attack: that was action (that was god damn heroic). If you do no research and just buy the first thing that says “Boston Strong” on it, you’re not acting, you’re following.

Support Boston, the products say, but who is really being supported? There is a wonderful way to eliminate the middleman when wanting to give to those in need: find the charity and donate directly to it. Ah, but then who knows that you did something? It is a human feeling, to want to be recognized for doing good. It is this feeling that companies are capitalizing on. Rest assured, even though they might have started it with the best intentions: they are now driven by their wallets.

Examine the difference: here is Boston Red Sox player, David Ortiz, after the attack:

That was genuine. Ortiz knows he’s a role model but as someone involved with Boston, he… well he expressed what we were all feeling back then. He showed his support, and because he was famous, everyone got to see it. Then these happened:

To my knowledge, with the research I have done: these are not connected to any charity. No one, besides the wearer, feels better with this. I’m not knocking that feeling. Especially after the bombing – everyone needed a pick-me-up. Just be informed, don’t wear this and think that a difference is being made, It’s not. Someone made money, that’s about it.

Next Monday the first Boston Marathon, since the bombings, will be run. The city will shut down: that’s how many people are going out to support it. I will be there, I know that, but I won’t be wearing anything that says I support the city. I will go out and support the runners and have fun and remember. The bombing defined us: but if we’re careful, it can define us in the best way.

PS – To the man (never naming you) who committed that hoax last night in Boston – FUCK YOU. Here is a Boston charity site, for those out there who are interested.

No Love Lost for Valentine's Day

Posted on February 14, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Let me make one quick comment at the beginning of this post: I do not hate Valentine’s Day. I don’t love it either – it’s a day. Valentine’s Day, as a date of measured time, has never done anything to personally advance or hinder me so I bear it no feeling. For those out there hating Valentine’s Day, here you go. So why am I talking about it then? This is a blog dedicated to media’s (marketing/advertising/pop culture) impact on the world. I can’t entirely ignore it.

In many ways, Valentine’s Day is like every other major holiday. It has a history, it has a focus group. Many out there will claim that Valentine’s Day was invented simply to make money. Well, they’re right. In the same way that Santa Claus was invented for Christmas and costumes purposed for Halloween: there is a definite money-making angle associated with Valentine’s Day. Yet Valentine’s Day, for the record, is not a Hallmark celebration.

According to internet history a.k.a. Wikipedia, Valentine’s Day is a feast celebrating the life of St. Valentine. Which St. Valentine you may ask: good question, there may have been at least three so… all of them? The particular one people celebrate lived during the time when Christians and Romans were anything but bros. In fact helping Christians was a crime back then… yeah, Roman Emperor Claudius II had no time for these new crazy Jesus folk. In fact, St. Valentine was arrested for marrying Christian couples – Christian marriage back then being entirely illegal. Boy, if only there was a modern day equivalent for that:

Maybe all those people out there calling Valentine's Day "gay" are just being historically insightful. — Maybe all those people out there calling Valentine’s Day “gay” are just being historically insightful.

So anyway, St. Valentine got arrested. He was ultimately put to death for trying to convert the emperor (Claudius II had taken a liking to his prisoner just not in the way: “I like (will switch my faith) like you”). There it is: the official reason for Valentine’s Day. Celebrating a man who was jailed for helping others find love. That’s an excellent cause for celebration but probably not what most people take offense to.

Nothing says long-lasting love like an endangered species doomed to extinction.

Merchandising. Corporations are making a nice profit today, specifically florists, card makers, chocolate makers, and restaurant owners. For them, their valentine is small and green and smells like money. But here is the thing: nearly every holiday out there has been marketed to death (thank God for Thanksgiving) so Valentine’s Day isn’t unique. This isn’t even an invented tradition, people have been giving “valentines” to each other for hundreds of years.

This is a 13th century painting of the Valentine's Day hipster: giving hearts before it was cool. — This is a 13th century painting of the Valentine’s Day hipster: giving hearts before it was cool.

For those out there protesting corporate intrusion into something as personal as love: that I can support. Good thing there’s an easy remedy: don’t buy sh*t. Seriously, if anyone out there in a relationship can’t think of anything more personal than chocolates and flowers for their significant other… how well do they know each other?

Roses aren't even the only red flower in existence. At least be a little creative. — Roses aren’t even the only red flower in existence. At least be a little creative.

