1. Still interesting to see some companies (i.e Kelloggs) think that they’re above treating customers with common courtesy, even to the point of branding them liars. I find it incomprehensible.

    It is also interesting to see the consumer-driven side of the coin, where there doesn’t seem to be an kind of definite stimulus in a company’s approach (say the non-service of a deaf mother) – rather a consumer-generated ‘evil’ e.g. in the ZeroCoke Movement case.

    What was the actual vs. suggested way forward for Coke in their example?

  2. I’m not sure what you mean?

    It’s the parents that branded Kellog marketers as liars, not v.v. 😉
    Kellogg simply said it was a “dubious award”. Or maybe that was Ad News?

    The deaf mum’s case was about not being served by Steak and Shake – her blog post was quite polite pointing out it broke the antiDiscrimination laws. I don’t think she expected the media storm (she posted comments on here a few times).

    The Anti Zero Coke Movement was set up by Tim Longhurst because the community was fed up with the ‘guerrilla’ marketing and ‘teaser’ crap that was coming out of coke. I found the statistics – gas emissions from coke delivery trucks, toxicity of coca cola, crime rates around vending machines – factual and revelatory compared to the ‘creative’ marketing rubbish we were being inflicted with.

Comments are closed.