Some what of a tangent on Christmas is that there is the “War on Christmas” narrative. I am always curious about what it is supposed to mean. The Christians that are into it often take capitalism to be good as an axiom the way they do their own faith. Which is at odds with their culture war as capitalist firms are what drive the secularization of Christmas. Would a commercial with Jesus on the cross saying he is thirsty and having a Roman Soldier pass him an ice cold Coca Cola be better?
Would a commercial with Jesus on the cross saying he is thirsty and having a Roman Soldier pass him an ice cold Coca Cola be better?
Yes. PLEASE put this on the air. I am begging someone to make this a reality. Also, full disclosure, I do enjoy watching the world burn over stupid shit. Christians losing their shit over THAT commercial would be comically delightful.
Oddly I don’t think Christians would even be upset about that. You could have it directed by Mel Gibson. They would love it. Because it features their guy. Other than that, there’s no real concept of some sacred image or respectfulness.
It would work with Moses too. Replacement his sandals with some Nikes before he goes out for his walk in the desert. He’s still their guy too, since they have the Old Testament.
But try that with Mohammed or Vishnu, and there’s your war on Christmas.
Would a commercial with Jesus on the cross saying he is thirsty and having a Roman Soldier pass him an ice cold Coca Cola be better?
I tried it using Sora, but “This content can’t be shown for now. We’re still developing how we evaluate which content conflicts with our policies. Think we got it wrong? Let us know.”
This was the prompt:
Give me a Coca Cola commercial where Jesus has been nailed to a cross, and says “I’m thirsty”, after which a Roman Soldier passes him an ice cold Coca Cola.
I tried replacing “Jesus” with a man, but no dice :(
Where I am from several years ago the city renamed the Christmas Parade to Holiday Parade in a bid to be inclusive of other winter holidays. A small subset of citizens got butt hurt and have held a competing Christmas Parade several times.
Apparently the war on Christmas is acknowledging that there are other options.
Half agree. Even if many of them are just money-hungry, there is still a ton of non-fiscal value in making it clear that queerness is not a shameful anomaly and can instead be a point of both strength and pride. Lots of kids out there are stuck in families that want them to believe the exact opposite, when they genuinely need to know that the world has more to offer than just that.
I don’t appreciate companies trying to capitalize on this, but as a friend and sibling to many queer folk (and as well as being a bit fruity myself, even if not fully this or that), I think this visibility is currently very necessary and possibly even life saving for some severely stuck folks. Even if the motivation is obviously crook, I can get behind giving those people the inspiration they need to accept and understand themselves in spite of those who would rather see them hating themselves or worse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not comfortable with companies using any kind of marketing tactics.
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.
Seems a little overboard for some kind of friendly conversation, especially when it had nothing to do with my general point. I was just stating that I wasn’t comfortable with marketing in general. The implication being from large corporations.
As I’ve never taken an intro to business course, as I’m not interested in that aspect of hyper-capitalism that entails, I just go on the general context of the thread and general sentiment. Not a super-literal definition given in your community college.
The hyperbole seems to be all yours, you’ve taken a statement I used to lead into the general topic of my comment and somehow built an entire personality out of to assign to me.
I’m not comfortable with marketing. That is my personal opinion. I know lots of other people have other opinions. Some people are neutral, they don’t give a shit. Others seem to think of it as completely and utterly necessary in every degree of society. They’re allowed that, I have no power nor will to take that from them.
I’m trying to understand your point, but I’m a little lost here.
Do you mean the way the public reacted to their ad?
Or the way they capitulated to that reaction?
I mean: Yes racism and sexism are pervasive in our society, but using Ben and Jerry’s (operating under the same racism/sexism) as an example; they do heavy marketing tactics toward LGBTQ but they are also an ally.
Well, the example of bud light is they made their can rainbow color, while the LGBT community was like “hell yeah!” They lost almost all their hillbilly south customer base.
Never be fooled into believing that corporations are your friend. They are always just looking to chase profits.
But if corporations believe that Pride is profitable, that is a sign that society is headed in the right direction. Whereas if they turn around because Pride is no longer profitable, that is a cause for worry.
Its a tradeoff, we know they only do things for the bottom line but having pridr celebrations did reinforce exactly what the pride movement wanted to push. My work isnt that bad tbh they have a committee that runs talks and discussions on equity and exclusion and the likes. The committee likely doesnt cost much, but they get to champion it and the people in that community feel welcomed and it does help breakdown barriers.
RuneScape regularly does holiday events. Theyve done it for Christmas and Halloween as far back as RS1 - like, the Christmas hats are the iconic RuneScape thing. People have paid obscene amounts of real money for them.
The Pride event was no different. You get fun little items for completing a silly little quest. It’s not even like mega “gay”, it’s just cute and inclusive.
In other words they are being squeezed by their parent company for more profit or to make it look more profitable than what it currently is. I guess they must be planning to sell the company.
This sucks. I remember seeing the membership price hikes a while ago. It has been an interesting experience being someone loved RS to death in the mid-late 2000s, signed up for the 2007scape private servers, saw OSRS get announced and become so popular that I ended up getting to play it on my ipad, and now seeing this era of crazy price increases and layoffs.
Almost makes me wish I played it more back when times were good, but I always ended up playing IM and quitting for a year plus when I died.
So the new RuneScape was just a cash grab? “reduce complexity “ by reducing headcount just means management incompetence, it also doesn’t make you more agile, proper guidance makes you more agile.
I was about to start playing runescape classic before it got bought out. I played it as a kid and have friends that have stuck with it since they were kids. Friends told me to hold off because this new company is raising the subscription price. Seems like another golden parachute scheme for some scumbag ceo is underway…
someone likened it cost as much as WOW, with less content.
for monthly, 6 months, yearly. the original price before the jump was 12.99, 49.99, 79.99USD
the new ones are 14.99, 69.99, 99.99USD member ships. they got greedy, and they pretty much change ownership a couple times, now a PE firm?
BUT people sitll using in game gp to buy membership, but how long will it last. since ingame it cost 128million gp per bond. bond is currently 8.99/bond. i stopped because last year it massively jumped in gp price.
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze