Candor is “in”?
In “Angry Ads Seek to Channel Consumer Outrage,” New York Times advertising columnist Stuart Elliot asserts that advertisers are sharing our frustration with the economy by making ads that “echo consumer anger” and
take an outspoken, provocative tone that is unusual for mainstream marketing messages, which typically try to avoid aggrieved attitudes for fear of alienating audiences. The change reflects the significant shift in sentiment as the public reacts to the wrenching and, at times, frightening financial events of the last year.

Later in the piece, Marc Brownstein, president and chief executive at the Brownstein Group advertising agency in Philadelphia, says because consumers are feeling beat up,
Marketers “have got to rebuild that trust” … by being “brutally honest” in their ads.
“Candor is in,” he advised.
Hold on: candor is “in”?
I see two ways of reading that statement, neither of them good:
1. If marketers are using candor now because it’s “in,” then it’s calculated candor and thus, by definition, is not candor. Or…
2. Before they realized candor was in, what was in among marketers was bullsh*t.
Perhaps people do crave sincerity now even more than usual, so you can’t blame them if their BS detectors are tuned especially high.
But candor, Mr. Brownstein, is not “in.” It’s essential, now as always, if you want to build trusting, long-term relationships with the real people in your audience, and turn them into loyal advocates.
If you just want to sell them something, well, be patient. I’m sure this whole “candor” thing will pass soon enough.
:: Posted by Eric Ratinoff ::
