Are Ads Unethical?

It depends on what is being done. Changing a product’s structure/look in an ad, or representing the product with a different enhanced version in an ad is unethical.

What Is Advertising?

Advertising is...

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Attention Span of a Goldfish!

Ten years ago the average attention span was apparently 12 minutes. Now, it has apparently gone down to 5 according in the article in the Telegraph. According to Brian Vander Zanden from the University of Texas, he claims adults have the attention span of 20 minutes. However on the internet, our attention span is back down to five minutes. And now thanks to the addictive nature of web browsing, that same attention span shrinks down to a mere 9 seconds, which is the same attention span of a goldfish!

Keeping that in mind we are bombarded with advertising. Most of which have short messages, but just how much is enough? According to a study done by Yankelvich Research, it claims we can be bombarded from anywhere between 3,000 and 20,000 messages a day. We only actialy acknowledge or process ads somewhere I the low hundreds.

 There is the question is there too much advertising? Is all this advertising the cause of our attention span being too short? Or is the advertising causing our attention span to shorten due to the onslaught of information being thrown at us?

By 2016, the projected amount of money spent on advertising on a global scale is slanted to hit 660 Billion dollars!

Advertising comes in many forms, some of which costs money, and some others that are free. These forms include: Television, Radio, Online, Mobile and landline telephony, magazine and newspaper, direct mail. Billboard, busboard, display, in taxis, in buses, in store, in malls, in planes, in bathrooms, in product placements, word of mouth, stick a message ads, and user generated ads.

So back to my previous two questions on whether we have too much advertising, my answer is no. There is not too much advertising, but there is too much bad advertising and not enough creative advertising. There is a bunch of bad, and useless advertising out there, but on the plus side to that it makes the few good advertisements stand out. I feel we don’t have enough creative and concept driven creative advertising that can almost be considered artwork in order to promote a brand and get your attention. I also believe that our attention spans are short because of the nature of convenience and how everything is presented orally, visually and is summarized. Before we used to have to read and get into what is being talked about to retain common information, so based on the trend of technology and how information was presented faster and quicker, we got accustomed to that and our attention span decreased. It may also be decreased due to that fact that we are purposely reducing the amount of sensorial noise we take in on a daily basis, we can’t afford to pay attention to everything, there is just too much to take in. I believe if we continue to tune out the noise and volume around us, only the bright, creative, and attention grabbing information out there will raise our attention. This might resolve in more ads trying to grab our attention, but only the good and creative ads will be successful. I believe that most ads are ineffective. If brands reduced advertising costs by 10 percent, would their profits drop correspondingly? Maybe, but probably not. I believe the only drastic change would be if they eliminated ads that people seek out such as eliminating their company information in the yellow pages, that would make a much higher impact on their company then eliminating ads that seek other people such as inside buses which most people don’t pay attention to and even if they did they won’t have the time to write down or remember the contact information. Where as in the yellow pages the person is seeking out advertisements, is willing to write down the contact information and familiarize themselves with the brand.

Shock Advertisment

On the average day we are constantly bombarded with advertisements. The average student, in the middle of their week, will have experienced up to 10, 000 forms of advertising impressions. So many are passed over, ignored, and not even gazed upon for a few seconds of time. So many of those will have long been forgotten in two weeks time. That being said, in an effort for ads to become more memorable in our lives they have used: humor, fear, simplicity, bent imagery or headlines, creative concepts, direct appeals, showing benefits, and using informational ads.

One big attention grabber that some ads resort to is using Shock to their advantage.

An example of this is below.

Typical advertisements I’ve noticed that use shock to their advantage are ones that deal with prevention. Such as preventing smoking, preventing the use of drugs like heroin and meth, avoiding drinking and driving, avoiding texting while driving, and preventing very dangerous actions in general. Also ads that deal with societal issues such as: preventing anorexia, killing fetuses in the womb or an unborn child, preventing violence against women and sexual assault etc.

On these type of ads I would argue that showing something shocking to drive interest to the viewer is effective. It is more effective than simply pouring a lot of information about the topic on the ad. Having an affective concept that delivers some shock value with some added information and a message is an effective way of drawing the reader in, making the ad something they will remember for a while, and then altering their behavior on the subject.

There was a case study to find out of which 3 different advertising appeals (shock fear and informational) would be more effective for the effects on advertising attention, recall, and recognition in an HIV/AIDS prevention context. The case study stated “We found that as expected, the shock appeal outperformed the fear and information appeals on attention, recall and recognition. Importantly, our results showed that subjects felt the shock ad violated social norms and this interpretation was identified as the cause of heightened awareness for the shock appeal. The evidence to this point supports our contention that shocking ad content is superior to non-shocking content in its ability to attract attention and facilitate memory.” Rajesh V. Manchanda, Darren W. Dahl, and Kristina D. Frankenberger (2002) ,"Shocking Ads! Do They Work?", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 29, eds. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto, Valdosta, GA : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 230-231.

From this study shocking ads have a very good effect to grab our attention and make us remember the content of information, and understand it.

Although some shocking ads push the envelope and are not greeted warmly by their viewers. While some are remembered they don’t necessarily force us to change our behavior. A common example is the shocking informational ads on cigarette boxes. Some smokers see them and get very tired of looking at them, scratch them out, and don’t change their habits. Of course that is a form of addiction. Most shocking ads I just find a nuisance. Seeing them once is fine, but if you have to see them same ad on the bus again and again for a longer period of time the ad may have a reversing effect and you may just want to boycott the product or message because you are so fed up with it. I hope that we won’t end up with more shocking ads to grab our attention, most of them are gruesome and unpleasant. Only some are well executed and good to see.

Based on the execution of the ad the advertisement can give off a good message like this one.

Or a disturbing message like this one.

The message received in some shocking ads are either “OMG that’s wrong, I’ll just look away now” or “wow that’s so true” or just something puzzled and surprised such as “well I didn’t expect that!” in either case shocking do well to get the attention of the viewer but in my opinion do less good in persuading the reader to change, stop, or create a habit. Brands should use shocking ads sparingly in my opinion, I don’t want Ottawa to be littered with them! If the shocking ad will provoke negative publicity and buzz and news they are not worth the effort to put up.

What is the core feature of shock ads is the delivery of the message. Shock adverts should embrace the delivery of the message. However if that message confronts people’s sensitivities it should be careful and not go against what the majority of people are sensitive to. It is okay to be daring but at the same time it is not the responsibility of product ads to confront social views and political issues. Societal ads can touch on society’s way of thinking but should do it in a light way because if they don’t they would receive a lot of backslash, hate, and would hurt their brand. The envelope needs to be pushed a little bit at a time, not be torn apart by one crazy ad.

Cheating on your Partner and Your Brand

Adultery. Infidelity. A fling. A Hanky-panky. Is in the end known as cheating. Most of us agree that it is wrong, some might say that it is immoral. In fact in 1985, it was illegal under Canadian 

Law:

172. (1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or

any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child

or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an

indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

two years.

Pretty crazy I know but that is one way to stop all the shinanigans. However, I do enjoy the odd movie that captures all the cheating into a twisted story. Moonstruck comes to mind, it was a twisted romantic comedy.

When it comes to cheating, you see most of us feel guilt and know we shouldn’t do it. However there are many degrees of cheating and in some cases some instances shouldn’t even be considered cheating. There is the case of the over protective inquisitive and curious partner which I hear over and over again which can be unbelievably annoying. In many cases I would say that when you have an over controlling partner that doesn’t allow you to even spend any time with other people you are curious to get to know that would make you feel entrapped and controlled. Spending time with other people besides your partner is fine, as long as it doesn’t go to far into something flirty on a consistant basis.

Adultery on the other hand is a bit more serious and I would argue that it is wrong. According to a recent Gallup Poll done in the U.S. 91% of the people in the survey responded that adultery was bad. That seems pretty obvious right but in another survey 74% of men would have an affair if they knew they wouldn’t get caught. Women polled were not far behind at 68%. So what does this tell us? It means we know what we are doing is wrong but if we can get away with it we are more likely to do it.

I believe that a bit of freedom of seeing other people besides your partner is fine even spending time alone with someone else is okay. You shouldn’t feel guilty about that in any way. You should be able to control yourself and realize that if you are seeing somebody that you should respect your relationship and not have a fling that went somewhere serious with someone else. It’s just a matter of control. In a weird way I think you become more attracted by other people when you are actually already in a relationship, funny how sly some of us are.

 I found it very amusing that some advertising even focuses on the merit of cheating in relationships and use that in their adverts. I find it simply funny that ads resort to say that you should cheat on your brand and try something new. Or cheat on something else and stay true to your brand. A brand is a product and products don’t have feelings, their not people or animals, if you want to go with another product that is completely your decision. It’s amusing that some ads focus more seriously as if there was a long lasting relationship with the consumer and one particular brand. Is it fair that adverts promote cheating in their ads? As long is it’s done in a light humorous way I don’t have a problem with it, such as going with newer, fresher product. But if it’s more direct and say to cheat on your girlfriend or cheat on you girlfriend rather than the product or other action then no that’s not giving a right message.

There is also the issue of subliminal advertising if people will constantly be bombarded with messages such as leaving an older product for a younger one that could be loosely translated as leaving your older girlfriend for a younger one. There is an ethical issue here that some folks may have a problem with. Personally I am not found of this type of advertising.

I don’t believe that cheating is simply human behavior and we have to fight against it. I just feel that if you’re with the right person you won’t have the urge to cheat on them. When I see brands that focus on cheating with the brand you have so far it’s just a simply way to promote another product, but if the benefits of moving to another product are there then it’s just a change. It’s not cheating because you wouldn’t want to go back to your original product. That being said advertisements promoting trying a new product are not promoting trying it once then going back, they are asking you to make a switch, so cheating is not the right way to look at it.

Subliminal Advertising

Back in 1957 James Vicary conducted an experiment on movie goers as they watched the movie Picnic on the silver screen. During the movie he had 3 second advertisements that flashed throughout the presentation and the message instructed people to “eat popcorn” and “drink Coca-Cola”. The messages were text based subliminal messages and were displayed much faster than the human eye can see – they flashed on the screen for 3/1000s of 1 second – and they were displayed once every 5 seconds. According to Vicary, the movie watchers did increase their consumption of popcorn and coke. Popcorn sales sales during the movie went up by 57% and Coke sales went up by 18.1%. At the times the findings caused somewhat of a hysteria, further research started to be done into the influence of subliminal messages, and they were soon banned from being used within advertisements. However, a few years later, Vicary claimed his study was a gimmick and that the amount of data was “too small to be meaningful”. This was also realized to be a lie and that in truth, the experiment never actually took place, the whole thing was bogus, a gimmick, and simple scientific fraud.

 So does this mean that subliminal messages don’t work?

There is Dutch research from 2006 that suggests it does work with some extra elements needed. Other research showed that subliminal messaging could work if the person involved is tired and there is a relation with habits.

I personally believe all of this is rubbish. In the example of the Picnic film where James Vicary made up his experiment, if you could only see a message on screen for 3/1000s of a second, it would not be enough time to even remotely register into your brain, conscious, or subconscious mind, no matter how often they repeated that split second. To me it just doesn’t make sense, most ads need at least a few second to express their message and then need some more time for the user to take that message in. So I don’t believe quick subliminal messages are effective or work.

 There is another subform of subliminal advertising called: priming. This method of communicating I believe works. This is where subtle cues in the environment (pictures, text, sounds, etc.) can be used to influence us subconsciously (or without awareness) how we feel, think, and act towards a particular brand. An example of priming is when a person reads a list of words including the word table, and is later asked to complete a word starting with tab. The probability of them answering table is greater than if not so primed. Another example would be if someone was shown a sketch develop until they recognize the picture and then later shown that same sketch at an earlier stage. That would be an example of being primed. They would be able to identify the sketch at an earlier stage a lot sooner having seen the sketch in it’s entirety before versus someone who is seeing the beginning sketch for the first time.

I believe that Priming works and can be very effective. The effects of priming can be very long lasting. Unconscious priming can be even more effective. An example of this in advertising would be having commercials placed in happy programs. Some argue the good mood of the program would make the commercial more persuasive and receive more positive evaluations by its consumers. Another example would be the perception of advertised brands and products in prestigious magazines. The prestige of the magazine could “rub off” on the brands and products.

What I personally believe in the case of the perception of commercials placed in happy programs is that the effect of the priming is minimal. I think that as soon as the commercials go on, the whole mood of the program is actually destroyed because the commercials engage on a different viewer’s mood altogether. By the time you see the forth commercial your mood from the program is greatly diminished.

Those are my two cents on subliminal messages and priming.

Humor in Advertising

Humor. We love it. We use it. Humor is universal. There are roughly between

6000 and 7000 dialects spoken in the world but you don’t need to be a linguist to

recognize when someone is laughing.

Humor gets our attention – although in some ways better than others. There are many of us that have different tastes in humor so you must be careful when you use it to hit the right audience with it. Advertising uses humor to get our attention and I believe humor in advertising is one effective means of doing so. According to a study 69% percent of the ads having the highest impact, are ads using humor. Yet another study showed that humor in advertising, while impactful, does not translate into motivating the consumer into buying. This makes sense to me. What I believe is the strongest motivator to get people into buying what the ad promotes is the benefit to the consumer. Not just money savors as many ads promote but other benefits like good security, health, communication, and transportation. Also some other good promoting attributes such as: increased esteem, confidence, excitement, comfort, and care.

It’s perfectly fine that the advertising industry uses humor in its ads. “Depending on the medium, anywhere from 10% to 30% of all advertisements use humor.” (Weinberger, Spotts, Campbell, & Parsons, 1995) This implies that many advertisers believe that humor improves advertisement effectiveness. Humor makes ads at least fun and more interesting to read, if not in depth, then at least quickly. 

A very effective ad that used humor was the Telus ad for their Share Plus Plans that included some benefits. It was recently a full page ad in the Ottawa Sun that showed a giant Hippo sitting on a telephone pole with three colourful birds sitting on the pole to its right. The headline explained: Heavyweight plan, Featherweight commitment. Then it listed three benefits to the Telus Share Plus Plans. It was quite bold but very effective in my opinion. Much better than a typical car ad that is jammed packed with content that makes your head spin and you are at the point where you don’t know where to start reading.

The Telus ad was good, however humor in advertising is generally tough to produce effectively and well. In fact a poorly executed ad campaign can insult people, and even do damage to its brand. An example of this was the advertising campaign for the Mic Mac Mall. Many people got offended by it’s messages that were meant to be interpreted lightly and humorously.

Is it worth taking those risks to make a humorous ad? Well in general its common knowledge to know the difference between what is offensive and what is humorous. There are many comedians who push the envelope though. However in advertising I would say if you stay away from touchy subjects then it’s worth the risk to put out a humorous ad.

With an ad that is meant to be funny not everyone will be on board, because you simply can’t please everyone and make everyone laugh. In general a younger audience will be laughing more often and an older audience will laugh less. However if you get a large portion of the target audience to be on board and laugh with you then you’ll hit a winner.

Is Food Advertising linked with Childhood Obesity?

Food advertising encompasses a large amount of the ad time we see on television. On children’s shows food ads make up 50% of the advertisement time. These ads are almost completely dominated by unhealthy food products; 34% for candy and snacks, 28% for cereal, 10% for fast food, 4% for dairy products, 1% for fruit juices, and 0% for fruits and vegetables. Children also rarely get to see public service announcements or advertising for healthier food

There is certainly a problem there when it comes to exposure to unhealthy food on television. Exposure plays a big role in feeding your child the right messages when it comes to healthy or unhealthy food choices, but more importantly is environment. To have a healthy child at a healthy weight is it crucial that the child is in an environment that will allow him or her to be healthy. At a young age the child will follow the parents example and eat simply what is presented to them. So the responsibility to raise healthy children that are not overweight is the responsibility of the parents at an early age. Then the parents should teach their son or daughter to make healthy food choices and hope all will go well when they are on their own. The environment that child is brought up in will be a much higher determinant whether they become overweight or obese then the commercials they see on television. Very often I see that if the parents follow healthy eating habits their children do too. The opposite is true as well; if the parents eat unhealthy their children will have a harder time eating healthy because they will have to work harder for it.

That being said it’s a shame that children are exposed to so much poor food advertisement. In general a lot of food advertisement that is out there are for snacks and fast meals. There is almost never or very rarely advertisement for fresh fruits and vegetables, or natural whole ingredients that are not branded. Advertising often always covers foods that are packaged, and processed. And the times they do want to target the health conscious, they will talk about low calorie foods like from Weight Watches that are heavily processed and are more manmade than gathered from the earth.

