Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Appalling
My moral outrage button doesn't often get punched this hard. Lately, I have been shocked to see the number of companies looking to profit from the Israel-Lebanon war.
I got my first glimpse of this when Stratfor, the e-mail policy analysts, started bombarding me with advertisements for their premium services so that every time somebody sneezed in Lebanon, I would get an e-lert. They even made a nifty little graphic with an Israeli soldier and a whole bunch of stuff on fire.
At first, I was tempted to write an angry e-mail. Stratfor is a company entirely based on policy analysis and solutions. However, this motive directly conflicts with the motive of all private companies--profit. If the Israel-Lebanon conflict is solved, Stratfor hoodwinks fewer people into buying "up to the sneeze" analysis. However, since Stratfor does do its business entirely based on all the crazy stuff happening in the world, I got over myself and shut the hell up.
This morning, however, I got an e-mail from CafePress.com (a company I used to like) that had a slew of products dealing with the current conflict. This is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. One, it's a pro-Israel propaganda tool. I support Israel, but I can still recognize deception when I see it. Two, the entire idea of making money off of a tragedy (you know, like a war) makes me sick to my stomach.
Which, I guess, is what I really wanted to write about. These companies that produce and promote pro-Israel clothing are acting in bad faith. I think it's fine to show support for a cause; however, I think taking action is more important. Instead of marketing slogans to me, a middle-class American consumer, these companies should take action to promote the cause. If nothing else, profits from "I support Israel" shirts should be going to Zionist charities. More importantly, a war is not a sales tool. Hundreds of people have died in Israel and Lebanon in the past three weeks. Lebanon has (until very recently) been cut of from all humanitarian aid whatsoever. If you really support Israel's maneuvers, put your money where your mouth is. Don't buy a t-shirt; give to a charity that will help those harmed by the war.
Therefore, I believe that two obligations exist--one for the producer and one for the consumer. The producer must not use tragedy as a money-gaining method. To do so is manipulative and disrespectful. Instead, a company (with lots of money and clout) should be using their influence to have a positive impact. The consumer must recognize the manipulation and, instead of buying a shirt, must actually support his cause through action. If this obligation is fulfilled, the first will be (by default), as the market is driven by consumer needs.
Death is not a marketing tool. The end.
I got my first glimpse of this when Stratfor, the e-mail policy analysts, started bombarding me with advertisements for their premium services so that every time somebody sneezed in Lebanon, I would get an e-lert. They even made a nifty little graphic with an Israeli soldier and a whole bunch of stuff on fire.
At first, I was tempted to write an angry e-mail. Stratfor is a company entirely based on policy analysis and solutions. However, this motive directly conflicts with the motive of all private companies--profit. If the Israel-Lebanon conflict is solved, Stratfor hoodwinks fewer people into buying "up to the sneeze" analysis. However, since Stratfor does do its business entirely based on all the crazy stuff happening in the world, I got over myself and shut the hell up.
This morning, however, I got an e-mail from CafePress.com (a company I used to like) that had a slew of products dealing with the current conflict. This is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. One, it's a pro-Israel propaganda tool. I support Israel, but I can still recognize deception when I see it. Two, the entire idea of making money off of a tragedy (you know, like a war) makes me sick to my stomach.
Which, I guess, is what I really wanted to write about. These companies that produce and promote pro-Israel clothing are acting in bad faith. I think it's fine to show support for a cause; however, I think taking action is more important. Instead of marketing slogans to me, a middle-class American consumer, these companies should take action to promote the cause. If nothing else, profits from "I support Israel" shirts should be going to Zionist charities. More importantly, a war is not a sales tool. Hundreds of people have died in Israel and Lebanon in the past three weeks. Lebanon has (until very recently) been cut of from all humanitarian aid whatsoever. If you really support Israel's maneuvers, put your money where your mouth is. Don't buy a t-shirt; give to a charity that will help those harmed by the war.
Therefore, I believe that two obligations exist--one for the producer and one for the consumer. The producer must not use tragedy as a money-gaining method. To do so is manipulative and disrespectful. Instead, a company (with lots of money and clout) should be using their influence to have a positive impact. The consumer must recognize the manipulation and, instead of buying a shirt, must actually support his cause through action. If this obligation is fulfilled, the first will be (by default), as the market is driven by consumer needs.
Death is not a marketing tool. The end.
Comments:
Death is not a marketing tool that should be used, but it is going to be used no matter what. It is just like fear. They're both perfect marketing tools for a western civilization.
I don't know, we Americans like shirts with pretty flags on them. I don't think that market for "I support ______" shirts, bumper stickers, etc. is ever going to dry up, unfortunately. Companies have figured out that there's money to be made in marketing a tragedy, and a company's only purpose in life is to earn a profit. They have no souls ;)
Post a Comment
