Coca-cola: Ingredients vs. Aspirations
http://youtu.be/443Vy3I0gJsWas anyone else as conflicted about Coke's Superbowl ad as I was? I want to applaud them for representing America as the land of diversity that it truly is. I want to stand behind them and boo the right-wing conservatives who hated it. But I also want to know when their ingredients and practices will measure up to the aspirations of their advertising.After last week's ad aired, some Coke critics directed people to #boycottcoke, not because of its portrayal of America in the commercial, but because Coke has too much sugar and destroys our environment. The website killercoke.org holds Coca-cola accountable for crimes in many countries. Articles like "Overexploitation and over use of water sources in India" abound.What about those ingredients? The commercial shows the smiling and happy faces of a culturally diverse America. Studies show that drinking just one soda per day can raise the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by up to 22 percent. Research also shows that the burden of diabetes is much higher for racial/ethnic minorities than for whites. So while their beautiful commercial brings a tear to my eye, I can't help but be angry at an ad that appears to be targeting minorities to get them hooked on soda.Of course if you work in marketing, you can't help but admire what a genius move it was. It may have inflamed controversy and alienated conservatives, but for advertisers, it's always about expanding market share. Coke did a great job of targeting their heavy users — those who drink several sodas every day. They also directed it squarely at an expanding demographic, the rapidly growing Latino market and other minorities. In fact, as Jill Fillopovic wrote in an article for The Guardian, "Coke's targeting of Latino and other immigrant populations is about as progressive as RJ Reynolds marketing menthol cigarettes to African-Americans or Phillip Morris hawking Virginia Slims to women – that is, not very. Before we applaud Coke's advertising diversity, we should ask: do we really want Coke to diversify?" (1)How do you feel about the commercial, love it or hate it, or are you somewhere in the middle?Notes:(1) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/coca-cola-america-is-beautiful-adSources:http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/diabetes/diabdisp/index.htmlhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/04/25/one-soda-per-day-raises-diabetes-risk-study-suggests/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/coca-cola-america-is-beautiful-ad
Should Beauty Trump Authenticity?
Stunning photographs of disappearing tribes from Jimmy Nelson's new book, Before They Pass Away, have been circulating recently online. Undoubtedly beautiful images, the work has been praised as, "epic portraits that present these dignified inheritors of noble and age-old traditions in a proud spirit and in all their glory—a unique visual experience."Critics offer another point of view as posted in the comments section on Fast Company's website:
This is disturbing. It has popped up a number of times on my newsfeed. It is yet another white westerner's fascination with the authentic and exotic 'other'. This book is totally reminiscent of nineteenth century Social Darwinism and the euro centric belief that 'primitive' cultures were destined to die out when confronted with European 'civilisation'.
I thought what an amazing project then I saw his work on Maori in New Zealand. That is bullshit. No Maori dress like that now and haven't for at least 100 years or more. This is total fabrication. Such a disappointment.
I also wonder about the ethics of such a project since Nelson admits that he couldn't communicate verbally with most of his subjects? Nelson also said "They risk abandoning their authenticity and go towards the material world.” I wonder how much money he will make from his own little piece of material culture.
Nelson says, "I didn't start this project anticipating that I could stop the world from changing. I purely wanted to create a visual document that reminds us and generations to come of how beautiful the human world once was."The controversy surrounding Nelson's work is not new; the beauty of these images brings to mind the work of Edward Curtis. During the early part of the 1900s Curtis undertook a project of photographing Native Americans that would span thirty years, and stir up issues of authenticity and ethics along the way.
Creating what many felt were overly romanticized images, Curtis was accused of image manipulation when it was discovered that he had retouched images to remove elements of civilization—as he did in one image that proudly displayed an alarm clock. Some also felt it was not authentic documentation since he posed his subjects and asked them to don ceremonial headdresses and leggings. Curtis felt his portraits gave face to the indigenous peoples of North America, who were threatened by extinction.This question isn't unique to disappearing human cultures; the adoption of the polar bear as a mascot in the fight against global warming raises the same types of questions. Portrayed in Coca-cola ads as pure and adorable creatures, real polar bears have been documented eating their own cubs. One can understand how the cute and adorable polar bear image would engage more supporters than a blood-thirsty cannibal.At the heart of this debates lies the never-ending question that photographers and graphic designers alike wrestle with: what's more important—authenticity—or creating awareness, empathy, and support?Sources:http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021773/see-these-heartbreaking-photos-of-worlds-disappearing-cultures-before-they-fade-awayhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/lost-tribes-before-they-pass-away-jimmy-nelson-_n_4212518.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/books/short-nights-of-the-shadow-catcher-by-timothy-egan.htmlhttp://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/ecur/item/96515425/resource/http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-polar-bearshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2071638/Polar-bears-Cannibal-pictures-prove-theyll-eat-bear-cubs.html
Coca-Cola: generous benefactor or evil brand master?
Where does one draw the line about whether or not its graphic designers’ moral responsibility to keep their employees and work on something they don’t necessarily agree with or to let them go, adversely affecting their lives as well their families? Should they refuse to work for the client or take the job for the sake of their employees? Coca-Cola Company is local in 206 countries, more than the United Nations. They have 700,000 employees, 50 million retailers, and 50 million customers all over the world. Critics of Coca-Cola condemn the company for encouraging a consumer culture that is unhealthy and economically draining on individuals.In Do Good: How Designers Can Change the World, author David Berman talks about how Coke has branded the nation of Tanzania. In the 1990s they took care of all of their road signage and included the Coke brand on every sign. In some parts of Africa, Coke is considered medicinal and the price of a bottle of Coke is the same as an anti-malarial pill. While Coke is the best selling drink on the continent, a million Africans die each year of malaria. At the same time Coke is heavily invested in the local communities, imagine the economic impact and subsequent repercussions on the lives of those economically connected to the company if Coke suddenly disappeared as well as losing all of the benefits they do provide like road signage and schools.Simon Berry is one individual who decided to see if there was a way to use Coca-Cola's widespread distribution network to deliver something more. In 2008 Berry started a Facebook group to enlist Coca-Cola to help ship medicine to areas that need it. The group grew quickly and generated a lot of positive publicity. Soon after Berry founded ColaLife, an organization dedicated to helping Coca-Cola take simple medicines and other 'social products' to save lives, especially children's lives.