Marlboro Man; You've Come a Long Way, Baby. [Branding, Part II]

<< The Recipe for Making Bud Wiser [Part I]

From a marketing perspective, brands are a lot about image, convincing us that?we are?what we buy, or perhaps convincing us that the product being sold will be the cause for us to achieve our desired personal ideal—that is, selling us that?the product is the bridge to the paragon of self.

But, let's get something out of the way right now:

If we can buy it, then it ain't us.

We can buy reputation and appearance. We can buy all sorts of trinkets and self-coverings and shiny things. But we can't buy character or integrity.

Human character is self-sourced, and integrity comes from within. What someone is on the inside and what someone displays on the outside are not necessarily the same thing. [1]

Give or take around 1965, when smoking cigarettes was at its peak as a vogue social norm (for that particular moment of time), Phillip Morris had a very successful advertisement campaign,?The Marlboro Man.?This campaign was clearly directed to men (XYs), pretty much saying:

Smoke this brand and you will feel like a 'man.' Not a soft girly-man, a Man. Become the paragon of a Man. Smoking a Marlboro reflects who you are: masculine, handsome, physically strong, and mentally tough for a honest day's hard work.

Thusly, Marlboro cigarettes were target marketed to men who wanted to be a paragon of a man, as viewed at the time.

But what about women (XXs)??Alas,?not to miss out on a self-interested monetary opportunity in a capitalist society (and commercially wisely playing it from both ways from an advertising perspective), Phillip Morris introduced a new product,?Virginia Slims.?This product and its targeted advertisement campaign were directed to women, pretty much saying:

Smoke this brand and you are proving to everyone that men cannot have social privileges that you don't have. No man is going to hold you back, tell you what to do, or control you. Become the paragon of a 'woman.' Smoking Virginia Slims reflects who you are: feminine, capable, strong and independent.

We should notice that the Marlboro Man campaign was not channeling social rebellion. Men were the social power, so the advertisement for men might be thought to be simple and absolute to the male consumer:

If you smoke this, then you are someone special, this paragon of a man.

However, the Virginia Slims advertisement might be thought to be complex and relative, inciting rebellion of one group (women, XXs) relative to another group (men, XYs), in light of then-current social norm:

If you smoke this, then you are someone special, someone successfully rebelling against, the Man.

Although the two advertisements are analytically different in precise causal tactic, they are similar in effect. Indeed, in both cases, the intended effect of both advertisements is to channel a need or a desire in the target audience that?moves the intended audience into a purchase. The target consumer is being?manipulated?into a purchase for the purpose of the seller's profit.

The term "manipulated" is not intended to be morally judgmental, but simply to indicate that the seller is using a psychological "tool" of tactical implementation in accordance with a self-interested profit strategy. A tool, of course, does not stand alone: each tool is matched to the material upon which it is intended. The intent to manipulate potential buyers is the constant, but the selected tool is the variable as is chosen by the master.

The intent to eat is the constant: for meat, a fork; for soup, a spoon.

Therefore, in essential implementation, we can conclude that the rules of physics and rules of marketing are directly correlated:?moving something.?Archimedes had it exactly right: "Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum upon which to place it, and I can move the world."

The lever is the target buyer's need or desire, often surrounded by hope. The fulcrum is the advertisement tool of choice by the master.

The greater the human insecurity in the target audience, the greater the need. The greater the need, the longer the lever. [2]

The easiest person to sell is a needy fool. The most difficult person to sell is a satisfied sage.

Yes, it is easier to sell something expensive to a needy fool who has no money, than it is to sell something inexpensive to a satisfied sage who has a lot of money.

__________________

But with that said, and for those of some reading stamina, let us elevate the discussion, somewhat obliquely.

In a capitalist society such as the United States of America, particularly with publicly-traded companies, advertising is necessarily targeted to produce the most profit.?As a general rule,?the traditional legal if not practical duty of a?for-profit?company is to do exactly that:?to make a profit.

There is a great line in the movie,?Thank You for Smoking.?A cigarette salesman is asked, "Why do you sell these cigarettes to others?" to which the sales person effectively responds, "Everyone has a mortgage to pay." That is, "I sell harmful products to others, because I have bills to pay."

