I agree that you cannot answer everyone in the same way. Certainly, though, their repsonse was inadequate and demonstrated a lack of understanding / sensitivity to the world of blogging and social media.
Thanks for the clarifying comment, Chuck.
Fun thread, Peter.
I won't repeat everything I've already posted here (although I'd like to). But for the record: I never said the Target PR people did this as a ploy. I WAS JOKING. Of course they're not that smart. They were simply snotty.
I was merely saying that Target's myopic response, along with the "I'm offended" reaction by bloggers for being slighted, is NOW the issue.
The inappropriateness or subliminal or anti-women slant in the ad the original blogger complained about is no longer talked about. Nobody cares about this ad anymore. Or women being made into crotch targets - or children seeing this 'filth' or whatever the original blogger was in a snit about.
While the reactions/responses are all over the map - and the question posed by the NYT has to do with blogging - I see almost nothing about the ad in their comment section attached to the article. It's mostly "Bloggers are amateurs and scum" to "bloggers are the saviors of our free press and democratic right to express and disseminate opinions". I see nothing about the offensiveness or innocence (or, in my opinion, the incompetence of the art direction) of the original ad. Which is and were my points in my posts here.
I think this reflects poorly on bloggers. What was the original issue? The IMPORTANT issue this lady wrote to Target about? Perhaps this is why so many people think bloggers are simply crybaby egomaniacs with no hint of professionalism or accountability.
Whoops. Maybe I did repeat almost everything I said in the preceding posts ...
Chuck,
In an age when ethics frequently take a backseat to the drug called publicity, one might conclude that Target's public posture was a PR ploy.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's how this particular piece played out. First, Target is hyper-sensitive to its image as a de rigeur place to shop. Disrespecting the blogging community would go counter to that branding.
Secondly, you give Target's PR operatives too much credit. Do they really sound savvy enough to conceive such a deceptively cunning plot to generate buzz for an advertising execution? I don't think so.
Thanks for everyone's comments.
Like I said - I was half-joking and really don't believe it.
But if you think about it, this is almost the way it's playing out. The ad is now getting tons of press, with the ad plastered all over the blogosphere and in print - not necessarily a bad thing. And the people who don't care much about blogging, don't have strong feelings one way or the other - meaning, most people, the general public - are reading the NYT and other mainstream media pieces and saying to themselves, "What's the big deal with this ad? Much ado about nothing. And who are all these 'bloggers'? They're offended because a company snubbed them? So what? Who cares?"
And if a chunk of consumers do find something inappropriate about the ad - they see that the press and the bloggers have taken their eyes off the ball and are now talking about the snubbing of bloggers - not about the evil, lewd ad.
Fire that creative director! Or give him/her a raise.
I disagree with Chuck's opinion that the Target PR team successfully deflected focus from the ad.
For the record, I find the ad harmless. But the PR pros tried to avoid talking to the blogger and ended up talking to major market media about it only a few days later. That is not brilliance - it's stupidity. Had they given a brief comment to the blogger, nobody would have heard about it at all. Instead, everyone is buzzing about it and every report I've read (including mine) has linked to the original blogger's complaint.
RE: the question about treating bloggers the way we treat traditional media. I think it's imperative to show a blogger the same respect. Before I talk to a reporter, I take a look at what they're writing, what they cover to determine what I say and how I say it. Doing the same for a blogger is not only good PR, it's common courtesy.
Jennifer www.speakmediablog.com
You're right, Peter. You have to pick and choose. And if responding, Target PR should've handled it with a bit more care. Or, ignored the email. It was a snotty response.
While I don't really believe this - let me toss out a scenario just for fun: The PR folks for Target are brilliant. Knowing full well that their dismissive email would cause a firestorm, it took the focus off the advertisement. They knew that self-important, vain bloggers (I'll include myself in this group, btw) would go crazy over being dismissed - and chatter amongst themselves about such a slight.
What about the ad? Who cares anymore about the 'crotch shot' ...
What I really think: The ad's fine. It's part of a campaign that has other ads with some guy riding a bike (I think I saw that), and other scenarios. Snow is the theme. The lady lying on the logo - well, perhaps they should have been more careful, perhaps the art director wasn't on his/her toes - but the real reason she's lying in that position is because her white hat would have been lost over the white ring if she had been nudged down a bit and centered. I doubt that they purposely put her crotch in the middle - or thought that somehow this was lewd or inappropriate - or subliminal - or whatever Ms. Jussel is upset about.
I find it to be quite an innocuous ad - although I admit that the art director wasn't paying attention ...
Although the message wasn't openly rude, it was a bit snobbish. I wonder what prompted her to say that? Didn't she realize the impact and influence of blogs? Doesn't Target know? Well, if they didn't, I'm sure they do now. A lot of blogs have something to say about the whole issue. Revenge is sweet.
Commenting by HaloScan
