Observing life: Is ‘sadvertising’ an effective tool?

Do social good ad campaigns have the intended outcome of challenging commonly held opinions and increasing sales in the process?

I've recently been binge-watching AMC's award-winning drama Mad Men, about the ad world in the 1960s, which just received nine Emmy Award nominations. And if you peel away the themes of chauvinism, adultery and sexism, also emblematic of the subliminal messages the advertising industry has been pushing for decades, you'll notice a shift in the thought process of the ad men on the show as it progresses. The creatives deviate from mindlessly parading the brand by feeding into deep-rooted ­stereotypes to changing attitudes in the season's finale this year, where Coca-Cola's 1971 real-life commercial Hilltop was used. The TV spot had people from different parts of the world singing I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke, with the drink being "a tiny bit of commonality between all peoples", as ad man Bill Backer for ­McCann- Erickson said at the time.

Coke hit the jackpot with it, and the popularity of the song, which became a radio hit, translated into higher sales.

Back then, the feel-good vibe created by a brand was a sufficient draw. If it was popular and you had the purchasing power, you would own it.

Fast forward to today, and Coke’s recent campaign, ­“Labels are for cans not for ­people”, which is one of those social experiments combined with promotional videos that, thanks to social media, has as many detractors as supporters. The web spot challenges stereotypes by bringing together diverse people for a dinner in a dark room, recording their perceptions of one another while they chat about their interests and ­professions.

Last year, the soda company rolled out the Hello Happiness CSR campaign, installing phone booths in Dubai labour camps to allow labourers to make three-minute phone calls to their families in exchange for bottle tops.

Supporters backed the ­initiative for providing much- needed momentary joy for workers; detractors pointed out the commercial gain ­behind the plan. And then there was my voice, among many others, questioning a highly publicised CSR initiative by an unhealthy sugary soda brand.

Coke isn’t the only company doling out tear-jerking pitches, cheekily termed “sadvertising”, and it is certainly not alone in attracting criticism.

But in the end, do these campaigns get people to buy more? In April, Coca-Cola, the world’s largest drink company, posted its first quarterly sales gain in two years – not from overall sales, but a boost in price.

My observation has been that people who appreciate the message are already champions of the cause. Nor will they be swayed into purchasing a product just because the campaign is compelling and attuned to their own ideologies. This is a class of well-informed people who have learnt to untangle the brand name from the social message, to “like”, “share” and “comment” on the concept’s ingenuity. Still, shifting the conversation to social issues that matter to consumers is one way brands such as Coke, which are increasingly receiving brickbats about the content of their products, can try to survive.

As Mad Men's lead creative Don Draper says so eloquently in the show: "If you don't like what's being said, change the conversation."