In response to Chris Wong’s “Liar Liar Pants on Fire” blog post, I do concur with his opinions on how the LiveStrong’s marketing campaign is indeed ethical, with the conditions that they did not know about Mr. Armstrong’s use of illicit drugs. However, Chris then states how he still believes that the ethicality of the marketing scheme is still valid even if they knew of his illegal drug use, and compares it to the marketing strategies of Old Spice.
I do not agree with his opinion. The Old Spice campaign is much different compared to Lance Armstrong’s case. Mr. Armstrong is involved with illegal drugs, and thus did not deserve the amount of recognition he attained. Through my experience, the LiveStrong campaign is not mainly to promote Nike’s products, but to promote healthy living. Healthy living does not come from the use of illegal drugs. The Old Spice product marketing and belief is clearly one of humour, and is evident to society that a simple product cannot change your personality. It is clear to me that the comparison of these two marketing campaigns is not possible, as both of them are in different categories. This is why I do not agree with Chris’ view on how the LiveStrong campaign would still be ethical despite the fact that Nike had known of Mr. Armstrong’s scandal.
Categories: