In this short post I don't want to discuss about the creative genius that create this initiative neither about why Wired felt this need for its launch, but about people's reactions produced from this action, that at the end is what really matters.
As every initiative, as every taking office, that has a weight, this had supporters and protester; my question is: marketing considers more important that the community, in which Wired focus, sees the initiative positively or that most of the people (including "Wired community") see it as good? I ask myself this because in my opinion the problem, looking to the rooth, is only one, and its solution could, perhaps, make everybody happy (including its referential community) and so make the initiative more succesful.
Reading Ninjamarketing's scoop article, people's feedbacks (in favour of and against the initiative) can be summarize to 2:
- "This campaing is cool because supported an important initiative"
- "This kind of issues/initiative have not to be supported for marketing purposes"
[is a bit as the debate provoked by Machiavelli: purpose justifies the way?]
Behind the second feedback I recognize simply a need of genuineness, of sincerity, I would almost venture to say purity, from the people involved.
Probably many people felt as betrayed, and felt their feelings also betrayed. This because the purpose was not pursued for a pure value, for an ethic need, but only in order to take office on this issue and generate buzz. Probably (and this still my opinion) an initiative as this has to be pursued without considering the economic feedback that would have on the company (seems strange but probably being pursued without considering it can generate a better feedback from people).
Summirizing:
I can't know if behind this initiative was a genuin value or not (and I hope and think that there was), but for sure this was not comunicated in the best way, so for me the idea was excellent but communication could be done better.
