The £100m Qatar whitewash: how UK advertisers put profit before protest | Advertising

14 comments
  1. If you are a dumbass watching TV and enriching such ethically bankrupt corporations putting profit before protest, I feel sorry that you were dropped on the head as an infant.

  2. Advertisers don’t exist to have morals. Advertisers exist to make money for their stakeholders. That is their sole reason for existence.

    They don’t give a shit that Qatar is a 3rd century theological shit hole that only exists through enslavement or that commercial football is exploitive.

  3. Advertisers don’t advertise supporting any cause they believe in as the only cause those companies believe in is maximizing product placement for their product. If that means adopting the current social media trend to get there then that’s what they’ll do. It doesn’t mean they do or don’t support that issue. That isn’t their modus operandi. Likewise for the WC, the single most important thing is product placement. So this article just totally fails to understand why companies advertise their products how they do.

  4. Oh my god! The nerve of advertisers. Thinking about making a profit instead… *Checks notes*… protest…

    I mean, that’s what advertisers are hired to do right? To facilitate protests… The amount of meetings that McDonald’s CEO must have had with their advertisers where they insist for the millionth time that they please stop wasting this protest money on telling people about burgers.

  5. So businesses care more about making money then making/supporting meaningless protests that will be forgotten within a fortnight?

    [sarcasm] How dare they actually focus on what they actually need to instead of pandering to a bunch of permanently offended idiots online![/sarcasm]

    Football is escapist media, for 90 or so minutes all that matters is the skill of the people on that pitch not politics. Why do these people feel the need to insert themselves into everything? It’s getting tiresome.

  6. Advertising is an arm of Satan. If it wasn’t so effective, companies wouldn’t spend such huge amounts on it. Can’t ban it, that would be illegal; so any countermeasures to it must come from individuals taking moral responsibility for their consumer choices. Most appetites overpower consciences, so WTF?

    Brian Eno tried to bring awareness to the problem by campaigning to introduce awareness of its – & other media platforms –
    pitfalls into school curriculums. I thought that would be a good start, but haven’t heard anything since: No doubt buried by lobbying interest groups.

    It was a dark day when an advertiser & a psychologist ended up in the same room together.

  7. It’s a shame, the bigoted western media only highlights the shamefulness when it supports their narrative. These same companies are doing active business and investment in occupied Palestinian regions but the western media only have an issue with them when they don’t show a rainbow.

  8. The last REEEEEEEs of the enraged who’ve now noticed that people prefer watching the footy over being constantly shilled bullshit narratives about whatever oppression is the flavour of the week?

    Oh no. Anyway.

  9. I don’t really care tbh. I’ll still buy the same things from the same brands. I don’t care if they boycott advertising or not.

  10. I don’t see the issue.
    The Poms sold their soul years ago. If you bank with Barclays/HSBC, shop at Sainsbury, drive a jaguar, use fuel / energy, use water, support a football club, use a smart phone, you’re all complicit in the white wash. The majority of the world really doesn’t care what you believe anymore given that the British built their empire off the backs of death and slavery, and now they’re copying the model that made you rich, well guess what, they’re doing the same. The fact the Poms now own next to nothing, bc the colonies now own your broke ass is karma.
    You can’t even afford Beckham to back your causes. Climb back up that moral tree, keep throwing your chips.

Leave a Reply