 

Nutella 2010 Ad

Advertising does play a role in making people obese because the wrong messages are sent about health in typical advertising. For useful information you have to dig for it yourself. A prime example was the old advertising for Nutella (the one I linked is different but follows a similar example). As I remember it showed a girl climbing a rope in gym class and everyone was staring in awe. Then when you wonder how the girl managed to do it, her mother explained from the kitchen that she was served Nutella in the morning to give her the strength and energy she needed. The ad ended with the mother saying, “I make sure I serve my children Nutella every morning”. So the message is that Nutella will make your child energetic and strong. Well while the chocolate from Nutella will give your child a moderate boost of energy it’s definitely not in the best form. Nutella is not a good quality chocolate and really, I think its common sense to know that it’s not eating Nutella everyday that you are going to be a glowing example of health and vitality. What really would give your child a big boost of healthy all natural energy that would last some time would be a glass of green juice or a homemade vegetable and fruit smoothie, but who would advertise that? Well V8 comes close and it tastes pretty good.

Advertising is meant to promote products and services; it’s not meant to be a public service to prevent obesity. Public service announcements will be in charge about promoting health to children on television and they should invest more money in doing so. I also believe schools should educate children on good health and explain the causes and effects of poor food choices beyond the obvious. And most importantly parents should educate themselves and their children on good health.

Advertising’s role is to sell a product in the best way they can. If that means making a food look extra delicious and delectable then they are doing their job. They are pushing the envelope a bit when they promote junk food in this way but still, it’s their job to promote their product. Ethics in advertising has gone a long way. Ads used to promote cigars and cigarettes unrestrictedly. Now since people became aware how damaging they are to your health they are not advertised and in fact they have warnings and imagery of the effects of smoking right on the boxes. Maybe in the future junk food advertising will do the same.

Photoshopping Ads

Photoshop is a very powerful tool. It can restore tattered old photographs, correct contrast and colour imbalances in an image. It can manipulate, add or remove features inside an image, cut out and place images on top of each other, or remove them from their backgrounds. You can use Photoshop to create stunning special effects, make ads, posters, collages, different artwork and more.

We used Photoshop to change, brighten and make colours look more natural in food products, wedding photos, product photography, and fashion shots. We used it to take our favorite image and place it in a different background for an ad, a campaign, a service, and a community event. That is the bread and butter work of Photoshop users. However some have taken Photoshop to a different level. Some have gone from using Photoshop to enhance photos to replicate realism, to changing photos to be surrealistic.

Photo retouching is a standard means of enhancing photos before they get shipped out into the advertising world. I believe we need it. Without it product shots, fashion shots, and especially photography of food would look dull and not as flattering. The camera doesn’t lie but the camera is not perfect. The human eye can see many more colours in the world’s spectrum than a camera can capture at one time. On the web we see images in RGB which has a higher spectrum of colours when ads go to print they get converted to CMYK which has a lower spectrum of colours it can replicate. So initially that great piece of artwork that we saw initially would not produce an end result as desirable without some good consideration and thought put into the process of capturing it. So I believe it is the photographer’s, designer’s and retoucher’s responsibility to replicate an image they are trying to convey with the best means necessary. They should make the image as realistic and desirable as possible and use Photoshop as a means of doing so.

The key is realism and while I mentioned earlier some users use Photoshop as a means of changing the look of a product from its actual appearance. In the event that you would shoot a pair of fruit in bowl and would want to promote how fresh and juicy the fruit is. If the camera didn’t quite capture the proper lighting of the fruit or if there was a colour cast making the strawberries look green or blue then by all means correct that with Photoshop to project the image we are trying to convey. Photo retouching is good to use in a situation like this when we are trying to change an image into something that it is supposed to be that will be more sought after. The idea is that these really are fresh fruit and fresh strawberries and we are trying to emulate their appearance on print.  FYI it helps to have a proper photograph to start with. However if the product, in this case food, was actually rotten or not ripe making the strawberries green, then changing their colour to red to falsely promote how ripe they are would be misleading. What makes photo retouching right is if the product you are retouching really has the desired outcome you are advertising it to be.

