In its best form “marketing”\/”advertising” is just “information”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you have a great product that does “whatever” the best use of your “marketing” budget is to build awareness of the products benefits among folks that need to do “whatever it is that your product does”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
e.g. say you make beer or running shoes – and your goal is to continue to sell beer or running shoes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Spending time educating potential customers about the benefits of your beer or running shoes is gonna be much more effective than – I don’t know, randomly pushing a social agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
e.g. The “craft beer” industry got its start by educating folks on how “good beer” should taste. The “athletic shoe” business had to educate\/inform how their shoes improved performance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is where competent leadership would say “hey, we are NOT a social advocacy company — we sell beer (or running shoes) so we are gonna concentrate on making the best beer (or running shoes) and leave the social advocacy for other folks”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That doesn’t mean your company can’t be a “force for positive change” — i.e. being a “good corporate citizen” is always “good business.” It just means that your company has a product to sell and that shouldn’t involve “propaganda.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Donating to charities or allowing employees “personal time” to volunteer will have intangible benefits — but taking a “corporate stance” on “controversial” issues with marketing decisions is a pointless gamble.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For most of the 20th century the above would PROBABLY have qualified as “corporate dogma” for MOST large corporations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Back in the old “movie studio system” where actors were “under contract” – the studio made an effort to control the public image of “movie stars” and wouldn’t let the actors express “controversial opinions.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
why? because folks on both sides of the issue were potential customers – an actor expressing an opinion would (probably) offend SOMEONE – and that would mean “lower sales”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yes, they were selling an illusion, but the point was that the studio was NOT in the “advocacy business” – they were selling “escapism”\/”entertainment”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Michael Jordan pointed out that he intentionally was NOT “political” because “Republicans and Democrats both buy shoes” (or something along those lines).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The modern business of sport is inherently tied to the “endorsement deal.” I don’t know if anyone can truly claim to have “invented” the idea of celebrity endorsements – i.e. the birth of “mass media” and “marketing” go hand in hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Babe Ruth was the best baseball player in the world (and an all time great) at a time when “mass media” was shifting from newspapers to radio. Baseball was helped by radio, which meant that Babe Ruth’s value as a “celebrity endorser” was helped by radio. BUT while the Babe endorsed everything from “cereal to Girl Scout cookies to soap<\/strong>” I’m not sure if he made more money from “playing baseball” or from endorsements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arnold Palmer (professional golf great) on the other hand made much more money from “endorsements” than he did from winning golf tournaments. This time Mr Palmer benefited from the growth of “television.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n If a “modern sports star” was looking for an “endorsement” role model – Mr Palmer is probably hard to beat. I’m not a golfer – but I still think of his commercials for a particular motor oil when I’m buying oil. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course the “products” that Arnold Palmer was selling were “golf” AND “Arnold Palmer” – I’m sure he had opinions of the controversial subjects of his day, and I’m sure he contributed to multiple charities, he just kept those opinions separate from his “golf professional image.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2023, I’m not opposed to an athlete expressing an opinion on “controversial subjects” – I just prefer that they have an educated opinion on the subject BEFORE they comment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course then “product endorsements” might be impacted by an athlete expressing their opinions. This withdrawal of “corporate approval” is NOT an attack of “freedom if speech” – again, the “company” needs to remember that it is in the business of selling a “product” NOT active propaganda.<\/p>\n\n\n\nYou keep using that word …<\/h2>\n\n\n\n