Yet I think there is more to the Valentine’s Day resentment than just the commercialization. This is day celebrating the joy of sharing love. Many out there don’t have another human being they feel that way about so naturally: there are feelings of exclusion. Again, I blame this on marketing. They’ve been better with other holidays:

Christmas: the Christian holiday for everyone.

Unfortunately here is the principle of marketing: making you, the individual, want something. Valentine’s Day is the double-dose of this principle. Since the day itself is purported to be about celebrating love with a significant other – there is already a need for someone else. Now Valentine’s Day advertising says that someone else isn’t enough, the consumer must buy things to please that other. And if buying things make the other happy than not buying things might make them sad and so on… it’s a rabbit hole: don’t go down it.

You know the most precious thing about love: it cannot be commodified. Every love is unique. Asking a corporation or really anyone else to make a gift for your significant other is like asking a stranger to decorate your house or name your child. They have no way of knowing. It doesn’t make them soulless or evil, just outmatched. If you are in a relationship: you are the only person capable of getting your significant other what they truly want. Don’t ask Hallmark – they don’t know.

Hey, it's the best a stranger can do. — Hey, it’s the best a stranger can do.

And for those out there without a significant other: your love is still special, so you’re part of the celebration. Doesn’t really matter if you love another person or your job or something else in this wonderful world of ours – Valentine’s Day is about celebrating that healthy love. I say healthy because there are those out there just in relationships because they don’t know how to be alone… that is one romantic love that should be anything but celebrated.

Yes, marketing can make single people feel bad about themselves today. Marketing can (and does) make people feel bad about themselves every day: that’s their job (really sick when you think about it). Don’t blame Valentine’s Day, it’s just a day. And really: could be worse. Take Korea for instance, not only do they have two days for couples, they also have a day where single people are required to eat black food in mourning of their lack of relationship. Yikes.

Marketing Method: The Lego Movie

Posted on February 8, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Believe it or not, Legos have actually existed since 1949. As early as the 1960s, there were Lego sets: knights, pirates, vikings, dinosaurs – that sort of thing. In the 1990s: Lego opened up the licensing game and since then we’ve had Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter and even Avatar: the Last Airbender in Lego form. There have been fifty Lego video games, again from originals like Lego Island (which every 90’s kid owned) to licensed products like Lego Pirates of the Caribbean. Fifty games… and that’s not counting the Lego board games that also exist. There have also been Lego TV movies, Lego books, Lego clothing… Legoland. In short: since 1949 Lego has done everything possible with their product except a theatrical motion picture… until now.

2014 sees the release of the LEGO Movie. As stated before: this is the company’s first foray into theatrical pictures. Very likely it will not be the last. Before I go any further I want to stress that I still have not seen the LEGO Movie. I will in fact be seeing it later today but that is besides the point. This is not a review of the film but rather a critique in how they advertised it. For starters, the teaser trailer below:

Notice anything right away? Lego is pretty proud of the licensed characters they have. That and the movie looks… okay? It’s hard to tell, only a teaser after all. Let’s look at the trailer:

Wow they really want the audience to know that Batman is in this. He is the first character we are introduced to in the trailer. This raises warning signs. Primarily: licensing is more important than plot. In all honesty, this trailer did little to entice me into viewing the LEGO Movie as anything more than a quick cash-in aimed at the kids. Sure I (like most people alive) grew up with Lego, but I don’t see any of the Legos I grew up with in the trailer.

Instead I was easily able to guess which DC superhero had been the most profitable in the last ten years. Every scene in the trailer that focused on the “movie” part of the LEGO Movie also came off as either a quick joke (in most cases not a very funny one) or a very generic piece of the family movie experience pie: i.e. the love interest, the “believe-in-yourself” inspiration. The trailer ended with the expected voice cast celebrity highlights as well.

Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? The LEGO Movie remembers... — Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? *The LEGO Movie* remembers…

Needless to say: I personally was not expecting much from the LEGO Movie. Consider this a pleasant surprise. Not only is the LEGO Movie supposed to be good: it’s supposed to be very good. Ty Burr, of the Boston Globe, echoed my surprise: “My fingers rebel, but type it I must: “The LEGO Movie” is the first great cinematic experience of 2014“. That’s pretty high praise and again: he’s not the only one saying it. This appears to be a rare occurrence where the previews do not do the final product justice.

Lego should be mighty pleased with the film they put out… but they may want to have a word with their advertising team. Kids: yes, the trailers appealed to kids – but they were going to see it anyway. It should not be a surprise (albeit a welcome one) that this film can appeal to Lego fans of any age. After all: who at this point, did not grow up with Lego?