From Advertising Age
Analysis by Candynce Boney in KIN 501
During opening night of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Chevrolet aired two commercials featuring gay couples for the first time in both of their television slots. It is important to note Chevy went through with these commercials with the understanding that Sochi had enforced anti-gay laws. All the families in these commercials were real life families that were found through both social media and outreach. Not only does Chevrolet show gay couples there are also multi-racial families shown in these commercials. Chevy’s goal is to explore “what it means to be a family these days.” During the second commercial they show a gay couple celebrating their marriage and an openly gay scientist, Jack Andraka who developed a way to test for pancreatic cancer. Although during the commercials the pictures flash by rather quickly it is still easy to recognize both the mixed race families and the gay couples.
With Chevrolet promoting their new marketing technique, they seem to have placed a large amount of emphasis on slogans. America is starting to become more of a nondiscriminatory country, their slogans does a great job catch the attention of new era Americans. What I mean by new era Americans is, for this current generation everything is about being inclusive and politically correct. Many of the young Americans now are multi-racial and support Same Sex Marriages. Therefore Chevy is reaching a large population of people with opening this new market scheme.
From a marketing standpoint, I was curious as to how Chevy’s older more conservative customers would respond to the new marketing technique. As one would expect the responses to this commercial were not good. People said they would never purchase another car from Chevrolet; some went as far to say they would sale their current Chevrolet vehicles due to these commercials. In my opinion this is still a good marketing technique, as I mentioned before, people are becoming more liberal in their standpoints on relationships.
More specifically for up and coming marketers, the field is constantly evolving with today’s new society roles and trends. We would need to confront some of those old stereotypes, not being afraid of going after something new. In my opinion, as a marketer it is important to understand, not every person will agree with all marketing tool and techniques used, but in order to evolve in the field barriers have to be pushed. It is going to be easier to push these barriers in companies as large as Chevrolet, but even on a college level doing more inclusive things and making everyone feel welcomed may produce better outcomes at different events around campus.
From ESPN.com
From Tommy LaRose in SRM 334
Football has long been seen as a harsh sport for tough people, and language that would not be acceptable in other work environments is accepted on the field. However, the NFL is expected to enact a rule where players would be penalized 15 yards for use of the N-word on the field. The league’s competition committee will officially decide whether to agree to the rule next month. John Wooten, the head of the Fritz Pollard Alliance (which monitors diversity in the NFL), says he will be, “Totally shocked if the competition committee does not uphold” the new rule.
The possible new rule has gotten mixed reactions. Amongst African Americans, it could be argued that the word is actually a term of endearment. Regardless of how you feel about the word, some people believe it is the job of the players to police the use of the word. It is their responsibility to rid their workplace of the slur. It is interesting that the NFL feels it is their responsibility to discourage the use of the word. The timing of the decision is also curious. I personally believe the new rule is more of a PR move than anything else. I highly doubt many players have gone to the league office and complained about the use of the N-word. For many, it is a normal word that is used in daily conversation. It also seems counterproductive in the sense that the rule would bring the topic of race back to the forefront of the discussion in sports. We as a society are trying to move past the issue of race, and the NFL is no different. Trying to force people to act in a certain way or say certain things is not the correct way to go about it in my opinion.
The new rule seems to be more of a reaction to media coverage of recent events. Richie Incognito’s bullying of teammate Jonathan Martin was probably the driving force behind the rule. The media repeatedly reported on the threatening text messages sent by Incognito to Martin. Included in these messages, it was reported that there were many racial slurs aimed at Martin. One could conclude that the N-word was probably the most commonly used slur. The bullying incident sparked a hot conversation all over ESPN and other media outlets. People began to question whether the tough-guy image of the NFL had gone too far. The media discussed the culture of the NFL, and race was inevitably brought up as a topic. Bad publicity for the NFL is something the league does not want, and the new rule could be seen as a proactive way to try to change the culture of the NFL. Incognito’s harsh words embodied the culture the NFL is trying to rid itself of, and the NFL hopes the media will receive this new rule positively.
As we discussed in class, the new model of media is far different from the old model. It is progressive in almost every way and is much more interactive and detailed. The Richie Incognito incident would not have received nearly as much coverage 60 years ago: maybe a one-page story in the sports section of the newspaper. Today, the media jumped all over the story and painted the culture of the NFL in a very negative light. Media coverage of an event greatly influences the way the public views it, and sometimes can even prompt a reaction from an entity such as the NFL.
From iMediaEthics
Analysis by Luke Kaulius in SRM 334
Bode Miller, an Olympic alpine ski racer from the United States won his sixth Olympic metal this February at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Miller placed bronze in the Super-G downhill event. For Bode, these Olympic games were far different from any of the others that he competed in. This is because of the recent death of his younger brother Chelone “Chilly” Miller, who passed away in April of 2013 due to an apparent seizure. Chelone Miller was a professional snowboarder who had planned to compete in the 2014 Sochi Olympics alongside his older brother.
After placing bronze in the Super-G event, Bode Miller agreed to do an interview with NBC reporter, Christin Cooper. During the interview, Miller was asked multiple questions regarding the death of his brother, Chelone. These questions eventually brought Bode to tears and he was unable to complete the interview. This raised much controversy regarding the intention of the interview and the morality of NBC. Many media outlets such as The New York Times believed that this interview crossed a very fine line and was unethical. People around the world posted their negative thoughts regarding this interview on social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook. However, Bode Miller believed that there was no one was to blame for the interview. He explained that it was a very emotional time for him and any reporter would have asked the same questions. Responding to the negative criticism, NBC came out with a statement justifying the interview and the intention behind it.
I believe that NBC and Christin Cooper did not do an adequate job preparing and conducting this interview. It was very obvious that they were trying to provoke Bode in an effort to get more media attention. NBC wanted to show the raw emotion of Bode Miller at a time like this, however they could have used better techniques. Rather than asking three out of the four questions in the interview about Bode’s brother, NBC should have eased into the topic and waited until the last question to bring up the death of his brother.
I believe that the perfect amount of emotion that would have been appropriate for NBC’s audience was after the first question regarding his brother. Once they asked two more questions about the Chelone Miller, it gave the audience the impression that they wanted Bode to break down and cry. Christin Cooper should have created a better atmosphere of trust by asking easier questions first and then finish with a question about the death of Bode’s brother. By doing this, Bode would become more comfortable answering the questions and not feel like he is being provoked the entire interview. I believe that if NBC and Christin Cooper had taken this approach, the interview would have portrayed the perfect amount of emotion and create a more content mood for their viewers.
This topic is very relevant to the course because it relates directly to the topic we discussed on interviewing. In class we discussed all components of an interview that occur prior to an interview and during an interview. These components are evident throughout the interview with Bode Miller, especially the method, audience, and agenda of the interview. After learning about how to develop interviewing skills, I am able to understand how the interview was conducted and where NBC might have gone wrong.
The areas that NBC struggled with this interview include the agenda of the interview and the particular way that Christin Cooper asked the questions. She did not create a good atmosphere of trust with Bode Miller because she jumped right into questions that were difficult to answer. NBC was not intentionally trying to provoke Bode Miller, but they did not do a sufficient job in creating a comfortable mood. After seeing this interview, I was able to examine a perfect example of a poorly constructed interview and understand why NBC and Christin Cooper received a great deal of negative scrutiny.
