Advertising and media planning is still littered with military analogies. We 'launch campaigns', 'battle' for attention. We talk about 'target' audiences, 'hits', 'strike rates', 'impacts'. We base our thinking on 'strategies', we deploy 'tactics'. We desire 'captive' audiences. Using this kind of language now seems to define the association between the brand and it's audience in all the wrong ways. If we are ever going to change the relationship that advertising has with people, shouldn't we change the language?
Image courtesy


this is so true. I wrote about it more than a tear ago and it's seems like these metaphors and analogies are so deeply rooted in the chauvinistic marketing jargon and discourse that it will take some good years for it to change....
http://no-mans-blog.com/2006/07/its-not-a-war-out-there/
Posted by: Asi | November 20, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Nice one Asi. Great minds and all that. Thanks for the comment.
Posted by: neilperkin | November 20, 2007 at 03:44 PM
Agreed. We need to speak the language of amour and seduction. Lets put the French in charge of advertising language.
I might be popping over to your joint Neil for a coffee. Trip has been delayed for a few days for top secret reasons :)
Posted by: Charles Frith | November 20, 2007 at 06:05 PM
Bon idee Charles. In and out this week and next but drop me a line if you're around.
Posted by: neilperkin | November 20, 2007 at 06:50 PM
Yes, seems Business Marketing still rewards people who see social relations primarily as a bloodbath.
"controlling the conversation" is of the same vein... Gee do I ever want to go to THAT party.
Posted by: John Dumbrille | November 22, 2007 at 08:19 PM
Neil, I could agree with you more. My personal favourite is the term Target Market. I like the quaint expression 'people'.
Posted by: David MacGregor | November 22, 2007 at 10:26 PM
blimey - I'd never really noticed the aggressive terminology before. Scary - though not entirely surprising.
I guess with newer social metaphors it may all get a bit more touchy feely - but I doubt it! :)
Posted by: mac morrison | November 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Nice observation Neil.
Clearly we have typically borrowed from war to make business issues and decisions sound critically important.
I actually did some discourse-type analysis for a pharma brand a while back, and most diseases (especially through media representation) are equally 'loaded' - although they are actually important!
Perhaps Innocent's board room has some suggestions? After all, 'Village Fetes' don't sound very business-like to me! ;)
Posted by: Marcus | Culturemaking | November 29, 2007 at 12:55 AM
I like this from Len Ellis:
"Unlike representation which pushes messages out, simulation pulls visitors in; unlike the “masculine” tradition of targeting, capturing and penetrating, the Web requires a “feminine” approach of attracting, listening and involving."
Posted by: Andy | April 01, 2008 at 08:52 PM
I liked this article, as you said it is bot just the meaning of the jargon, but the connotation of it that would create an impact on the listener. So the jargon collected from the military is potential enough to turn the marketing arena into an other war front. Liked the article :)
Posted by: Nikhil Kuruganti | December 26, 2009 at 02:07 AM