Media Issue (A)

Brands Swear Back

 Source: jdyp.com

The uppercase f-bomb all over FCUK products, shops, and billboards marks the emergence of in-your-face brand expletives to sell (Boyle 2014). 


I understand the effort of edgy brands dropping the odd cuss word to target younger audiences. Arguably a creative initiative, yet, if one cares about marketing culture, swearing brands are hardly edifying or constructive. Behind the ingenuity, risque names are neither making statements nor creating ideas, but simply verbal-filling. Not many see the word ‘holy crap’ in a cereal box and think “Holy crap! This really speaks to me. I should eat the cereal!”

source: aladyinlondon.com 

To begin with, swearing does not even register with the target audience – but with the wrong crowd – a subset of young customers who do not really give a ‘fcuk’ – who might not buy anyways. If brand ideas are well-presented, expletives is irrelevant but narrowing the brand appeal and increasing discomfort of brand wearers or people around them (Andrew 2011; Thompson 2014).

       

Advertising Ethics

Such dispute, depressingly a common advertising stratagem, often use sexual suggestiveness and symbolism. This makes brand communication intriguing and compelling, without the risk of authority censure by positioning risque communication within the covert ad dimension (Cook 2001, p. 51). Brand owners effortlessly antagonizes groups outside their target market for free editorial publicity and stronger brand identity. 

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)'s ruling maxim thrives on 'decency' and stresses upon having brand expletives vetted before exposure. In earlier periods, obscene words are not permitted in public discourse. Culture attitudes are still in denial to vulgar language, observing it as 'obnoxious and offensive'. Reaping sales, nonetheless, is a clever piece of publicizing, a striking marketing device, a public standard erosion of speech and behaviour, and a mockery of media regulatory (Manchanda et al. 2003, p. 271).
source: foodwhine.com

Brand marketing corporations were once promoted and legitimized their mass consumption a socially responsible and paternalistic light (e.g. corporate social responsibility). Today, they do not even pretend that they make positive social contributions rather than lead audiences astray. It seems that advertising regulation are inclining towards commercial values irrespective of what is good (Hackley 2005). The underlying ethics barely apply in the context of social policy. 


References

Andrew 2011, 'Swearing in your copy? Fuck off.', Unmemorable Title: An SEO and Copywriting Blog, unmemorabletitle.co.uk, viewed on 5 June 2014, <http://www.unmemorabletitle.co.uk/swearing-in-your-copy-fuck-off/>.

Boyle, D. 2014, 'For FCUK's sake, brands are swearing more than ever', The Guardian, 28 April, viewed on 5 June 2014, <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/brands-swearing-marketing-social-media-advertisers>.

Cook, G. 2001, The Discourse of Advertising, Routledge, London.

Hackley, C. 2005, Advertising and Promotinon: Communication Brands, Sage, CA.

Manchanda, R. V., Dahl, D. W., and Frankenberger, K. D., 2003, 'Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students', Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 268 - 279. 

Thompson, A. 2014, 'Effective copywriting to swear by', Creative Copywriting, BrandNewCopy.com, viewed on 5 June 2014, <http://brandnewcopy.com/effective-copywriting-to-swear-by/>.