Corporate advertising and marketing have evolved beyond mere product promotion to become a window into a company's values and social sensitivity. Consumers now evaluate not only the quality of products but also how well companies fulfill their social responsibilities. Recent marketing controversies highlight this shift in societal expectations.
Before the controversy surrounding Starbucks' 'Tank Day' had settled, the cosmetics brand Aiso faced backlash for using the phrase '625% penetration' in its advertising. While the number was intended to emphasize the product's absorption capabilities, many criticized it for evoking memories of the Korean War.
Similarly, the company APR's Mediheal was embroiled in controversy after it was revealed that its Booster Pro Mini Plus advertisement also featured the phrase '625% absorption rate.' In response, Mediheal released test results on social media, claiming that the absorption amount in the test group was approximately 6.25 times higher than that of a control group using standard application methods, distancing itself from the marketing implications of '6.25.'
Additionally, a mobile app from a major university hospital in South Korea faced criticism for using the date '20140416,' the day of the Sewol ferry disaster, as an example for patients to enter their birth dates. The hospital issued an apology and corrected the wording.
Today, companies are expected to demonstrate a much higher level of social sensitivity than in the past. Advertising spreads rapidly through online platforms and social media, and consumer evaluations directly impact a company's brand value. Expressions that evoke national memories of war, disasters, or significant movements can unintentionally cause harm, regardless of intent. In this era, explanations of 'I didn't know' or 'It was a coincidence' are often insufficient to persuade consumers.
While companies may have their perspectives, strengthening review systems is essential to avoid such controversies. This includes checking marketing phrases, numbers, images, colors, event names, and date examples for potential social sensitivities. Establishing a multi-layered review process involving employees from diverse backgrounds and seeking external expert advice when necessary should be considered. Although this may incur some costs, the potential loss of brand trust and social costs from a single mistake makes it a worthwhile investment.
However, consumer evaluations must also maintain balance. If every number or expression is linked to specific historical events to criticize companies, it could stifle creative marketing. While intentional historical distortion or commercialization of specific events deserves condemnation, forcing accidental associations into a rigid framework is not advisable.
In a democratic society, criticism is necessary, but it must be based on facts and context. Common sense and balance are essential. Companies should possess a careful sense of responsibility that respects social memory, while consumers should cultivate a mature critical awareness that considers intent and context. In an era of heightened social sensitivity, what is needed is not extreme dichotomy but a responsible corporate culture and rational civic consciousness. This approach will likely reduce recurring controversies and foster a healthier consumer culture.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.