Marketing and Social Responsibility

Much political commentary has been given on the shooting of Trayvon Martin. It’s been spent on the issue of race or the minute contradictions and tiniest details of evidence. These are of course extremely valid topics of discussion, but there is one issue that has unfortunately been largely ignored by politicians and members of the press: gun control.

For most of the discussion, media tends to point at the lenient “Stand Your Ground” gun law and largely neglects to investigate it much further. As for our politicians, the president and democrats should be addressing the greater issue of gun control, but unfortunately that’s not the case.

However, outside of politics change in the nation can find itself in a number of ways. And one of these ways of change can be found in our market. Business leaders and those involved in public relations and marketing can utilize this tragedy of Trayvon Martin for a greater good, and not only for their business.

To exploit a tragedy would to use it for only one’s own gain, but if your product or service can help others, it is a part of your social responsibility to explore the opportunities.

It’s a sensitive topic, and it makes sense for it to be. But before conclusions are drawn, one ought to consider all aspects of such opportunities available and look at how tragedy has been handled in the market in the past.

One should note that Apple’s online media store, iTunes, promotes the music of artists such as Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston moments after they are deceased. It is perfectly understandable how such promotions could bother us, but consider this fact: I hadn’t given a listen to any of Whitney Houston’s music until after her death and I saw her on iTunes. Apple worked to remind me of the loss of a creative human being and the work she had produced.

With regard to the death of Trayvon Martin, Seeking Alpha contributor Adam Gefvert wrote an article suggesting that investment in stun guns could be a wise market move.

Capitalism can have a conscience and I argue that it would be a wise business move on the part of companies such as Taser producing stun guns and less-lethal weapons to open new conversations with potential clients and customers. It would not only be a wise business move, but also a greater moral move.

If you can work your business towards profit and at the same time decrease the risk of sadness in this world, you should do so. Yes, stun guns are not perfect and they can be lethal. But a very big difference is made once one is packing electricity instead of bullets. In fact, according to one of Taser’s product pages, “in 1,201 cases 99.75% people subjected to a TASER ECD had no significant injuries.”

None of us know the exact details about what happened that night with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. But, we do know that a gun was used and that it killed an unarmed 17-year-old boy. If the act truly was in self-defense, a death may have been prevented if Zimmerman was equipped with a stun gun rather than a gun.

Within our businesses we should always consider what the right thing to do is, and not just for ourselves or our clients. As a leader or part of a PR or marketing team one should always be looking for such opportunities to do good. We have a responsibility to do so.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Google Buzz
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Orkut
  • FriendFeed

Foreign Film and the U.S. Market

The U.S. foreign film market is under-tapped. In late December of last year, Roger Ebert posted a brief article about movie revenue dropping. In the piece, he makes some interesting notes about international films. He writes that “the third most popular movie on Dec. 28 on Netflix was Certified Copy, by the Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami … in fourth place–French director Alain Corneau’s Love Crime. In fifth, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo–but the subtitled Swedish version.”

A few years back, I ran across a 2006 Norwegian movie called Reprise from upcoming director Joachim Trier. For me, it was an emotional piece about identity, success, and love. It’s one of my favorite films. I looked forward to Joachim Trier’s latest work, Oslo, August 31st, a film about a recovering heroin addict’s return to his hometown of Oslo for a job interview. It is loosely based on Pierre Drieu La Rochelle’s novel The Fire Within. A 1963 French film, Le feu follet, was also based on this novel.

Oslo saw a theatrical release in Norway on August 31st 2011 and then in the United Kingdom on November 4th. It’s also seen release in a variety of other European countries. Unfortunately, the film was not picked up for U.S. distribution until after its premier at Sundance 2012. Strand Releasing now plans to release it here in the States but there is still no release date.

This extreme delay in release is begging for criticism. Such a release will surely damage movie revenue, particularly in theaters, because of two major factors. First, the film has its international DVD release on March 26th. This DVD will include English subtitles. Second, the screener has recently been leaked to the internet (also featuring English subtitles).

Unlike the average movie-goer, people who want to watch art house and more obscure films likely know how to access such material for free online. They are likely tech-savvy and curious enough to discover these films in the first place. Those of us who have been really anticipating Oslo, August 31st want to see it now and not wait another month for its DVD release or however long it will take to reach U.S. theaters.

Admittedly, I’m not overly familiar with low-budget, art house, international films and how they are treated in a global market. However, it should now be clear that a U.S. release so delayed now finds itself in a less-than-ideal marketing situation. U.S. Distribution should have been better arranged.

Small, international studios need to find a better way to deal with the U.S. market and its distributors. Times have changed. People want access to movies and they care less and less about seeing them in a theater. People have Netflix, iTunes, On Demand, and so on. All are reasonable outlets to access an international film. Even self-publishing a film on the internet is not a technically difficult thing to do, and that itself would work to deter piracy to an extent.

Like many art house films, Oslo, August 31st is not action-packed and is an especially mellow film. That is, it doesn’t demand to be seen at a theater in the first place. Personally, I have no strong desire to see this particular film in a theater. I do, however, intend to purchase the DVD. It’s a quiet, cold film and honestly probably better viewed in the comfort of one’s home.

The interest in international films is there, as indicated with evidence in Roger Ebert’s piece. Distribution in the U.S. market should look towards these outlets earlier on so that a theatrical release is not marred by inaccessibility, illegal downloads, and a looming DVD release.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Google Buzz
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Orkut
  • FriendFeed