The tendency to use buzzwords or words with emotional value without real support
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2024 7:20 am
Marketing has become filled with a certain verbiage of empty words and terms, used mainly to sell without real backing, as a resource to attract consumers, but often lacking a true commitment behind them. Brands resort to these expressions in order to emotionally connect with their audiences, but often do not meet the expectations they generate, which can result in mistrust and disappointment on the part of the public who end up labeling them as smoke sellers.
In recent years, we have witnessed how terms such as “authenticity”, “empowerment”, “inclusion” and “sustainability” have become ubiquitous in marketing. These terms, loaded with emotional and aspirational values, resonate with the expectations of increasingly conscious and socially engaged consumers. However, the increasing use of these words in advertising has raised questions about their true authenticity: do they really reflect the values and practices of brands or are they simply part of a superficial strategy to capture the attention of their audiences?
What does the data tell us? Various studies reveal that 78% of consumers believe that companies overuse terms such as "ethical" and "sustainable" in their advertising campaigns. However, only 37% trust that costa rica telegram lead these brands actually keep the promises they make about their responsible and ethical practices. In addition, 65% of consumers say they have been misled by marketing claims related to sustainability or social responsibility. Likewise, 58% say they would stop buying products from a brand if they discovered that it was practicing "greenwashing" or misleading advertising about its environmental commitment.
Emotional marketing itself is nothing new, and for decades now advertisers have harnessed the power of emotions to connect with their customers. However, the current approach has evolved to include social and ethical issues that concern the modern consumer. Concepts such as inclusion and sustainability, for example, appeal to an audience looking to make informed and responsible purchasing decisions. Brands, aware of this trend, have adopted terms such as "eco-friendly", "toxic-free" or "solidarity" in their campaigns, seeking to give an impression of social commitment and environmental responsibility. But, as they are not always backed by real actions or responsible business practices, these terms can remain mere buzzwords, without the "real support" to justify their use.
One of the most problematic aspects of this phenomenon is the lack of transparency.
In an environment where consumers value authenticity and responsibility, some terms are presented without justification or clear explanation. For example, a brand that claims to be “sustainable” might not detail which specific aspects of its production or distribution it uses sustainable practices in. This lack of clarity turns a potentially positive message into an empty slogan. The modern consumer is largely aware of these gaps and may begin to distrust brands that use unsubstantiated emotional language. This not only damages the brand’s relationship with its current customers, but also puts its long-term reputation at risk.
In recent years, we have witnessed how terms such as “authenticity”, “empowerment”, “inclusion” and “sustainability” have become ubiquitous in marketing. These terms, loaded with emotional and aspirational values, resonate with the expectations of increasingly conscious and socially engaged consumers. However, the increasing use of these words in advertising has raised questions about their true authenticity: do they really reflect the values and practices of brands or are they simply part of a superficial strategy to capture the attention of their audiences?
What does the data tell us? Various studies reveal that 78% of consumers believe that companies overuse terms such as "ethical" and "sustainable" in their advertising campaigns. However, only 37% trust that costa rica telegram lead these brands actually keep the promises they make about their responsible and ethical practices. In addition, 65% of consumers say they have been misled by marketing claims related to sustainability or social responsibility. Likewise, 58% say they would stop buying products from a brand if they discovered that it was practicing "greenwashing" or misleading advertising about its environmental commitment.
Emotional marketing itself is nothing new, and for decades now advertisers have harnessed the power of emotions to connect with their customers. However, the current approach has evolved to include social and ethical issues that concern the modern consumer. Concepts such as inclusion and sustainability, for example, appeal to an audience looking to make informed and responsible purchasing decisions. Brands, aware of this trend, have adopted terms such as "eco-friendly", "toxic-free" or "solidarity" in their campaigns, seeking to give an impression of social commitment and environmental responsibility. But, as they are not always backed by real actions or responsible business practices, these terms can remain mere buzzwords, without the "real support" to justify their use.
One of the most problematic aspects of this phenomenon is the lack of transparency.
In an environment where consumers value authenticity and responsibility, some terms are presented without justification or clear explanation. For example, a brand that claims to be “sustainable” might not detail which specific aspects of its production or distribution it uses sustainable practices in. This lack of clarity turns a potentially positive message into an empty slogan. The modern consumer is largely aware of these gaps and may begin to distrust brands that use unsubstantiated emotional language. This not only damages the brand’s relationship with its current customers, but also puts its long-term reputation at risk.