Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
I'm disappointed in Kevin Roberts over this. Like you Mel, I've always thought Roberts has quite a brilliant marketing mind too. He's one of New Zealand's most famous and successful sons.
A Bad Look Kevin! Shame on you! The Pentagon does not need your help to sell it's wars!
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:28 am Post Subject:
Here here. Roberts really understands marketing and especially the role of human nature as a marketing focus. Guess we better listen out for that term 'fight for a better world'.
NZ Herald wrote:
"I was surprised to be invited," he said, adding that "the audience was intelligent, engaged, open and pragmatic; they listened keenly and we had a very lively discussion".
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:31 pm Post Subject:
Good to see the NZ Herald editorial this morning criticising Kevin Roberts for cuddling up to the Pentagon... And columnist Claire Harvey also doing so on similar lines. Here's an excerpt from Harvey's column:
Quote:
'The reality is the War on Terror was never actually a war, and the victims are overwhelmingly not terrorists.'
The ad magazine Brandweek has revealed New Zealander Roberts accepted an invitation from the US Defence Department in March to military bosses come up with an improved phrase to replace "War on Terror".
Roberts delivered his audience a few compliments (such as that the American Army was "a threatening, punitive, brutal and unilateral fighting force of young, slightly pissed-off males"). (Yes, that was really a compliment). He suggested America become more of a "force for good" by tackling disease and poverty, thus turning itself into a "lovemark", a brand which people like.
"Call our struggle 'The fight for a better world'. "Roberts suggested.
"The War on Terror is a dead space, literally and metaphorically. No WMDs. Pictures of torture. Car bombings and assassinations.
"When you change the language, you change the conversation," he said. "That's how global warming became climate change. Legalised abortion became the right to choose. The War on Terror becomes Fight for a Better World."
And from the editorial:
Quote:
"He brought to the Pentagon a speech entitled Loyal Beyond Reason, the ideas for which are set out in his 2004 book, Lovemarks: the Future Beyonds Brands. This supposes that some products engender "loyalty beyond reason" in consumers, a sentiment that goes beyond mere respect and trust...
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others began talking about "the global struggle against violent extremism". They may have been convinced that it was more inclusive, more optimistic and more engaging. But those who heard it saw it for what it was - and showered it with ridicule....
Mr Roberts might now acknowledge that clever words and phrases are not the solution to every problem. He might also ponder his entry into this field. It would be a dark day, indeed, if citizens were to become "loyal beyond reason" to their government's own foreign policy. Only in a totalitarian state like the Soviet Union does a phrase like the Great Patriotic War get to be used for World War II. And only there should a phrase like "global struggle against violent extremism" stand a chance of being accepted.
"He suggested America become more of a "force for good"...
Problem with this is they already DO think they are force for good - all Bush's talk about 'spreading freedom'. And even in their own country referring to the New Orleans effort of the troops and National Guard as "armies of compassions" [sic] :|
For those who haven't, read more about these armies of compassions here:
