"We have finally found
the thing that makes us all
more attractive"
(White House announcement of new partnership)
I know. Surprised us too.
Was anyone looking to government for this kind of insight? |
|
Beyond celebrity endorsement
Days before British Prime Minister Boris Johnson married his partner and mother of their one-year-old, the US government astonished many with this ringing endorsement of a slew of top-selling dating apps, most of which belong to the same company, Match Group, Inc. |
|
|
The campaign aims to encourage more people to get the COVID-19 jab, and follows other 'incentives' and rewards such as free beer (Budweiser) and $50 grocery/similar vouchers for residents of California under a lottery scheme.
Though it may not have been intended as such, one viewer in our straw poll points out: |
|
"It's an incredible ad for those major
profit-making apps.
It will be interesting to see what happens
to their stocks as a result." |
As the administration's COVID-19 response adviser Andy Slavitt explains the "universally attractive quality" the partnership promotes, presidential medical adviser Dr Anthony Fauci - himself undergoing a grilling in the Senate over his role in the crisis - covers his eyes and appears to struggle with laughter. |
|
| More straw poll responses: |
|
"You have to persuade different people in different ways."
"Absurd and appalling. Were they doing a parody?
Who would promote this message as the official
government statement?"
"It's one thing to think out of the box, another
to think out of your skull."Any conclusions?
Public campaigns around delicate issues clearly require careful thought, sensitivity, and open-mindedness. 'Vaccine hesitancy', for example, is a buzzphrase that's not accepted by those who are perfectly clear about their choice not to get a shot, but nonetheless are and will continue to be consumers.
At what point can a brand become an object of derision or mistrust if it takes too strong a line on divisive issues? |
|
|
|
