Uneori s-ar putea sa fie ok. Compania irlandeza de produse cosmetice Elave a lansat de cateva zile o campanie online in care e vorba despre mai multe substante care produc alergii de piele. Substante aflate in multe produse cosmetice si pe care unele companii le baga in produsele lor fara nici un avertisment.

“Nu avem nimic de ascuns” – asta e sloganul Elave. Campania e realizata printr-un clip difuzat pe internet, iar actorii care joaca in reclama pentru Elave sunt dezbracati. Mai mult, pentru a arata ca sprijina ideea campaniei, proprietara (si managerul) companiei apare si ea in reclama, complet dezbracata (e drept, are niste casti de Ipod in urechi si sta in spatele unui laptop).

Cei 49 de angajati Elave au vazut, desigur, reclama inainte de difuzare. “They couldn’t believe they had seen their boss naked, and neither could I,” spune doamna Joanna Gardiner care, de altfel, are 38 de ani si e o persoana serioasa (casatorita, cu 2 copii, nominalizata la categoria antreprenorul anului in Irlanda etc.)

Rezultatul? In urma campaniei, vanzarile Elave au crescut cu 500 %, iar clientii, in ciuda unor temeri pe care le-au avut cei de la Elave, au avut reactii pozitive.

[sursa informatiilor, via nudiarist, e un articol de aici]

Sooo, sunteti curiosi sa vedeti filmul?

Beware, e o reclama de un minut in care oamenii apar dezbracati (we speak of full frontal nudity here). Daca aveti probleme cu asa ceva, mai bine renuntati. Otoh, daca va asteptati la ceva erotic, sexual s.a.m.d., o sa fiti dezamagiti, fiindca nu e vorba despre nimic de felul asta. E vorba de o reclama la niste produse cosmetice si atat.

[removed]

Daca nu merge filmuletul de la Google Video, puteti sa va uitati aici sau aici.

Ok, iar acum despre ce discutam? Pai, despre genul asta de campanii publicitare de pe net (Gramo a mai avut un post despre o campanie publicitara in care e utilizata nuditatea aici). E ok sa iti faci reclama in felul asta? Nu sunt, totusi, strategiile astea de marketing un pic prea agresive? O sa prinda, oare, moda asta?

p.s. In caz ca se mai trezesc oameni care sa se lamenteze ca nu inteleg de ce scrie Gramo despre povestea asta, iaca un citat dintr-o chestie pe care o scria un gramo acum aproape 10 ani (preluat din Jurnalul unui gramo (15); am mai corectat cateva formulari):

How would it be acceptable for a boss to go toghether with his/her employees to a nudist camp? Some could say it cannot be. Still, they can accidentaly meet on a nudist camp. There is nothing wrong with this.

Moreover, they can travell together on their way to the camp, without knowing about their common destination. More than that, they can know about their destination but think that they will take sepparate ways to reach there from a certain point on (e. g., as soon as the train stops at the railway station). They can do so and meet afterwards only by accident.

Anyway, they have at least to think that there will be a moment, on the way to the camp, when their respective actions will take separate courses, being totaly independent and in no way related to each other. With this expectation of a separation to occur, it might even happen that, for some justified reasons (avoiding to leave the others in an inappropriate moment, being polite to the others etc.), it won’t.

How do we stand now? Well, we can also regard this particular situation as an unfortunate accident and say that nothing really unappropriate happend, as long as all this story does not hide some sort of stratagem (commonly planed by the boss and his employees).

But now, how can we tell whether it was in fact a stratagem or not? It depends on what they were believing, on their way to the camp. Can’t we imagine a situation such that nothing from their visible behaviour allows us to decide on what do they really believe about this particular matter? Of course we can.

How are we then to establish if they are doing something right or wrong? This case clearly shows that in making moral judgements we are sometimes required to make some unwarranted assumptions about the mental states of the moral agents (these assumptions are irreducible to statements that can receive experiential support). What does this point out, besides the trivial truth that empiricism and ethics do not go along very well? I cannot figure this out, yet.