This is a sublime exposition of truth; not an attractive truth, perhaps a repulsive truth, but nevertheless, a truth. The perfect storm:?Human weakness matched with human self-interest matched with human need.

I've used a line in my master-degree class often enough, "You know that you are starting to understand the lesson, when you are afraid to know it," for the same reason that Socrates said, "Where there is reverence, there is also fear." I have another line I use in class, "Hope will mess you up." The reason?

Hope tends not only to repress and to confuse the truth of?what is?for?what should be,?but also tends to forget the former is the fact, while latter is only an emotional desire. [3, 4]

Now before we get self-righteously philosophical and morally judgmental, please see?Part I, How to Make Bud Wiser.?

Advertising wisdom?(that is, what is wise within the context of advertising) is not about what?should be,?but rather what?tends to be.

What should be is a form of hope. What tends to be is a form of statistics. With the big beams in our eyes, we can judge and condemn the moral righteousness of the other-guy sellers or buyers for a profit, but some things just tend to be, whether we like it or not.

Indeed, human beings have tendencies, and categorizations of humans have tendencies. Men (XYs) have tendencies and women (XXs) have tendencies, which are different tendencies by virtue of different DNA, and thereby resultant different body parts, and thereby resultant different life experiences.

My own XY DNA does not grant me the experience of giving childbirth, or having an infant suckle milk from my mammalian nipple, or any of the bias tendencies that would be appurtenant to being an XX. As an XY, I have no complete frame of reference for the difficulty of an XX in making a decision regarding early termination of a gestation. [5]

But back to business profit. Since the business of capitalist America is business, and because business is likened to war (having elements of competing self-interests in a game of objectives, [profit] strategy, and tactical skill), let's talk about war for a moment, in line with the metaphor.

As stated above, as a general rule,?for-profit?companies in America are legally charged to make a profit, and to do it lawfully.

To make a profit, we can view this duty from a long-term and a short-term perspective, which is fair. Some battles are lost by purposeful necessity to serve winning the war. Indeed, we know that the Allies in WWII could have saved Allied soldiers from death in battles, having then decoded the Enigma Machine, but they charged soldiers into death to serve winning the war. And let us not hopefully and delusively memorialize America too morally altruistically, as we remember that American policy was distinctly not interested in soldering WWII until sufficient practical self-interest manifested by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Evidenced self-interest as causation, not the altruistic selfless principle of freedom.

Wars are costly in different ways, but solely for ease of discussion purposes, I'll disjoin a "practical war" from a "philosophical war" in this way: for the cost of war, a "practical war" is calculated to serve a discrete tangible self-interest, but a "philosophical war" is not calculated to serve a discrete tangible self-interest but to further an?ideal?or principle often for the benefit of others. For example, the cost to fight a war for freedom in another country, for selfless reasons, would be a philosophical war; it may have a practical effect, but the use of the term here is that any effect is not self-interested but purely by principle or altruism. [6*]

[Of course, keep in mind that what is rhetorically propagandized as a philosophical war may really be a practical war. For example, fighting for oil rights in another country presented as a war for freedom. Saying that human beings are killed for the principle of freedom from oppression sounds much more Lincolnally aligned than killing human beings for the practical purpose of a rate of return on cheaper oil.]

Irrespective of moral implications, sometimes the expense of practical war is commercially or self-interestedly wise, based upon the risk of success, in light of the potential cost, in light of the potential benefit. This is simply a "risk/value proposition" assessment. That is, it's not about the cost, it's about the rate of return. Whether something is "expensive" tends to be relative to the benefit, such as "penny-wise and pound foolish."

Philosophical wars are always "expensive," such as the term is used here, because they endure a cost to serve only an idea, a philosophy. Practical wars deplete hard value only if lost, which is not the expectation. However, from a strategic perspective, philosophical wars deplete hard value, win or lose.

Therefore, philosophical wars are a form of martyrdom—self-sacrifice for a principle—but self-destruction by a philosophical or social cause is not within the goal-set of capitalist commercial for-profit companies.

The depletion of one's wealth is "luxury," perhaps by definition. People can choose to give away anything they own voluntarily, but someone who is entrusted with the property of another does not have that luxury. [7]

The trustee caring for the property of another must be prudent and profitable, and philosophical wars are not within the prudence of a commercial trustee who is charged prudently to maximize profit. For the trustee or other fiduciary, such as a for-profit corporate board of directors, having the care of money or the rights of another, there is no luxury, all is driven by prudence with a profit motive.

