Bob Hirshon wrote: >Let me jump in on Oliver's behalf, because I share some of his concerns. > >Car companies co-opt rock and roll songs to sell luxury cars, including songs >by deceased artists with anarchist tendencies. The idea is to cloak the >companies with an edgy image that will sell cars. Demagogues drape themselves >in the American flag to make it appear that their ideas are synonymous with >patriotism, and any dissent is un-American. This is all basic marketing. And >it's kind of sickening. > >Using Ghandi and his message to sell telecommunications services is a similar >marketing ploy saying, essentially, "more telecommunications = more world >peace. ITC believes in more telecommunications. Therefore, if you love world >peace, you will love ICT." > > Actually, the advertisement was pretty clear here - 'Imagine'. Therefore, it was showing the potential for such things. Remember that Christopher Reeves advertisement where he was standing? Did that bother you?
>Oliver is pointing out two things. One, that the campaign is a rather comical >attempt to co-opt a simple message of world peace for the purposes of coporate >gain. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the next spot showed Mother >Teresa with a laptop. And secondly, that it's probably not true that Ghandi >would have had more influence if he lived in today's world of advanced >telecommuncations. In fact, it's possible that such technologies would cripple >him. Ask Howard Dean. One overly exhuberant "whoop" during a presidential >campaign, beamed instantly to televisions coast to coast with mocking >commentary, was enough to obscure all the substance of his speeches. Time and >space may have helped to solidify Ghandi's message, and make it more >compelling. > >Finally, it doesn't take a cynic to find the message of the Ghandi spot >hollow. There is nothing to prevent a live simulcast of the Dalai Lama making >a speech today. Yet I don't think we'll be seeing Jumbotrons being erected in >Moscow and Times Square for that purpose any time soon. > >Though it would be very cool if I were proved wrong... > >Bob > > > That's the whole point. Wouldn't it be cool? Let's face facts: Nobody else is advertising ICT issues in a meaningful way except corporations who sell *stuff*. The problem here seems to revolve around the fact that a company made the advertisement. Well, OK. But if an NGO made the advertisement, it would be the same thing... You see, ICT is a business in itself. So what I would like to know is - how better would one communicate a vision of the *potential* of ICT? A few people have criticized the advertisement because it's 'corporate'. Well then - who will advertise ICT for us otherwise? If I, personally, had created the advertisement without a corporate logo behind it, would there have been a problem? If I had created this ad, how much money would I have spent - and where would I have gotten the money back? From you? Who? The fact is that all of us are actually advertising for technology companies. Once you advocate the technologies, someone has to make them. Inadvertently, we are a part of creating demand for the supply. We steer it toward our vision as best we can. And I have yet to hear someone say that they *wouldn't* have liked Gandhi to have the ability portrayed in that advertisement. -- Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxgazette.com http://www.a42.com http://www.worldchanging.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
