Heineken's "World Apart" and Corporate Sociopathy
 

Watching the recent Heineken ad I was instantly reminded of the moment when Donald Trump told Caitlyn Jenner she could use any bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. Then I realized it was nowhere near that dignified. The ad is apparently working quite spectacularly. It's a successful ad, in that it made more people feel positively toward the Heineken brand without undermining the company's bottom line. That is its job. To artistically convey a message. Much like propaganda. When propaganda truly has warmed your heart, you know you've been had.

If you think I'm cynical, consider how cynical this ad is.

What actual substantive discussion did we even see the climate change guys engage in? Do you think this is an accident?

How plausible is it that the cause of the sudden(ly visible) political polarization in the present moment honestly can be explained by reference to questions of gender, gender identity and opinions on climate change? How plausible is it that the good people of Heineken or Publicis London think that?

Heineken claimed in a tweet that these are not actors, and that what we see is not staged. Despite the fact that people do seem to have been rather selectively "cast" for their roles in this experiment, it hasn't been staged or scripted. It's simply been directed and edited.

Toby Dye, who directed the commercial for Publicis London, also directed a vile commercial for Persil, a laundry detergent, in which he told prison inmates that they spent more time outside than the average child and filmed their reactions, and then featured a prison guard telling the audience that if kids aren't filthy with dirt and in need of a bath, they haven't played outside hard enough. The man's editing and direction were able to make it look like incarcerated prisoners thought that kids growing up at home had it better than they did behind bars.

Consider moreover some of the things these people you see in the ad probably already agreed on, but which Heineken would never dare allow to be aired in a commercial. For example, a majority of Britons believe that big business and wealthy donors have too much influence on government and politics. I dare any beer company to show beer drinkers of different walks of life agreeing — as in reality they often do — on that point.

What else might these people actually have in common? For one, they were all part of a social experiment whose purpose they did not understand. Presumably they were paid to participate. In other words, if anything actually binds these people together is that they have to work for a living, and really could use the money.

Finally: just how many pairs of people do you suppose Toby Dye actually had to film before he got a handful that could serve as beer ad posterchildren in ways that played to all the right demographics' sensibilities without actually saying anything dangerously substantive?

Publicis London's slogan of “You have to lead the change, if you don’t want to be led by change” sounds rather unintentionally sinister in this light.

If you wonder what the full unedited substance of these people's conversations was, too bad. As like as not, they probably were made at some point to sign away the rights to publicly disclose any of it.

It's true. Heineken is indeed Socially Aware. This ad proves it. All the social awareness of a highly successful sociopath.

I like this very much. Commercial art is the poetry of video/film/digital communications. This works on that level. I'll be back to expand a bit more on my take of this, but wanted to slip in early before the skeptics speak : )

I think it's a great ad. But it doesn't make me want a Heinekin, since I prefer a really good beer, like Sam Adams, or Kilt Lifter.

That being said, this is a FAR cry from the 1970's when stereotypes were used in ads and almost every ad was dripping with stuff that would make the typical university snowflake melt into a dew.

It's an exceptional ad, actually, whether it's scripted, or real. Scripted, or actual, it's still an exceptionally good ad.

You do have a point, that there were no doubt - if this is real - a far greater majority of people who DID NOT gel like these people did. And why would that be? Oh gosh, let me fink on dat one...

D'oh! Because a very large portion of humanity are simply NOT that clever, NOT that open-minded, and NOT that charming. (Which is why global socialism will never work.)

I still don't want a Heinie-kin, since I think it tastes like skunk pee*. But I love the ad.

*No skunks were harmed in the writing of this post, and no skunk pee was consumed.

AZ, at the end of paragraph 6, do you mean "better" or should that be "worse"?

Matt

It looks like he meant "worse". Probably a typo.

Don't worry, Jim - I won't say a word (my head is still in the sand with the ostriches...)

Ann, please expand. What is wrong with this ad? I mean, except for the fact that Heinekin tastes like skunk pee?

By the by, I have started a thread. It's here on GD. Please jump in with whatever thoughts you have. No one will be harmed. Promise.

Mr. Foreman, I hear your points and also find anything like this suspect but I wonder if a total dismissal of it by the sociopath you name Heineken exists as fully and as autonomous as you fear. Probably there are human individuals involved in this for good reasons and with noble intent alongside the expected bean counters and psychologically trained manipulators (who may very well be running the show). Can a fairly healthy and hopeful message like this be totally controlled and reigned in, with its effects in the world reaped only Heineken in the form of sales? Are their more than one actors here, and maybe more than one actions? When propaganda messes with such loaded issues without directing them to a totalizing answers it in danger of being subverted on its own territory? It is hard to imagine a beer ad using less imagery and more actual content than this without becoming self destructive and at odds with the corporations own needs. Which they won't. Ever. Surprise. But again, I don't disagree with your suspicions. Interesting post. Thanks.

Mr. Baurle, the combination of your focus on socialism paired with your seeming lack understanding of its actual workings and forms making your posts a bit strained.

We discussed this before:

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=28080

This will explain about the ostriches.

I found the ad pretty silly and simplistic. I'm betting they just didn't use the sequence where a Trump-supporting skinhead with a swastika tattoo beat a Hillary supporter senseless with a Heineken bottle. But since they found such warm, nice and friendly people and put them in a stylized set in front of a production crew of witnesses, and probably paid them for their time, I'm not surprised they managed to behave themselves even as they suffered the final indignity of being served beer with no munchies (let alone a frosted mug).