Having presented that marketing is commercial self-interested manipulation, and that in the "war" of business, for-profit companies must make a profit and do not have the luxury prudently to fight philosophical wars to a self-sacrificial end, we can return to the Budweiser debacle to which this article is the second part.

Let's say Budweiser had put the pictures of physically beautiful women on the beer cans, the traditional Bud Light target audience, perhaps frat-like guys (XYs), might tend to buy it up. [8] They might then sit down with a few cold six packs on Sunday, watching an NFL game, and debate who is the most physically beautiful woman, throwing crushed (with one hand) beer cans at each other.

This marketing would use the human natural tendency of XY-men to the advantage of the manufacturer by showing the guys something they tend to desire, by nature itself; that is something that they are naturally attracted to,?for better or worse:?physically beautiful women. It does not matter whether the cause is god or evolution, it simply is the tendency.

Perhaps that condition is philosophically and civil-socially ugly to you, but, as a general rule, guys are guys, and the history of the world proves that the natural tendency is fact. [For those who do not like this perhaps ugly fact, they might lead the team at Bud Light, as we address below.]

But, notice, I said "physically beautiful women" and this begs the question: "What is a physically beautiful woman to a then-current Bud Light drinker?" That is, like it or not, what tends to be naturally attractive (or by inverse assessment, naturally repulsive) to a then-current Bud drinker? Not perhaps what an XX woman wishes or hopes should be attractive to an XY Bud drinker, but what actually tends to be naturally attractive to an XY Bud drinker.

The answer to the question is the choice of the advertisement tool by the marketing "master." For meat, a fork; for soup, a spoon.

Now decide with wisdom, which is a practical science, not a hopeful one. And so, at Bud, she did decide.

But, let's go the other way. If Bud had put pictures of "physically beautiful men," on the beer cans, then the Bud light drinkers—perhaps with less zeal—would probably tend to react similarly albeit curiously, saying, "Okay, so what if Brad Pitt is physically handsome, what the heck do physically handsome men have to do with me drinking Bud?"

But, now let's say that Bud put?Tom Brady,?Peyton Manning,?Joe Montana, or other "successful men" on beer cans, this opposite (XY-to-XY) approach might work similarly to physically beautiful women (XX-to-XY) approach. Same science, different tool.

Men tend to admire these players and would debate who is the best quarterback, throwing crushed (with one hand) beers cans at each other. If you've ever watched a sports channel debate between men, the only thing missing is the beer drinking and throwing the cans at each other.

Again, showing men beer drinkers pictures of men might work in this case, because, in fact, men admire these men and desire to be them or to be like them. Heroes, as it were.

But, watch for it: indeed, these Bud drinkers admire these men not only because of manifested talent and professional success, but also because that talent tends to make the men powerful enough naturally to attract the "attractive women." Any person can argue that this statement is not always true, but that's the wrong focus.

The question is?not whether the statement is, in fact, true. But, rather, the question is whether the statement tends to be true, like it or not.

In both cases, being of women pictures and men pictures, the beer can marketing does exactly the same thing using opposite implementations, with one using the natural desires of the target audience relative to XXs and one using the natural desires of the target audience relative to XYs. But, in both cases, they use the natural desires of intended audience to seduce the target audience into the product by human natural magnetism, by satisfaction of natural need or desire.

Seduction, not force.

Budweiser went wrong in so many ways.

Budweiser's existing consuming audience was tending dominant XY. Perhaps the law required it, but nevertheless Budweiser placed an XX-dominated team into an XY-dominated market, which presents exactly the inverse XX argument used so often that men (XYs) have no empathy for the experiences of women (XXs). The argument swings both ways.

Legal minority status for hiring purposes does not change the fact of representative gender empathy and gender bias for marketing purposes. [9]

The law has the power to force equal pay, but the law is incompetent to force?empathetic perspective. [10, 11] This "failure of empathy" rule applies to everyone relatively categorically or it does not. That is, the law can force a man hire a woman, but the law cannot force a man to understand what it is to be a woman. But it does not follow that because the law does not force a woman to hire a man, that a women will thereby understand what it means to be a man.

