There has been a huge backlash against “Crush”, the ad Apple put out earlier this month, to promote its ultra-thin iPads. In the ad, a hydraulic press squishes a piano, a trumpet, books, paint cans — symbolising all tools of human art and creativity — and then reveals the new iPad Pro. The ad hit a raw nerve almost immediately, forcing Apple to apologise. Samsung smelt an opportunity in Apple’s embarrassment and aired a new ad called “UnCrush,” which showcases a person playing a broken guitar on a paint-covered industrial press, using a Samsung Galaxy Tab S9 to read sheet music.
The result: two of the world’s biggest corporate giants were crushing or uncrushing human creativity to market their products. That’s no way of instilling confidence in tech giants, amidst the widespread anxiety about AI having the potential to replace humans. Though the point of its ad was to show off that the new iPad can pack a lot of apps into a small package, the message Apple gave out was, “We are going to crush you and your careers and we are going to make billions of dollars off it.”
There is no doubt that Apple will be able to weather the crisis because of the reservoir of goodwill among its consumers over the years — Brand Finance named it as the world’s most valuable brand, with its brand value growth increasing by 74% to $517 billion.
But Crush raises a serious question: Why do some of the most iconic companies make such mistakes in their brand communication that chips away at their reputation? The reasons can be many — taking the audience for granted, failure of adequate research, a temporary creativity block, etc. But the biggest reason is that in their urge to do something different, companies forget to figure out who their audience is and what they want.
As a result, sometimes good intentions go horribly wrong. For example, one Pepsi ad featured Kendall Jenner ending a heavily policed demonstration by approaching an officer and handing him a can of Pepsi. Pepsi was trying to “project a global message of unity, peace and understanding”. However, the ad received backlash and accusations that the brand was trivialising protests — in this case, the Black Lives Matter movement. The video was removed 24 hours later.
Just like Pepsi trivialised social justice movements, Hyundai trivialised the heartbreak and devastation of suicide. To promote the release of their new vehicle, the ix35 crossover, the ad depicted a failed suicide attempt in a garage thanks to the vehicle failing to produce enough harmful emissions. The offensive film quickly became viral and the backlash followed. Hyundai apologised and removed the ad.
Another such misdirected ad came from Ford. The advertisement for the Fido hatchback promoted the trunk’s space by fitting three women inside. Ford failed to see the issues with having three women tied up in distress being driven off. Ford was forced to issue an apology.
Then look at this Heineken campaign that raised debate worldwide for being “terribly racist”. The ad showed a bartender sliding a bottle of Heineken Light along the bar, passing numerous people of colour, before arriving at a woman with lighter skin. “Sometimes lighter is better” appears, and the ad ends there. As you can imagine, the ad was as well received as a dog at a pedigree cat show.
Some resorted to plain deception. An example of such a campaign was the case of Poonam Pandey faking her death due to cervical cancer. This tactic aimed to shock people into paying attention to the issue. The campaign received widespread criticism for being deceptive, offensive, and potentially causing emotional distress. Many felt it trivialised the seriousness of death and disrespected those affected by cancer. The campaign ultimately did not achieve its goal of raising awareness. Instead, it sparked negativity.
Many defend such shocking advertisements (shockvertisements as they are known) by stating that grabbing the attention of consumers is becoming increasingly difficult, so brands want to push boundaries to stand out. One advertiser said, “We live in a world littered with advertising, but much of it is ineffective. How many billboards do people drive by without really noticing them? How many people see a commercial without actually watching it? How many people peruse through a website without once clicking an ad?”
He has a point, but the truth is that being controversial for the sake of it can be dangerous. Done right, you can tap into the zeitgeist. Done wrong, you might be seen as an outdated relic. One shining example of embracing controversy — as opposed to just being offensive — are the Benetton campaigns. The focal point of the Italian clothing retailer’s advertising campaign, “The Colors of Benetton”, was to grasp the viewer’s attention by using graphic pictures of real-world issues.
The global negative response to the clothing brand’s “Unhate” campaign, aimed to bring world leaders to stop hating each other, was unprecedented. The series of photoshopped ads featured world leaders kissing their sworn enemies — US President Barack Obama kissing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu. In another image, which was pulled down, the Pope was kissing an Egyptian Imam, which angered the Vatican.
Despite the tsunami of criticism it unleashed, the Unhate campaign, which ran in 170 countries, touched more than 500 million users, and generated 3,000 articles and 600 TV reports in 60 countries. In social channels, Unhate was a top five trending story. Seven months after its launch, Unhate won the Cannes Lions Press Grand Prix.
The bottom line is this: Creating controversial ads can be a fine line between an ad that gets people talking and one that consigns your brand to the bin of shame. The fundamental point to remember is what legendary adman Bob Levenson said, “Most people ignore advertising because most advertising ignores people.”