ISSUE No. 14 MARKETING BLOG
(7 minutes reading time)
"We will never see, will continue until
to believe blindly in what we they look "
Emmanuel Macaluso
-------------------- ---------- _______________________________________
This month I would like to tell you about a case that sparked some buzz in recent months.
Earlier this year the Italian Nuclear Forum has released a spot through which put the focus on the issue of nuclear power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R29l7GkBl64 Earlier this year the Italian Nuclear Forum has released a spot through which put the focus on the issue of nuclear power.
The ad in question has received much criticism for the choice of some common factors that have made too similar to a social advertising / public service announcements, using, according to critics, communication techniques and misleading in some cases the limit of the subliminal. In addition to these factors
There were also information to say the least "questionable". Without
calculate that the Forum was born as a "non profit" (but very welcome to some energy giants such as Eni, EDF, Ansaldo Nuclear etc..)
The advertisement in question was deemed inappropriate by the Grand Jury and time is transmitted changed.
conclude this part of the post with some technical considerations, so that I could then concentrate on the so-called party.
first consideration: the spot was a popular will, certainly not openly sided, however, just go to the website of the Italian Nuclear Forum to learn about the ideas of the association.
I think it is appropriate, given that we now have the means, information in response to the vision of a spot and do not "believe" blindly to it. The positions of the Nuclear Forum are clear as are the curricula of some "professionals" of the same.
Second consideration: The choice of communication has not scored an indication of net buyer of the spot, in this I agree with the decision of the jury. However, I can not think of what has led the battle in terms of media attention that has been unleashed on the subject. Critics spot, in a sense, have become stakeholders in their party.
Again I have the impression that human behavior has previously been controlled by those who chose to pursue a common ambiguous.
In other words, we have fallen a bit 'all.
Including me and you that we are discussing this topic now.
this respect too we should think!
But the best is yet to come to me. Thus, after Greenpeace brought out his spot, where his vision of nuclear power was far more pronounced. However, something caught my attention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJs0lP9Y3wI
the marketing strategy used is very interesting, direct, emotional style ... in short, Greenpeace. A winning strategy because it has brought the video to have a lot of views thanks to word of mouth on the internet.
It 'obvious that the comparison with the other spot is due to say the least.
The spot of the Forum was aimed at creating a false consensus through a moment of reflection and dialogue. It is not asking for money for the maintenance of the countryside or the association. In other words for "nuclear" was the end of the campaign.
The spot of Greenpeace that I saw on TV, at the end of that called for support Greenpeace with a 5 by 1000. If we go to see the spot on the official Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJs0lP9Y3wI , a message appears on the video if Klikk brings you to a page with the hypothesis monthly donations of "regular" monthly.
Not to use paraphrase, I think it's fair to say that the spot of Greenpeace may be technically included in fundraising activities.
In Conclusion: In the first spot on the nuclear issue "is the end, the second is simply the means that must lead to the achievement of another outcome, which is fundraising.
Nothing wrong with my ... analysis is purely technical in nature and style, as well as style, and in some cases for opportunism, it was spoken in the first case.
I state that I do not want to criticize Greenpeace, as a professor of sustainability would be absolutely inappropriate and unwise, and I do not want to take a position regarding the subject matter of the dispute, namely nuclear, because I do not have the titles and information objective to form an opinion at this time. Indeed, I am always amazed at the amount of experts that are unleashed in this dispute ...
What I shared with you an approach to the ways and techniques used. I hope to receive your feedback and will enliven the debate that could lead to a common growth. Thank you for your attention
Emmanuel Macaluso
this respect too we should think!
But the best is yet to come to me. Thus, after Greenpeace brought out his spot, where his vision of nuclear power was far more pronounced. However, something caught my attention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJs0lP9Y3wI
the marketing strategy used is very interesting, direct, emotional style ... in short, Greenpeace. A winning strategy because it has brought the video to have a lot of views thanks to word of mouth on the internet.
It 'obvious that the comparison with the other spot is due to say the least.
The spot of the Forum was aimed at creating a false consensus through a moment of reflection and dialogue. It is not asking for money for the maintenance of the countryside or the association. In other words for "nuclear" was the end of the campaign.
The spot of Greenpeace that I saw on TV, at the end of that called for support Greenpeace with a 5 by 1000. If we go to see the spot on the official Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJs0lP9Y3wI , a message appears on the video if Klikk brings you to a page with the hypothesis monthly donations of "regular" monthly.
Not to use paraphrase, I think it's fair to say that the spot of Greenpeace may be technically included in fundraising activities.
In Conclusion: In the first spot on the nuclear issue "is the end, the second is simply the means that must lead to the achievement of another outcome, which is fundraising.
Nothing wrong with my ... analysis is purely technical in nature and style, as well as style, and in some cases for opportunism, it was spoken in the first case.
I state that I do not want to criticize Greenpeace, as a professor of sustainability would be absolutely inappropriate and unwise, and I do not want to take a position regarding the subject matter of the dispute, namely nuclear, because I do not have the titles and information objective to form an opinion at this time. Indeed, I am always amazed at the amount of experts that are unleashed in this dispute ...
What I shared with you an approach to the ways and techniques used. I hope to receive your feedback and will enliven the debate that could lead to a common growth. Thank you for your attention
Emmanuel Macaluso
Here are the links that I considered writing this post:
http://www.forumnucleare.it /
http://www.greenpeace.org/italy/it/
http://www.greenpeace.it/stopnucleare/
http://www.forumnucleare.it /
http://www.greenpeace.org/italy/it/
http://www.greenpeace.it/stopnucleare/
REGISTRATION NEWSLETTER OF MARKETING BLOG
If your blog post or find your consent, share information with your friends and contacts, and ask you to seek the inclusion to the newsletter using the address emmanuele.macaluso @ gmail.com
If your blog post or find your consent, share information with your friends and contacts, and ask you to seek the inclusion to the newsletter using the address emmanuele.macaluso @ gmail.com
In the coming months I will need your help to spread an important progetto.Cresci with me and to us!
's always been difficult to understand how a testimonial can really affect the volumes of a campaign. And then, a better testimonial famous but "external" or rather the company that the entrepreneur to put his face? 