Blog for thought!

The New York Times

The new “The view from the above: Why our future may depend on the fate of birds” advertising post by AllBirds, a shoe company. But not just an ordinary shoe company, a “sustainable one” (they said it themselves, I did not). And they have come up with one of the best pieces of native advertising I have ever seen.

As the name of the advertisement suggests, the article is about how important birds are to our ecosystem and how climate change is putting them in danger. They focus on the impact that birds have on us human beings and how necessary they are for our survival. They help in the pollination of plants and help disperse seeds to support various species of plant’s survival. They eat between 400 million to 500 million metric tons of insects globally, reducing the need for pesticides. They even help in garbage disposal by devouring animal carcasses that would otherwise rot.

You can already see how informative this article was for a reader because even I did not know some of these things mentioned above.

I think this advertisement works so well because, first of all, the brand is called “AllBirds.” They could find an actual problem like climate change that we currently face and how it affects birds. I mean, just how genius is that? Also, as mentioned above, they are a sustainable shoe brand, so highlighting climate change and the endangerment of birds fit its brand manifesto. As a reader of this advertisement, one does not only get awareness about the brand but also the issues of climate change. So it’s a win-win situation for both the brand and the consumer.

When the media can complement the brand, that is when the native advertising format performs at its peak. AllBirds’ ability to create an experience about sustainability helps market both their goods and corporate values.

One can consider this advertising by AllBirds as an unorthodox form of brand sponsorship. Although they don’t contribute to a social event, they bring light to a significant problem of the endangerment of birds. And at the same pledge to donate in helping to reduce their carbon emission for the betterment of the environment and have as little impact as they can on the changing of the climate.

But you can always question how much of it is true. Is the brand sustainable in the first place? Because let us be honest, the sustainability bandwagon is getting crowded more and more with every passing day. Personally, in my opinion, I do think that AllBirds does care about the environment and is not just another gimmicky brand driven by capitalism.

More importantly, if The New York Times is doing a paid post, the brand holds some credibility. Look at the history of all the native advertisements that The New York Times does. You will not find any ads that tend to misdirect the consumer, even though the ads are all sponsored by brands. I think they realise how big of an influence they have on their massive number of readers and don’t want their readers engaging in any sort of practice that benefits the business at the consumer’s cost.

Living in 2022, you would want that racism and sexism to be trivial matters. Even if we, as current members of this society, are trying hard to get rid of them, our past comes back to haunt us.

Just hang in with me, guys. This is all going to make sense.

In today’s day and age, the internet is the backbone of society, and social media is one of the best things to come out of the modern internet. When you think about social media, we know it is not a human being, so it cannot have any intelligence. But it is run by algorithms. And these algorithmic systems can be biased depending on who creates them, how they’re made, and finally, how they’re used. This is known as algorithmic bias. And we have all been a victim of this. Have you ever noticed anything of this sort? 

Coming back to my point of us being haunted by our past. What I was trying to bring to your attention here was that these algorithms have picked up on our past prejudices against people of colour and women. This is where just the problems seem to begin. 

Since these algorithms run social media, so it tends to shape our content navigation. This is a catastrophe of some sort since everyone uses social media. Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter have age restrictions for users, but let us be honest, nobody is bothered. There are a lot of young and susceptible minds on these platforms. Suppose they are fed this narrative of prejudice against people of colour and women by these algorithms. In that case, this is what will shape their future opinions. And we, as a society, should be concerned about this.

The reason for this algorithmic crisis would be that machine learning works on old data recorded over the years and not new data because there is no new data yet. Further studies have found that the AI responsible for recognising hate speech online can sometimes even magnify racial bias. Leading AI models for processing hate speech were found in one study to be 1.5 times more likely to flag tweets as offensive or hateful when prompted when written by African Americans and 2.2 times more like when written in African American English, widely spoken by black people in the United States. 

Although this might sound super pessimistic, taking into account the current situation, the only way to describe social media is “just another way to sell hate.” 

The algorithmic racial bias has got to a point where even Instagram itself has acknowledged it. The CEO of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, stated, “We are committed to looking into our policies and processes and how they impact Black People and other underrepresented groups on Instagram.” We can see how mainstream this problem is if the higher-ups have been forced to get involved. 

