On the occasion of the invasion of new Finnish smartphones, the world has learned a bit about the way Nokia is filming commercials. As the matter turned out to be morally ambiguous, there was appointed a specialist on ethics.
Is it allowed to criticize an ad? After all, we all know that ads lie, mislead, using social tricks urging customers to buy certain goods. We all know that, right? - However, the problem still occurred. There were doubts. We wrote about them recently illustrating the article with Nokia’s commertial video.
Doubts would not arise if not The Verge service, which in a hour after publishing the video noticed a van with the film crew with a decent camera and lights reflecting in the window of the passing trailer. Doubts probably would not have appeared if the advertising producer did his work a bit more professionally.
Neither the industry nor the users do not forgive such mishaps. – The manufacturer’s explanation that literally anywhere it hasn’t been established that the video was recordered with Lumia 920 and that it wasn’t meant to mislead anyone, doesn’t make any sense here. The commercial makes it clear that this is so. Commentators herald worse sale of Lumia 820 and 920, and the fans of the brand announce a change of colors or express outrage.
|Simulation of OIS technology (video frames)
A specialist is to explain whether there was a breach of ethics in Nokia’s commercial or not. How did it happen that there was no information that the video is recorded with a professional equipment and not the smartphone camera and indeed whether such information should be included in the advertising spot. In my humble opinion, anonymous and independent expert would have to be a magician. The first impression can be made only once. I believe that if the Lumia 920 turns out to be an attractive smartphone it will be sold regardless of this what has happened.
There is no reason not to criticize the ad falsely administered in their idyllic vision of reality and presenting the perfect products. It is worth remembering that the criticism of advertising is directed toward the producer, not the product, though also the product, in this case runs the risk of infamy. Statistically advertising is profitable; the majority of consumers can be fooled. Most of us agree to support commercial delusion, provided that the illusion won’t be brutally dispelled, that a whistleblower doesn’t appear. When someone demonstrates an obvious scam, we prefer to punish others for our gullibility.
I do not know if the Nokia’s gaffe says more about the mechanisms operating in case of large corporations, or the inconsistency of human nature. I do know that I will treat Lumia 920 without prejudice. Or at least I’ll try to.