Comments on: Going too far?…

By: Randy Bishop

Randy Bishop — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:19:12 +0000

I find it meaningless to divide any movement into artificial 10 year spans.

I do too, but that’s exactly what modern society does.

Does a company always exploit a person when they use their image as a form of advertising or to enhance their public image?

Yes. If an entity’s main purpose is to sell a product any imagery that entity chooses to place alongside its product will inevitably be correlated with its product(s) and namesake.

Sylvia, I’ve never heard of The Edukators. Thanks for the recommendation!

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:37:41 +0000

There is certainly a difference between just exploiting the image of a Civil Rights movement hero for marketing purposes and donating $1m to NAACP, but it wouldn’t do wonders for Jobs’ street cred – he hasn’t got any. The image of a washed-out, hypocritical baby-boomer always brings to mind Hardenberg, the capitalist character from Hans Weingartner’s movie The Edukators. It may be foreign, but it really is one of the most articulate films of 2005.

By: jeff

jeff — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:44:19 +0000

I find it meaningless to divide any movement into artificial 10 year spans. The Civil Rights movement didn’t start in the 60s. Rosa Parks’ refusal to change her bus seat happened in 1955. We can go back to pre-civil war to find abolitionists saying things very similar to the famous words of Martin Luther King. Every generation since the industrial revolution has experienced drastic change, it just seems like a new generation comes to power, they like to glorify the generation of their youth. We are already seeing some glorification of the 80’s (yikes!).

As for the Apple ad, it also strikes me as exploitive. If Apple really wanted to honor Rosa Parks, they should not have used their slogan on the picture. But where is the line between a company choosing to honor a person and exploiting them? Would it still be exploitive if it didn’t say “think different?” What if it said, “Apple would like to pay honor to Rosa Parks, a brave woman who dared to think different”? What if it said “Apple would like to honor Rosa Parks by donating $1 Million to the NAACP”? Are these exploitive? Does a company always exploit a person when they use their image as a form of advertising or to enhance their public image?