As members of this society, we have to take action to stop this atrocious act. What can we do? If I’m being real, we cannot do much. Since we cannot compare our feeds with others, we usually do not know what is being shown to other individuals. All we can do is raise our voices against it. The boycott movement raised many eyes and compelled Instagram to take definite action towards the problem. If we continue down this road and everything goes well, we might get what we want. The eradication of such malpractices. But that is a pretty far stretch, so the best we can do is try, try our best.

Apple has a rich history of cutting-edge technological innovations. When iPhone was introduced in 2007, the tech was so new and fascinating people did not care about the quality. But as time passed, the iPhone camera started getting a lot of slack for sub-par quality.

Enter the #ShotOniPhone campaign. With the introduction iPhone 6 in 2014, Apple planned to win back the trust of its fan base. To demonstrate how capable the new iPhone’s camera was, Apple used real-world images and movies captured by iPhone users to promote the device. Both professional photographers and regular iPhone owners contribute their high-quality photos to the campaign by sharing them on various social media platforms.

iPhone users were encouraged to post their best pictures on social media platforms like Instagram and Twitter. All they had to do was add the #ShotOniPhone hashtag, and they could share a piece of themselves or their culture with the rest of the world. A selected few numbers would be chosen to appear online, in Apple’s retail shops, and on billboards. Apple then took it a step further and developed several advertising campaigns that were shot entirely on the iPhone. Apple highlights the camera’s adaptability and capability by using iPhones to film its advertisements. The campaign includes everything from breathtaking images of nature to films that were thoughtfully and inspirationally made exclusively on iPhones. The campaign has not only generated a tonne of UGC, but it has also received numerous honours and accolades.

Living in the 21st century, where everything is consumed by capitalism, we can infer that Apple is an intelligent mega-corporation. This campaign majorly helps sell the new iPhone. Still, I feel this campaign, in particular, allows the creator as well. The creator gets a fair amount of recognition for their work which they probably would not be able to without this marketing strategy by Apple.

Since this campaign stimulates innovation, collaboration, and exchange, it opens up new markets, opportunities, and growth for the entrepreneurial spirit. This falls under the classic fundamentals of digital optimism, as stated by D. Freedman.

Through the example of the campaign mentioned above, we can conclude that the new marketing revolution has completely changed the idea of selling a product. People are the products as well as the consumers. This must not make sense to you right now but stick with me.

Social media has a lot of influence on people. Influencers are new celebrities. This is what apple takes advantage of. They use these influencers to kick-start their campaigns. Influencers posting a picture with the #ShotOniPhone has a specific impact on the people who look up to them. This, in turn, urges them to be a part of this movement and drive the sale of iPhones. And when millions of people join in, this becomes a trend. All of this brings me back to my point of people being the product. In this case, influencers, who are the products, start this bandwagon, and regular people (consumers, in this case) jump on it.

So who benefits from this the most? Apple, without a doubt. But influencers, initial creators of the UGC, also prosper from this, as this gains them a lot of traction. This does not mean that consumers are just leftovers in this situation. They do profit the least out of the lot. Still, they are encouraged to be a part of this campaign, and who knows what if this content creation turns out to be a catalyst in one of them being the next big influencer.

User-generated content (UGC) is a tool that Apple uses to turn regular iPhone users into unofficial brand ambassadors. Apple defies the rules because it knows that modern advertising typically takes place in a bubble. Apple gives its users a chance to express themselves through the use of an iPhone.

Ancient history suggests that Indian beauty standards were way different than they seem today. Some researchers even believe they were quite the opposite of the current ones. Back in those times, there was more emphasis on inner beauty than a woman’s physical features.

Research says that 90% of single women in India feel they are judged based on their looks. Dove dug a little deeper into this predicament and discovered that 3 out of 4 Indian women are rejected for their looks during the arranged marriage process. And yes! Arranged marriage is still a pretty common practice in India.

This stigmatised behaviour is what Dove is trying to eradicate from society with their #StopTheBeautyTest campaign. The campaign sheds light on the unrealistic beauty standards women are subjected to. Dove is trying to sell to the whole world, not just India, that “beauty is skin deep.” The expression refers to the fact that beauty is far more profound than a sensory experience and goes beyond what is only visible to the eye.

However, all things considered, Dove is owned by Unilever. They are also infamous for being the parent company of a problematic and regressive brand called “Glow and Lovely,” which was earlier known as “Fair & Lovely.” And as clearly as its last name suggests, it has long been accused of fostering an obsession with fair skin complexion in Indians.