Here, an XX-dominated marketing team, with a tendency to XX-dominated gender bias, demonstrated insufficient empathy of being an XY consumer of the relevant product. The cause-effect is perhaps not absolute, but it does not have to be, it only needs to tend to that effect. Moreover, perhaps members of the team, whether XX or XY, by self-interest preservation, did not present a wise objection to the intended inclusive transgender marketing strategy for fear of being excluded from team discussions in the future.

The marketing team conflated the law, which has the power of pushing force, with marketing, which must use pulling seduction.

The marketing team conflated its own selfish desire for a philosophical rebellion war of hopeful social inclusive equality with its for-profit obligation that had at least one reconcilable alternative.

The XX-dominated marketing team tried implicitly to chide and to "correct" the existing frat-boy customer who is and remains free to think for himself, infantile though he can be. In doing so, Bud simply unified and mobilized the traditionally silent group of XYs.

In the context of brand loyalty by Bud-as-Seller with XY-as-Consumer, what was Bud's marketing message saying to its then-loyal Bud frat-boy audience:

"Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender, should be your paragon of self"? Was it saying, "Dylan Mulvaney should be your hero"? Was it saying, "You should want to be like Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender"? Was it saying, "You should find Dylan Mulvaney as sexually attractive"? Was it saying, "You should love your neighbor as yourself"? Was it saying, "You should grow up, you frat-boys, and become more inclusive"? Was it saying, "You need to hire transgenders because it is the law"? Was it saying, "Ascend your mind and homogenize, Jesus implied at ONE: 2133 [Luke 20:34] that there is no gender in heaven"? [12] Was it saying, "You should respect and admire Dylan Mulvaney as a leader, even if he is not your own"?

An implicitly chiding should, could, would.

It can be acknowledged that Dylan Mulvaney apparently did the action as charged to do, but the real risk was in accepting that job as a representative spokesperson in the first place. But let us admit that the opportunity to be placed on a Bud Light beer can would probably be too much for any of us to turn down.

There's probably no reason objectively to dislike Dylan Mulvaney. Dylan is unique individual, a leader for the relevant context and deserves our respect for speaking out and influencing such persons as are influenced. [13] Some men (XYs) may not like the message, but that is a different and very common issue everywhere in a free-thinking society.

Nothing in this article is intended to malign Dylan Mulvaney as a human being but only to expose the Bud marketing foolishness. Bud simply picked the wrong tool.

If you have not yet looked first-hand to see why the male (XY) audience of Bud is reacting with such fervor, you are encouraged to review the differential in the representative paragons of, for example,?Stone Cold Steve Austin?and?Dylan Mulvaney?in the linked videos. They are so clearly divergent as representative paragons that no marketing executive could confuse one for the other, except by application of hope or the state of delusion.

For-profit enterprises do not have the luxury of philosophical marketing social wars, or hopeful and delusive marketing strategies.

Every church-going mother (XX) may have the hopeful maternal tendency to teach her son (XY) that god makes everyone in god's image, and everyone is entitled to be loved, but it does not follow that the chosen tool for the Bud XY audience by presenting Stone Cold Steve will tend to seduce the relevant Bud-consuming purchasers in the same manner as Dylan Mulvaney.

Philosophical wars are expensive and perhaps self-sacrificial, and wisdom is contextual to a primary objective.

There is a time and a place for teaching and chiding frat-boy adult (XY) men. Perhaps at church, or perhaps at home by their wives and their mothers. But, to be lucid regarding tendencies, putting hope aside, and like it or not, we should recognize that it is the tendency for many Bud-drinking XY men to be drinking beer, in the first place, to escape in repulsion from the waggling finger maternal tendencies of their XX wives and mothers.

The last thing the Bud XY men tend to want is a surrogate beer can following them to a party maternally to chide them.

A chiding beer company is the wrong person, and a chiding beer can is the wrong place.

Putting hope aside, and like it or not, a man does not tend to want to be dominated by his wife, his mother, his beer can, or his beer company. And, no less than for her, if he is not seduced, he will tend to rebel. [14, 15]

Marlboro Man is clearly not going to have it shoved down his throat by someone who cannot understand who he is or who he yearns to be, as a paragon of self and self-reflection. As of yet, putting hope aside, and like it or not, he'll still consume only what he is seduced to consume.