Now let’s move into another area such as fashion shots. Photo retouchers go to work on models making their skin glow more and be smoother, add contrast in certain areas, help eliminate excessive pores, make contrasting effects, and make colour corrections. In that case I am also on board with those changes. Though if a retoucher goes and manipulates the actual forms on a figure such as the face, specifically the lips or cheeks, or change the thighs, or the but, then your going into shady territory. On some models they might like it if they were to look lightly slimmer, but to slenderize an already skinny figure into unnatural appearance is setting a bad picture if the end output is to promote beauty with these models. I believe many people have the same opinion when it comes to changing the appearance of models to sell beauty.

When it comes to beauty and fashion I believe magazines should not alter the shape and form of their models. More brands should advertise like Dove and promote natural beauty. When some girls look at the covers that have a figure on certain fashion magazines they may be looking of the end result of a Photoshop Maestro.

All in all Photoshop has its uses in retouching and in advertising. Moreover, what I believe is that the image of the product that is being retouched must replicate the real product that is out there being promoted. When selling a product or promoting a person I believe that a high percentage of the time it should be literal. The exception would be to sell you on something that is a fantasy concept in which case exaggeration and surrealism is accepted.

Provoking Ad Campaign for the Mic Mac Mall

This advertising campaign was for the Mic Mac Mall in Dartmouth Nova Scotia and was executed by an agency in Vancouver, British Columbia. The agency is called Suburbia and their tagline states: “We get Shoppers”.

So what do you think of the ads? Well personally I find it amusing when an agency’s tagline states “We Get Shoppers” gets such a negative response for their advertising campaign by the very consumers that were at the mall. Some denounced the ad ads as sexist, insulting and demeaning towards women. The most direct way to interpret the message of some of those messages is that women want to replace school with shopping. Another way to see it is that the ads push the message that women are obsessed with shopping and are not very bright. Either way I can see how many would be offended by the ads. What doesn’t help the advertising campaign’s case is that the ads only depict women, which contribute to how people interpret the message negatively. Patricia Parsons, communications professor at Mount Saint Vincent University, said she thought the campaign was tasteless, a bit sexist and humiliating to women.

Are you curious as to how the ads interpretation was meant to be?

Marketing Director, Rebecca Logan wrote: “The intent of this campaign was to generate awareness and excitement for back to school shopping. The concept was to correlate school related subjects to shopping and our strong social media presence in a humorous and light hearted manner.”

With some that response didn’t sit well. Rachael-Dawn Craig. A Dalhousie neuroscience graduate, with several published works to her name wrote: “If there wasn’t a daily struggle for women to establish themselves…maybe it would be funny. Oppression is not funny. Sexism is not funny. For those of us fighting this every day, it’s not funny.”

The management at The Mic Mac Mall felt the campaign was fine to run but I would have not run the ad campaign. I would see right away that the ad would be seen negatively by its residents. The root problem of the ad is that it enforces a negative way women are depicted. There is a struggle for some women to establish themselves and be accepted for their interests in science, social media, engineering, chemistry etc. There are young girls who struggle to be accepted by their peers if they have other interests such as sports or educational interests and these ads don’t help their cause. The ads got so much attention because they are based on a negative point of view that women should be interested in shopping much more than other endeavors. This almost follows a 1950’s point of view that women should shop and take care of the house and not have the same pursuits as men. If they depicted all men instead of women it would really seem out of place or actually seem ironic because there is a general belief that men are more interested in social studies, science, and educational interests in general, than shopping. If the ads depicted women and men that would be interesting because it would clash the way how we are perceived but I still believe it would receive complaints.

Since it was all women the message of the ads are demeaning because they enforce a message that women would rather shop than focus in some field of study.

About the design of the ads themselves I find the illustration art very impressive. The font also matches well with the illustration. The fact that the ads were more artistic instead of using live photos meant that the message was to be interpreted lightly and humorously.

Back to main concern, the concept of the ad.
What happened as a result of all the complaints of the ads was that they were removed and Mic Mac Mall issued an apology and a $5000 donation to an organization that offers year-round sessions for girls interested in science, technology and industry. It was definitely a strong move that helped reverse the damage of the ads. The ads were in the mall for only about one week.

On the other hand the Mic Mac Mall’s Facebook page and website landing page ads are fine with a slogan named “It’s a good day to shop.” Or “It’s a good day to shop and win” which does not mix in with school priority and won’t get people offended.

So in hindsight, “an ads concept is very important.”