In response to Christina's Marketing Blog: Advertising v. Marketing v. Propaganda

In today's hyperpartisan society, how can politicians and their parties manage the fine line between advertising and propaganda?

 

I think you had the right idea by saying advertising only focuses on the visual part of the product in order to make it sell and that marketing is more the business side of production.  I agree about propoganda and the negative ideas instantly put in our heads when we hear the word.  You made a good point to say that it shows a one sided version of the idea being discussed.  Advertising and propoganda needs to be separated by showing both sides of the story and proving why one idea is better instead of just showing one side and bashing the other.  Advertising in politics is almost showing a fantasy and an unrealistic dream.  Looking back on many of the politicians ads, most all of the ideas in their ads fell through and never made it into any laws.

Using Celebrities To Sell

Bret Favre wears wrangler and Michael Jordan wears Hanes.  Hugh Hefner drinks gin and P Diddy drinks vodka.  Many companies are paying top dollar to have celebrities endorse their products and services.  This relates to my last post in the way that this is an unnecessary expense for companies.  Many people do not even like certain sports stars, never mind paying extra to wear the same product as them.  If I had a choice I would like to pay less for the product and see less advertising.  Instead of millions spent on commercials, make a quality product that will sell itself.  Advertising costs could be converted into money spent on giving away free samples.  If the product is good, after getting it for free once, you will hopefully have made a loyal customer. 

Is this method of using celebrities really selling the product?