Marlboro Man, you've come a long way, baby, or maybe not.

<< The Recipe for Making Bud Wiser [Part I]

[1] Substance Over Form. No. 33. The Stag and His Reflection - The Essential Aesop? - Back to Basics Abridgment Series

[2] The Insecure Human Being - The Business of Aesop? No. 51 - A Fox Without a Tail

[3] Leadership and the Audacity of Hope

[4] The Audacity of Hope, Prayer, Trust and Reliance Upon Luck; Or, the Ignoble Handouts Oft by Noble Emotions

[5] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias

[6*] The Google Privacy Case - 10 Year Anniversary - Business of Aesop? No. 101 - The Porcupine and the Cave This was a "philosophical war" for nominal damages of $1 and is believed to be the only judgment against Google for its Street View program.

[7] The Duty of Trust - Stand for America?

[8] Death, Sex and Selling: Or, the Science of the Beer Girl

[9] The Recipe to Make Bud Wiser

[10] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse

[11] Empathy to Understanding. No. 20. The Sheep and the Pig - The Essential Aesop? - Back to Basics Abridgment Series

[12] ONE?: The LinkedIn Reference Set [#GRZ_183] ONE: 2133 [Luke 20:34] ("No Gender") ("The children?of this world?marry?and are given in marriage. However, for those who are deemed?worthy?to obtain?the coming world, and to the resurrection?of the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage. At the resurrection, when they arise?from the dead, they neither marry?nor are given in marriage, but they are like?the angels?in heaven.")

[13] They Entered the Building, but Only One Went In; Or, Don't Call Me a "Human Being"

[14] Hiring on Hope - The Business of Aesop? No. 90 - The Cat-Maiden

[15] Our Core Nature Persists - No. 90. The Cat Maiden - The Essential Aesop? - Back to Basics Abridgment Series

[Ed note. This is an article about marketing, which necessarily implicates social norms. This article is not a judgment of morality, best human practices, or proper conduct.]

"Instrumentum ad materiam inserere debet." ("The tool must fit the material."); "Forma martyrii bella philosophica." ("Philosophical wars are a form of martyrdom."); "Non sumus quod mercari possumus." ("We are not what we can buy."); "Non sumus quicquam quod emere possumus." ("We are not anything that we can buy."); "Facilius est rem pretiosam stulto vendere, qui pecuniam non habet, quam aliquid vile est vendere sapiento qui multam pecuniam habet." ("It is easier to sell something expensive to a fool who has no money, than it is to sell something inexpensive to a sage who has a lot of money."); "Tu scis quod incipias cognoscere lectionem, cum id scire times." ("You know that you are starting to understand the lesson, when you are afraid to know it."); "Spes confusionem creat." ("Hope creates confusion."); "Carnibus utere furca; pro pulmenti, cochleari utere." ("For meat, a fork; for soup a spoon.") ~ grz

*?Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.

Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.,?is Managing Shareholder of?Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC.?Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups,?INC. 500, and publicly traded companies.?He is author of?One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus,?and?The Business of Aesop? article series, and co-author with his father,?Arnold Zegarelli, of?The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers.?Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.?? 2023 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.?Gregg can be contacted through?LinkedIn.

https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/marlboro-man-youve-come-long-way-baby-branding-part-zegarelli-esq-

See Article Index

You might like:

They Entered the Building, but Only One Went In; Or, Don't Call Me a "Human Being"

Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop

Trust, by Tendency and Prediction. No. 36. The Wolf and the Sheep - The Essential Aesop? - Back to Basics Abridgment Series

The Audacity of Hope, Prayer, Trust and Reliance Upon Luck; Or, the Ignoble Handouts Oft by Noble Emotions

Death, Sex and Selling: Or, the Science of the Beer Girl

All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong - Stand for America?

On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse

Empathy to Understanding. No. 20. The Sheep and the Pig - The Essential Aesop? - Back to Basics Abridgment Series

Mind Control, Protests and the Goal - Stand for America?

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 2, Cause and Effect

#GreggZegarelli #Budweiser #DylanMulvaney #AlissaHeinerscheid #BudLight #Marketing #Regulation #Wisdom #Zegarelli #GRZ_Published_20230530 #GRZ_143