Agency Biz: Is Working On Soda Like Working On Tobacco

13 Responses to “Agency Biz: Is Working On Soda Like Working On Tobacco”

1. up001
   Posted from: 63.241.158.8

   February 27th, 2008 at 10:09 am

   I don’t have a problem with W+K’s strategy of tapping real artists to add some cool factor to their clients brands. Isn’t that better than appropriating their art to use in an agencies ads? Maybe its not that different - at least they give them credit and $$$.

   Next time Coke and W+K could do a promotion, maybe they’ll ask the artists to work with a more sustainable medium.

   Thanks for raising this issue!
2. Rick Julian
   Posted from: 72.54.11.130

   February 27th, 2008 at 10:32 am

   Re: W+K’s moral calculus: A heavy diet of Coke is certainly unhealthy, but I’m carrying a few extra pounds and rarely drink Coke, so I’m packing in calories from non-soda sources I don’t moderate well.

   Should the agency for the bagel brand I consume wring their moral hands? Should the cream cheese folks, or the Cheezit folks, or the hundred-of-other-food-brands-I-consume do the same? I think not. I place the responsibility for moderating consumption of potentially unhealthy (when consumed in excess) products at the feet of the buyer (especially parents).
3. Floyd Hayes
   Posted from: 68.161.244.192

   February 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am

   It’s very simple; most big companies and their agencies don’t care about anything apart form the financial bottom line.
4. Rick Julian
   Posted from: 72.54.11.130

   February 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

   @Floyd while we’re not a big agency, there are things we care deeply about, but before we’d shun an account we’d apply rational scrutiny when evaluating net harm vs. net good. I don’t believe the “Coke is harming its drinkers” argument holds water.

   As for big agencies, I tend to agree, their calculus is more base: can this account help us feed the beast?
5. Todd W.
   Posted from: 72.166.146.186

   February 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

   Isn’t questioning whether W+K should have compunctions about helping sell something that is harmful in unmoderated quantities just one step away from questioning whether agencies are ethically culpable for encouraging unnecessary consumption in all product categories?
6. Floyd Hayes
   Posted from: 68.161.244.192

   February 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

   Hey Rick, we should exchange emails :)

   “apply rational scrutiny when evaluating net harm vs. net good”

   Give me an example if you please.
7. Jackson
   Posted from: 207.145.240.88

   February 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

   I think the bigger issue is the lack of creativity here. Wrapping your product in art or tying it to the latest pop star does not make your product any better or more hip. It makes me question more the integrity of the artist. Despite my boredom with Crispin, they made a success of BK by making the brand itself cool, not by association, but by being funny.
8. Rick Julian
   Posted from: 72.54.11.130

   February 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

   @Floyd rational scrutiny = moving beyond the” “Coke” is a bottle of useless calories than can make one fat, ergo we don’t want to support their mission with our services” kind of analysis–that smacks of knee jerk superficiality to me.

   Vs. the argument I first posted whose subtext is: anything consumed immoderately can be unhealthy, ergo I’ll do work for Coke and defer calorie counting responsibility to their “audience” (that word still feels a bit awkward in this context)

   hit me: rjulian@quo-vadis.tv
9. Floyd Hayes
   Posted from: 68.161.244.192

   February 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

   Gotcha thanks RJ
10. Jack at Fork & Bottle
    Posted from: 24.23.179.38

    February 28th, 2008 at 2:42 am

    “dangerous Corn Syrup down” - it’s not Corn Syrup but instead, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

    “Should ad agencies have a similar moral decision when it comes to soda as they do to tobacco?”

    Sure, well, if they had morals, er, right? Perhaps they could get their clients to stop advertising unhealthy food and beverages to kids, for example.
11. harry fowler
    Posted from: 194.129.185.1

    February 28th, 2008 at 5:15 am

    Should ad agencies have a similar moral decision when it comes to soda as they do to tobacco?

    Should individuals start taking responsibility for their own actions and a less time trying to find someone to blame other than themselves?

    You can’t go around demanding morals from agencies when as an individual or a group, you don’t adhere to those morals yourself.
12. Scott
    Posted from: 38.114.71.19

    February 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    welcome to america…where your problems are always someone elses fault.
13. Malfatti
    Posted from: 81.211.32.120

    February 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am

    The last statement finally got it! Though this is not only about America, everywhere the media and advertising in general get this old task to be political correct and to “pull the moral trigger”.

    The media and the ad business are only a part of society. It’s the job of everyone to kick off positive change for themselves! You don’t have to buy coke! If you haven’t learned that to much sugar is bad for you, and that ads want to sell products, the problem lies in a lack of knowledge.

    But attention please! The other way round it’s the same story. Ad agency can’t blame the public, they should protect their “primal source of income” from harm as they would protect themselves.

Leave a Comment