This sheds light on the trap that is neoliberalism. What is neoliberalism? It’s a philosophy or way of thinking about the economy that highlights how, in a free society, less regulation, less expenditure, and less taxation by the government, along with less tight control over the economy, can lead to better economic and social progress. In simple words, it basically promotes privatisation over government intervention. Big monopolies like Unilever have capitalised on these neoliberal ideologies of society. On the one hand, their market domination allows them to have a brand like Dove that propagates beauty for all and tries to eliminate societal beauty norms. But on the other hand, own a brand like “Glow & Lovely” (Fair & Lovely) that falsely claims to make one’s skin fairer and therefore upholds these unrealistic expectations of standards of beauty. All under one roof.

All of this makes me question the integrity of the whole ad campaign. Does Dove India really believe in the narrative of “You are beautiful the way you are,” or is it just another marketing gimmick? What do you all think?

Empowerment has been discovered as “a new ground for the expansion of neoliberal practices” (Banet-Weiser, 2012, 45). This statement by Sarah Banet-Weiser makes so much sense when you look at the case of Unilever. The newest field that has been colonised in order to make money is empowerment. Through Dove they try to sell you empowerment, but through “Glow and Lovely,” they sell you conventional beauty standards. This is just proof that big corporations, ultimately, are blinded by capitalism and only care about driving consumerism.

Dove India has an entirely different portrayal than the other brand mentioned above. Both are owned by Unilever and are competing in the same market. These examples show how companies build on insecurities to sell beauty products. The central principle of this article is to advertise the dichotomy of these nefarious conglomerates.

India is one of the largest, if not the largest growing economy in the world. Recently there has been a steady rise in the growth of businesses. This doesn’t only apply to small businesses but major corporations as well. 

India is the biggest democracy in the world. There are 4 pillars that help sustain this democratic state of affairs. Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and the Media. Yes! You read it right. Media is one of these democratic pillars. I know that is hard to believe if you’ve been living in this country lately.  

Diversity is a key factor when it comes to Indian media, as there are thousands of media outlets functioning in multiple languages. Majority of these media outlets are run by for-profit corporations. These corporations enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the government which encourages a lot of political influence hence the content run by the media outlets tends to depict some sort of media bias. This brings into light McChesney’s thoughts on how the media system has become increasingly concentrated and conglomerated into a relative handful of corporate hands. This tendency of media bias damages the country’s democracy. Since media has the ability to shape the viewers attitude, propagated news causes a fair amount of dysfunctionality among the citizens.

This goes hand in hand with McChesney’s claims of “Political Crisis” thus proving that there is no scrutiny of media ownership in India. While at the same time you may wonder that in a country of 1.3 billion people, how is it possible for the people, who understand the unrighteousness of the situation not to question this government? Many attempts have been made to tackle this issue, not only by ordinary citizens but prominent journalists as well. But when you reach a stage where the government has everyone under their fingertips, any argument made is labelled as anti-national. We can here see McChesney’s statement, “Markets don’t deliver democracy” come to life.

To give you all an example, which I would say was one of the smartest moves ever made by a regime, the ruling party somehow convinced the most popular journalists/news anchor of the country to leave his post at “Times Now” and start his own news channel “Republic TV”. Which at the time people thought was a great move. Little did they know the events that would unfold. Since the inception of that channel the government has been using him as his pawn, to stand for all of their ill motives and vices. 

You may ponder over the fact that how can I make such bold claims? It’s no rocket science to be honest. I have seen his narrative change first hand. From questioning the government to backing all of their wicked behaviour and immoral policies.

But the ship has not sunk yet. There’s still hope. There’s always hope left. There isn’t a particular major media organisation but there are a few journalists such as Rana Ayyub and Faye D’Souza who are trying their best to help the democratisation of India. These are journalists who once worked for the mainstream media companies but couldn’t stand the new direction which was heavily influenced by corruption. So they decided to change things themselves. Rana Ayyub who is writer for Washington Post critiques  and writes scathing pieces on the government in her column. Faye D’Souza on the other hand has chosen the path of an independent journalist. She tries to expand the media platter and bring news that the mainstream right wing propagated media won’t. She includes both smaller local and diverse media as well as newsroom entertainment. Hence presenting the consumers news in a way that is appropriate for the largest “democracy” in the world.