First-Strike Propaganda — Why Anti-brand Terrorism is a Real Thing

There's a war going on every day — it's not only for your attention and allegiance but for your mindshare.

Brand bombing, Anti-brand, Ambush Marketing, Brand HiJacking, Credential Exposures and Collaborative Brand Attacks (CBAs) are terms that should keep you up at night. People have directives and are not above taking grassroots and professional tactics, pointing them at your brand

Blackfish —

People aren't going to like this next part — "Brand Bombing" plots like Blackfish, and collaborative brand attacks that have been done by influencers, change.org and falsification insurgents are part of a much larger problem — as we can see with the 2016 election. However, much like a terrorist — brand bombing is edited for content and uniquely driven to spearhead the conversation BEFORE any real conversation can be had, THEREBY owning the mindshare in a lazy digital consumer that will no longer look past the threshold of what they were plausibly fed. "You keep a whale in a cage — you're all bad people."

It would seem to be logical that it's not just that easy — it's not. But if Donald Trump has taught us anything, it's that all you need to do is feed people what you [think] they want to hear.

Terrorists are some of the most puritanical marketers in the world and here's why. They're not selling a widget; they're not attempting to become a competitor to your marketplace, they only seek to disrupt by ALL means. Choas and confusion (that manifests itself by created fear, hatred and blind positioning) are paramount in the success of their terrible efforts.

"Justice, how can you compare something as evil as terrorism to marketing even in a fraudulent capacity?"

Russian Collusion of the 2016 Presidential Election —

Sadly, they're part of the same family tree, and they're not even distant cousins. Take for instance the Russian collusion of the 2016 Presidential election. A group of like-minded people seeking to purchase marketing to sway public opinion and create divisiveness; the likes of which I've not seen in my lifetime. Were their deaths? Most assuredly, but that's for another article.

We'll never know the extent to which SO many people were brainwashed by a nonstop bombardment of messaging. That said, the effect of the campaign will forever (in my mind) be the largest turning-point in the digital era for illegal and illicit use of advertising.

Will this change the future or marketing? Most assuredly, as long as it works. For now, the ability to share media, fake or not, is too vast to control. Attempts to control it create new firestorms, regarding privacy and governmental infringement – and the circle continues.

The Publix “die-ins” 

I agree with peaceful protest.

I feel like they're (the protestors) muddying their directive but by brand-blasting. Stick with reform, and move the needle. Additionally, I feel that using private property for their "die-ins" is thinning the impact and motivation of rally's, and speeches. 

People don't want to be "forced" to confront constructed messaging. Example: the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and others have made minimal headway on the POTENTIAL 'blue wave' that is building. With that said, the progressive movement is building traction using diplomacy, intellect and a vision of respectful opposition that 'Trump's' the bombastic nature of the current appointment. 

Publix heard them the people in their actions and swiftly stopped the campaign contributions. That said, they were strong-armed in so doing. One side will insist that this is a win! However, if gun owners insisted they could not protect their families and did the same tactic at Dick’s Sporting goods for removing the AR15 as a purchasable weapon, everyone would be screaming blood, Jesus. There’s no perfect solution, need I remind anyone.

Later, I'll try to explore steps your business can take to protect/insulate yourself from some of these tactics.