You've heard of green marketing but how about anti-green marketing? In a new online ad campaign, the New York Times Online is going for shock value with its anti-green message that questions the healthiness of organic foods.
I saw the ad on the New York Times website in the Television section where it was placed to promote the health section of the New York Times website.
When I clicked on the ad, I was actually taken to a related article about organic foods on the New York Times Health blog. I have to admit that I was impressed to see the ad bring me not just to the home page of the New York Times Health site but rather to a specific article that actually added value and made it worth my while to click on the ad.
Typically, I don't like shock advertising, but I think this ad is low-key enough in terms of shock value that it isn't as much of a cop out as I usually think shock advertising is. The ad asks a valid question and positions the New York Times as a reliable source of factual information. That's where I have to question the validity of the ad. How many news sources are 100% factual these days? But that's another story entirely that I'm not going to touch here on MarketingBlurb.
The ad is timely as well. Earth Day just passed when consumers have a heightened awareness of the environment (hopefully) and are more apt to notice an organic foods message. All-in-all, I think this is a clever ad that works well.
What do you think? Is it a cheap shot for the New York Times to rely on the green message, albeit anti-green, or do you think the message is appropriate?
Comment Preview