What a dummy. Jay-Z apparently made Occupy Wall Street shirts and was selling them for $22 a pop. The catch? None of the profit went back in to OWS in anyway.
From a brand perspective this was an incredible dumb move (and by brand I'm referring to the fact that Jay-Z is a brand unto himself). Once again we come back to PR 101 basics - know your audience.
Making a profit, or at least not profit-sharing, off a customer base that is protesting capitalism and which sees itself as a movement against corporate greed and influence, is pretty dumb.
Jay-Z has apparently stopped selling the shirts, but his brand will take a black eye from this little escapade.
I'm sure from Jay-Z's perspective he was merely identifying a market demand and supplying that demand - capitalism 101 - in fact, he might have seen his actions as helping the OWS movement.
From the OWS'ers perspective, some things should not be about money and profit, and Occupy Wall Street is one of those things. In addition, they likely see it as 'some rich guy' making a buck off OWS.
No one is right or wrong really - this is where I tend to disagree with OWS in that making products that people want and selling them at a price they are willing to pay is a good thing, it's what makes the world spin. It's corruption, special interests, monopolies, etc. that are the problem with today's economic system.
Regardless of my view though, I'd still be aware enough of the OWS audience's views to know that making a profit off them was a pretty dumb strategy.
Actually, if I made shirts it would be fine (because I'm not a multi-millionaire). In fact, people would probably praise a common man making shirts and a bit of a profit. But Jay-Z isn't part of the 99 per cent, so OWS'ers would simply see this as a rich guy seizing an opportunity to make more money.
Jay-Z should have known this and he should have only bothered to make the shirts if it was about supporting OWS, which means doing so through a non-profit model.
OWS isn't a rock concert, it's a social movement for justice and equality.
Want to sell t-shirts for a profit? Hold a concert.
From a brand perspective this was an incredible dumb move (and by brand I'm referring to the fact that Jay-Z is a brand unto himself). Once again we come back to PR 101 basics - know your audience.
Making a profit, or at least not profit-sharing, off a customer base that is protesting capitalism and which sees itself as a movement against corporate greed and influence, is pretty dumb.
Jay-Z has apparently stopped selling the shirts, but his brand will take a black eye from this little escapade.
I'm sure from Jay-Z's perspective he was merely identifying a market demand and supplying that demand - capitalism 101 - in fact, he might have seen his actions as helping the OWS movement.
From the OWS'ers perspective, some things should not be about money and profit, and Occupy Wall Street is one of those things. In addition, they likely see it as 'some rich guy' making a buck off OWS.
No one is right or wrong really - this is where I tend to disagree with OWS in that making products that people want and selling them at a price they are willing to pay is a good thing, it's what makes the world spin. It's corruption, special interests, monopolies, etc. that are the problem with today's economic system.
Regardless of my view though, I'd still be aware enough of the OWS audience's views to know that making a profit off them was a pretty dumb strategy.
Actually, if I made shirts it would be fine (because I'm not a multi-millionaire). In fact, people would probably praise a common man making shirts and a bit of a profit. But Jay-Z isn't part of the 99 per cent, so OWS'ers would simply see this as a rich guy seizing an opportunity to make more money.
Jay-Z should have known this and he should have only bothered to make the shirts if it was about supporting OWS, which means doing so through a non-profit model.
OWS isn't a rock concert, it's a social movement for justice and equality.
Want to sell t-shirts for a profit? Hold a concert.
Comments
Post a Comment