Note: I do not own a TV. I also do not consume TV of any kind. I recently heard a discussion about the beginning of a world wide game called Olympics. While completely unrelated, the way people keep saying this word makes it sound like they're saying "oh limp dicks!" when they say it. Either way, my friends asserted that the beginning was viewed as offensive by many people who watched. They also asserted that this offense became widespread across social media platforms. After querying several social media platforms, I noticed some related posts and trends. However, the actual assertions about how the games began is not something I can confirm. In this post, I look at the marketing angle from the viewer only with the assumption that the viewers are correct in their assertions.
"It Was Extremely Offensive!"
For about a week, all my friends could talk about involved the beginning of the worldwide games called Olympics. They were extremely disgusted and offended with the beginning. In their offense and anger, they ranted as much as they could. They even took their offense online and posted as much as they could about it.
Ironically, they continued to watch Olympics. They also kept talking about Olympics. In that week, they marketed Olympics more than it could have marketed in any other way. In fact, the funniest story involved one of my friends who said that he would "never" watch Olympics again. Two days later, he was expressing anger about a certain fighter in Olympics. When I pointed out, "I thought you were done with it?" he came up with an excuse.
This allegedly involved nations. For instance, according to the X account BRICS Info, an Iranian leader allegedly condemned the beginning of Olympics. Based on a Perplexity search, Iran is participating in Olympics (6 games).
Silence Is the Only Form of Hatred
Before I continue highlighting a key lesson about marketing here, let me disclose that the only way to show true contempt is silence. Any attention - positive or negative - is a reward. While I have never worked with any sports, I would communicate that Olympics won and hardened their victory from all the attention.
If you want to see a related example of this, look no further than mainstream media. People disparage and attack "mainstream" news regularly. Yet these same people constantly share content from mainstream media. If they actually disliked mainstream news, they would never share it. The same applies to Olympics. They saw a big increase in viewers and attention even as the same people were attacking Olympics.
People React To What Has Value
Let's assume the beginning was offensive and that people who claim this are correct. People only react to what has value. Imagine a homeless guy that you walk by screams to you, "You suck!" It won't affect you because he has no value in your mind. Now imagine that your boss says, "You suck!" He has value because he can fire you. If he believes that you suck, then you may be at risk for losing a job. Let me repeat: people only react to what has value
Olympics has perceived value because people reacted to it. If people ignored it or felt indifferent to it, most people would come to the opposite conclusion. But people reacted to Olympics along with spreading information about it, even if it was negative. Make no mistake that people can feel anger about something, but still make it popular. Most emotions are fake, or at best, temporary. People can feel anger. But emotions ebb; it's hard to sustain that emotional state forever. That same state that leads to anger can also lead to other states. This is one reason that I tell marketers the unpopular truth of emotions: when people feel absolutely nothing, they are less likely to act on this. An extreme feeling - good or bad - causes some type of action. Olympics hangs an example of this like a picture on a wall. Imagine a boring Olympics ceremony. In fact, there have been plenty. No one looks at the picture. Now, imagine an interesting or controversial ceremony. Everyone looks at it and shares it from a broad ranges of emotions.
From a marketing perspective the way to view this is ask the simple question: what are people actually doing? They're watching Olympics! Even if the angry people are not, because they keep talking about it, they are helping market the content to other people who don't feel anger. This means Olympics stiffens their victory either way - people either watch it or through sharing their anger, encourage others to watch it.
When You Misunderstand Your Market
A few years ago, a friend of mine created a local business that served tourists. He lived in a city that attracted countless tourists. He had thought that tourists looked for key details about areas in the city. He solved the problem better than anyone did. His short videos covered details that could make an average vacation exceptional. In one minute of content, a person could find exactly what they were looking for plus they would get the best recommendations of the city. However, he attracted very little attention relative to his competitors.
He asked me why his marketing wasn't working when we talked. When we compared his content with others, I showed him his problem. No one was watching the tourist videos because they wanted to know key details about his area. That was a "guise" to hide what they actually wanted. They were watching information because they wanted to feel attraction toward the "hot girl" tour guides (or for straight women, they wanted to feel envy). He had mis-assumed that his target audience wanted detailed information about the best locations. They didn't. He couldn't provide his audience with feelings of attraction or envy. However, people don't like to admit they're susceptible to emotions, so they could use the cover of "I watch this hot girl tour guide because I want to know the best spots in Lala Land."
The audience of Olympics is the same this year. I have heard almost nothing about any game. This is peculiar because Olympics supposedly involve games. I have heard a ton of completely non-related observations about Olympics. Many of these observations involve anger. People are mad because of one reason or another. They share this with everyone they know. They appear justified for the reason they state. But if you zoom out carefully, you'll observe that these people tend to be angry. This is their latest reason to be angry. While they don't realize it, anger is addictive. This is also why Olympics are getting record level ratings: they are sending everyone into an emotional frenzy.
Final Thoughts
Keep in mind that I am saying nothing about the ethics of doing this here. Sending people into high emotional states could be viewed as unethical. I would agree with this. But I would also agree that audiences are responsible for when they're reactive. Why aren't people evaluating what they're actually doing? Everyone can do this. In a nutshell, if you're simply looking for attention - like most marketers, getting people to feel an emotion is the best path. All negative and positive emotions are addicting (by contrast, indifference and boredom are not).
Later Update
I've updated this post because after I wrote this post, an indictment from the US Department of Justice happened that highlights part of my point here.
Allegedly, according to the US Department of Justice, a non-US country funded the operations of Tenet Media, run by Lauren Chen. This led to an indictment.
Lauren Chen is exactly who you'd expect. She doesn't add a single new thought to any conversation. Yet young men love her! Why? It's what we all know. Most young men are conservatives and they feel attraction toward Lauren Chen. "Conservative content" is the cover. Feeling attraction is the "actual" of the situation. Never forget young men: no matter how pretty you think a girl is, she still farts.
Allegedly from a video people claim from her (now) removed channel, she actually thinks that women shouldn't have the right to vote. Assuming this video was actually her and not a deepfake, stop and think about this. If her followers are correct, then why did they ever listen to her? If they actually agree with Chen that women shouldn't have the right to vote, why listen to her at all? That is obviously trolling - "Hey, people like me shouldn't have the right to vote, do you agree?" Then why should I listen to you?
This is exactly the same person who complains about what they're watching. Why don't they stop watching then? Consider how many people complained about Olympics, yet watched it! The only thing you learn from these people is how deluded they are.
Mark my words, the Lauren Chen allegations are a tip of an iceberg. It's deeper than most readers realize. You'll learn over time. However, what you can do for yourself today is weigh if someone is being consistent. Based on what her followers claim, Lauren Chen was inconsistent. And no one is being consistent with Olympics.
