Over 1oo cites in the United States, and more than 15oo cities worldwide, have now become #occupied. The Occupy Wall Street movement began in New York City as an outcry against corporate greed along with the widening inequality gap, and has grown into a movement that no one anticipated, especially marketers. Typically an event of this size, with this much publicity, would be garnering a tremendous amount of intrigue about sponsor- ships and have companies clamoring for the opportunity to share a piece of the pie. This movement, however, is a bit more fragile. Matt Creamer of AdAge dug into this oddity in one of his recent articles, What Does Occupy Wall Street Mean for Marketers?
Creamer soon discovered that although there is a large amount of public support for the protesters and the movement, there is still an even larger amount of hesitation from the corporate sector to get involved commercially with Occupy.
It leaves the question to be begged, would the movement be more successful with an official sponsor? Are there advantages and resources that an outside group could bring to the table that the people on their own are lacking? Or would aligning with a big time corporate partner, with the finances to support the endeavors of Occupy, simply pollute their message?
The answer is not certain. Option 1) stay the course and hope for the best, or option 2) alter the routine and see what happens. If protesters continue to occupy these areas, they will inevitably receive attention for their cause, but who knows for how long and if it will be positive attention. If they were to bring in a sponsor, however, to help contrive a more unified, compelling voice they may garner more success in their movement, but risk losing integrity and the progress they have already achieved.
It appears as if Occupiers are marketing themselves, and it is in a sense what we are all doing every day. With every post, tweet and update we are shaping the image of who we are. Some of us, like the occupiers, are doing it on a larger scale and have taken the role of ad agency, PR firm, and marketer into their own hands. For the time being it appears that #occupy is doing just fine #ontheirown, so any hopeful and daring sponsors will just have to wait and see if they will ever get their chance.
This does pose an interesting question. Having a corporate sponsor could be a catch 22 of sorts for both the business and the movement it self.
ReplyDeleteIf I were the sponsor (corporation), I would definitely try to make sure my "angle" was seen and that my company, its views, and brand were seen no matter what. However, if I'm that same corporation and an unforeseen "arising" or riot occurred (where the "movement's" message was scewed from its original message), my company is now attached to it (whether negative or not).
To play devil's advocate: if I were the "movement" and it was sponsored by a large corporation, I may feel my "message" is being swayed or changed simply for "press" to favor the sponsor. What if the company (sponsor) had a negative public image already? Would it pollute the viewers opinion of us as a whole?
But, on the more positive side, having a sponsor could bring more money and resources needed to reach the masses and get our "movement's message" across. Chances are, we (as the movement) do not have the time/money/resources to effectively reach the press and the viewers.
Interesting blog. A lot to think about.
I do not see any situation in which the occupywallstreet group can seek sponsorship. Aligning with any company would only drive a wedge into their message and portray them as no better than who they seek to fight. This movement has been led with Twitter and it appears that it continues to utilize social media and other free outlets such as the news. Though funds will most likely be needed, it seems that they are relying on public support and if the public will not donate then they don't have the actual public support needed to force change.
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly an interesting topic. I can see some of the hesitation of corporate would-be sponsors coming from the fact that Occupy doesn’t yet have a clear mission (which, ironically, is what keeps the group together).
ReplyDeleteJoining a venture without full knowledge of the repercussions of doing so can be dangerous…or perhaps could lead to a sponsoring company being seen as visionary.
However, I have to agree with Jason and Kari on this topic. For Occupy to accept sponsorship would be to drill a hole in the bottom of their boat. But this does not mean that opportunities for marketers do not exist. Goodwill donations by companies could have a positive effect. For example, any tent manufacturers, food providers (restaurants or grocery stores), electricity companies, etc to make goodwill donations to the protestors, but do so at the risk of associating their company name with the movement. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing...who knows?