Advertising is changing. Spelling out “bologna” and using a cuddly polar bear to sell soda doesn’t cut it anymore. Nowadays, if you really want to sell your product and attract a large audience, you have to get creative, and a lot of companies are doing this by jumping on the social justice bandwagon. 

In reaction to these campaigns, a pivotal question has emerged: Are the messages of social justice behind these advertisements somehow degraded because their primary purpose is to sell us something? 

Personally, I don’t think it matters. 

Let’s look at Honey Maid. Honey Maid’s newest ad shows an array of families — including homosexual couples — enjoying graham crackers. Apparently watching homosexuals eat graham crackers is really upsetting to some people, and Honey Maid received a slew of angry letters. Instead of throwing away the hate mail, Honey Maid hired two local artists to create a sculpture out of it that spelled out “love.” 

It was a smart move for Honey Maid. The response cemented Honey Maid’s status as a progressive, liberal company — and also got its name in the public spotlight. And the move was low-risk. Since nine out of every 10 letters Honey Maid received were in support of the company’s original ad, Honey Maid knew that pushing its progressive angle even further would isolate few consumers. 

Victoria’s Secret is another company that recently joined the social activism brigade with its “Pink Loves Consent” advertising campaign. The ads feature models — all of whom represent different races and body types — wearing underwear with slogans such as, “No means no” and “Consent is sexy.” The website even goes as far as having a “Then and Now” page in which Victoria’s Secret reveals how some of its underwear used to promote rape culture. According to the “Pink Loves Consent” website, Victoria’s Secret previously made underwear sporting slogans like “No peeking” and “Sure thing,” which the company now says promotes rape culture. 

It is social advertising at its finest — the key word being advertising since both companies are still trying to promote a product. But I don’t see that as problematic. The companies ultimately want to make money from these campaigns, but their aim for profit does not diminish the importance of the messages behind the advertisements. 

The ideology of tolerance and openness, which the advertisements address, requires greater publicity and demands further discussion. And what better way to place such ideologies in the spotlight than to have them touted by big-name brands? 

The question of advertising intention came to the forefront with the video “First Kiss,” which features 20 strangers meeting for the first time and then kissing. The video is filmed in black and white and set to depressing, sappy music. The video went viral almost instantly, gaining nearly 77 million views in just four weeks. 

But people became upset when they realized that the video was all part of a campaign for Wren clothing, an indie clothing line based in Los Angeles. Wren never tried to hide its involvement with the advertisement — the video opens with “Wren presents.”  But people were shocked that the video’s primary goal was to sell clothes using models who play strangers meeting and kissing for the first time.

Does that make the video any less moving, any less important?

It doesn’t matter why the video was produced. If people like the message and find it inspiring or emotional, does it matter what the company’s intent was?

Also striking is that people are more upset with the Wren clothing campaign than they are with the Honey Maid or Victoria’s Secret campaigns, as though social issues are allowed to be commercialized, but romance and love are not. 

Advertising campaigns with messages of social justice force the public to think and reflect upon important issues, and that is ultimately the most important facet to take away. Yes, companies aim to make a profit, but that doesn’t change the importance behind their messages.

Write to Channing at [email protected]