I used to believe that too, because it was pointless. But it seems that i was wrong. The fact that it was pointless, means that the corporations felt comfortable with using and abusing that to maximize profit. And the fact that they are afraid to do that, indicates how fucked things are now.
So i am ok with corporations using movements for marketing reasons, because ultimately this is the canary in the mine. If the corporations consider it a brand risk, then society is moving towards the wrong direction.
Zorque@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m not comfortable with companies using any kind of marketing tactics. Because 99 times out of a 100 it’s speedy and underhanded.
But since they’re going to be doing it anyways, doing it with pride, or disenfranchised demographics, at least normalizes their humanity. Which, at the end of the day, is the point of pride month et al.
redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Take it easy there, Chicken Little. “I’m uncomfortable with any kind of marketing” is so hyperbolic, it’s almost parody. Putting the name of your business above the door? Thats marketing. Creating a website where customers can find and engage your services? That’s marketing. A minority-owned business proudly owning that status? That’s marketing. A friend telling you about the great meal they had the other day from a local restaurant? Believe it or not, that’s marketing.
Marketing is not evil in and of itself. Unless humanity returns to a tribal social structure where you can count the number of non-related acquaintances you know on your fingers, it is a necessary component of operating a business. Of course, you’re 100% right that there have been dubious applications of the principle, but again, you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it hampers the salient point that you’re trying to make.
Zorque@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Sure, if you only take it at it’s most extreme and dont use a little bit of critical thinking. I specifically referenced companies in a thread about large corporations manipulating social issues for their own gain. I also gave wiggle room with the 99 out of a 100 reference.
I think you also cast far too wide a net with your definitions of marketing, especially in the context of the conversation happening.
I’d check your own sky to be absolutely sure it’s falling before throwing aspersions like that around. You may have a hysterical over-exaggeration of your own there.
redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Dis u?
Now, I felt like I was fairly gentle in pointing out the absurd nature of that statement. I even readily acknowledged what I assumed to be your intent, i.e. there are absolutely marketing tactics which go beyond the pale. But, as I, and others, have pointed out, you’re the one operating on your own personal definition of marketing here, which is in contradiction to what that concept actually is. Any intro to business class will tell you that marketing is, essentially, ANYTHING an entity does to inform people of its services. It’s an enormous umbrella, which includes tactics both odious and innocuous. It is as readily applicable to the gal who posts on Facebook that she’ll do your hair for $20 as it is Facebook selling that information to a third party so she can be served targeted salon equipment advertisements.
All I’m saying is, if you say “all marketing is bad”, you need to be prepared for people to call you out on the hyperbole of that statement. Therefore, you might consider arguing the point you actually intend to make (which is good and I agree with you about!), instead of leading with a statement which you don’t actually believe.
Calling you Chicken Little was facetious, but meant to be a gentle dig at the hyperbole. Still, I shouldn’t have said it, and I apologize.
Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
So there shouldn’t be a poster on a wooden pole for a new corner store? How about fancy signs? No happy hours either?
Zorque@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m perfectly fine without those, yeah. Though you seem to be taking my meaning to a more extreme degree than was inferred.