Nazi-advertising?!
This week when I was traveling with the DLR, I was shocked to see a big poster at the station of the Statue of Liberty (NY City) with Nazi insignia on it. I had to look twice before I noticed it was an advertisement for a new show on Amazon Prime.
When I arrived home I hopped on my laptop to look for more information and found out that the show ‘The Man in the High Castle’ is about an alternate world where Nazi Germany and Japan rule the US after winning World War 2. I also found out that more people were shocked by the advertisements. They were shocked, not because of the posters, but because of an advertising campaign on the New York subway. For this campaign Amazon wrapped the seats, walls, and ceilings of one train, connecting Times Square and Grand Central in Manhattan, with versions of the American flag with a German Eagle and iron cross, as well as a stylized flag inspired by imperial Japan.
The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, called the advertisements “irresponsible and offensive to the WW2 and Holocaust survivors, their families, and countless other New Yorkers”[1]. Although the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has said that the campaign does not violate the agency’s content-neutral guidelines, Amazon had asked to remove the train advertisements, not the posters. In the poster you can see the context of the image, that it is used to advertise a show, the train advertisements however do not depict this context, making it more likely to be perceived as offensive. Amazon did not give a statement yet about the advertisements and the withdrawal.
From a marketing perspective it can be seen as a creative campaign, where the public get to experience what the alternate world, depicted in the show, would look like. Creative and bold advertisements, like these, are usually more memorable, and therefore usually also more effective. Amazon said that the show was “high-quality, provocative programming that spurs conversations”[2]. Well, not only the show itself is provocative and spurs conversation, the train advertisements did too.
The question is whether the metro campaign spurred the right conversation, and created the right publicity. As the mayor of NY said: the train advertisements are offensive for many people. From a public relations perspective you could ask yourself how on earth Amazon could think this was a good idea. They certainly did not do their research what consequences and effects the campaign could have for society, especially New York citizens. It seems that Amazon tried to compete to the television industry by choosing a risky and aggressive form of marketing, but failed in terms of a PR approach.
PR is all about planning, strategy, and (most importantly) doing research. When doing research before implementing a campaign, problems such as Amazon encountered, can be prevented. Research into publics and stakeholders show what concerns they have and show how they could best be approached. Results can also predict what issues might arise and can therefore act as guidelines for the campaign strategy.
In the future it would be wise for companies like Amazon to let public relations, and research, be a part of the making and planning of the campaign. Especially when it concerns shows with similar subject matters, since in that case it is even more difficult to make appropriate, ethical communication programmes.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34919692
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34919692













