This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/15/wicked-camper-vans-repulsive-slogans-are-nothing-more-than-real-life-click-bait

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Wicked Campers' repulsive slogans are nothing more than real life click bait Wicked Campers' repulsive slogans are nothing more than real life click bait
(about 1 month later)
Wicked Campers are living up to their Wicked Campers are living up to their name and, from a purely marketing perspective, they’re doing a textbook job. They are selling cheap hire cars to (mostly) young male backpackers with a tight budget. There are other players in this market but Wicked have found a way to stand out and, furthermore, a way to stand out that is entirely in keeping with their brand.
name and, from a purely marketing perspective, they’re doing a textbook job. And what is their brand? It is summed up by their name: their cars are usually covered in graffiti'ed, gratuitously offensive quotes (to take just a few: "In every princess there is a little slut who wants to try it just once"; "drink till she's pretty"; "men have two emotions: hungry and horny. If you see him without an erection, make him a sandwich").
They are selling cheap hire cars to (mostly) young male backpackers with a It is the opposite of aspirational; it is under-graduate, smutty, sniggery and – if you’ll excuse the expression - cocky. It’s very male (which doesn’t mean some women won’t be attracted to a "male" brand, my teenage girlfriends and I all smoked Marlboro, for example) and very aggressive. Like the young men it hopes to appeal to, it’s a brand that pretends it doesn’t care what you think, while it really cares very much. It wants to shock and irritate you. It wants to provoke outrage and lots of huffing and puffing because that way it proves it is actually, well …wicked. The more public the outrage, the louder the protests, the better their branding has worked – or so they think. It’s the old school media equivalent of click bait.
tight budget. There are other players in this market but Wicked have found a Does that mean their offering is appropriate, excusable or reasonable? Of course not, but this is where the rubber hits the road in the conflict between what marketers are paid to do, and what society expects of them.
way to stand out and, furthermore, a way to stand out that is entirely in Marketers and advertisers – persuasion professionals, if you like (and I was one for more than 30 years) are paid to get their client’s products and services noticed, and to build a personality – or brand identity – for them over time. A great deal of thought, time, effort and money goes into developing and honing those brands.
keeping with their brand. Some of which become priceless – think Qantas (even today), Apple, Coke, Disney, Virgin or Penfolds Grange. The people who built those brands did so by understanding what really drives people, and what they actually most desire. Not what we’d like to think drives us, or the things we think we should desire – but what actually does. Advertising, I believe, is akin to a confronting mirror. It reflects us back to ourselves as we really are – warts, venalities, prejudices, vanities, perversions and all. If only they realised it, young male back packers are being viciously insulted by the advertising Wicked is aiming at them.
And what is their brand? It is summed up by Advertising is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral. It operates in the realm of what works, what will actually part a fool from his money. In fact, when a marketer commissions me to promote his or her brand, and by doing so help build it, it would be immoral of me to take their money and use it to push my own agenda. Mind you, I hope I’d be more thoughtful about the long-term prospects of the brand than the current crop of communicators at Wicked, and produce better work. Nevertheless, I don’t recommend using advertising people as society’s moral guardians.
their name: their cars are usually covered in graffiti'ed, gratuitously offensive quotes (to take just a few: "In every princess there is a little slut who wants to try it just once"; "drink till she's pretty"; "men have two emotions: hungry and horny. If you see him without an erection, make him a sandwich"). But what about sexist, racist and generally objectionable ads such as Wicked’s latest offering, can we do nothing about those? That’s where the true moral guardians – the public and their new power via social media – come into their own. Yes, such advertisers want to cause a ruckus and get attention, but when they go too far it can blow up in their face.
It is the opposite of aspirational; it is under-graduate, Given the blow back on social media, it will be a brave group of young people who happily take possession of a Wicked van bearing the princess and the slut slogan. I suspect the offending vehicles are being quietly re-painted as I write, despite the company’s apparent bravado. After all, Wicked have been burnt before when the Advertising Standards Bureau righty upheld a complaint in March about their appalling "fat girls are easier to kidnap" slogan.
smutty, sniggery and – if you’ll excuse the expression - cocky. It’s very male It is one thing to have a brand which is seen as subversive, edgy and wicked, but quite another for it to become nasty, scary, sulky and so try-hard that it becomes embarrassing to possess - or drive. Thanks to those who have protested loudly, I think Wicked may have pushed their luck too far.
(which doesn’t mean some women won’t be attracted to a "male" brand, my teenage girlfriends One more thing Wicked might like to think about if they want to pull their brand back from the brink of permanently embarrassing: hire a decent copywriter. If their slogans contained even a modicum of genuine wit, who knows, they might yet build themselves a half way decent brand.
and I all smoked Marlboro, for example) and very
aggressive. Like the young men it hopes to
appeal to, it’s a brand that pretends it doesn’t care what you think, while it
really cares very much. It wants to shock and irritate you. It wants to provoke
outrage and lots of huffing and puffing because that way it proves it is
actually, well …wicked. The more public the outrage, the louder the protests,
the better their branding has worked – or so they think. It’s the old school
media equivalent of click bait.
Does that mean their offering is appropriate, excusable or reasonable? Of course not,
but this is where the rubber hits the road in the conflict between what
marketers are paid to do, and what society expects of them.
Marketers and advertisers – persuasion
professionals, if you like (and I was one for more than 30 years) are paid to
get their client’s products and services noticed, and to build a personality –
or brand identity – for them over time. A great deal of thought, time, effort
and money goes into developing and honing those brands.
Some of which become
priceless – think Qantas (even today), Apple, Coke, Disney, Virgin or Penfolds
Grange. The people who built those brands did so by
understanding what really drives people, and what they actually most desire. Not
what we’d like to think drives us, or the things we think we should desire –
but what actually does. Advertising, I believe, is akin to a confronting
mirror. It reflects us back to ourselves as we really are – warts, venalities,
prejudices, vanities, perversions and all. If only they realised it, young male
back packers are being viciously insulted by the advertising Wicked is aiming
at them.
Advertising is neither moral nor immoral;
it is amoral. It operates in the realm of what works, what will actually part a
fool from his money. In fact, when a marketer commissions me to promote his or
her brand, and by doing so help build it, it would be immoral of me to take
their money and use it to push my own agenda. Mind you, I hope I’d be more
thoughtful about the long-term prospects of the brand than the current crop of
communicators at Wicked, and produce better work. Nevertheless, I don’t
recommend using advertising people as society’s moral guardians.
But what about sexist, racist and generally
objectionable ads such as Wicked’s latest offering, can we do nothing about
those? That’s where the true moral guardians – the public and their new power
via social media – come into their own. Yes, such advertisers want to cause a
ruckus and get attention, but when they go too far it can blow up in their face.
Given the blow back on social media, it will be
a brave group of young people who happily take possession of a Wicked van
bearing the princess and the slut slogan. I suspect the offending vehicles are
being quietly re-painted as I write, despite the company’s apparent bravado.
After all, Wicked have been burnt before when the Advertising Standards Bureau
righty upheld a complaint in March about their appalling "fat girls are easier
to kidnap" slogan.
It is one thing to have a brand which is
seen as subversive, edgy and wicked, but quite another for it to become
nasty, scary, sulky and so try-hard that it becomes embarrassing to possess -
or drive. Thanks to those who have protested loudly, I think Wicked may have pushed their luck too far.
One more thing Wicked might like to think
about if they want to pull their brand back from the brink of permanently
embarrassing: hire a decent copywriter. If their slogans contained even a
modicum of genuine wit, who knows, they might yet build themselves a half way
decent brand.