COVID-19 Advertising: Progress, 52 Years In The Making

In September 1968, the Hong Kong (H3N2) flu made its way into America. The global flu virus ultimately killed 1M+ around the world, 100K+ here in the states, and disproportionately affected the elderly… Sound familiar?

The similarities are striking. Even from an advertising perspective, just as current advertisers adapted to the novel coronavirus, the Draper advertising era changed with H3N2, too.

During the novel Hong Kong Flu of the late 1960s, American companies leveraged billboards to spread a nationalist worldview.

China was blatantly and publicly dragged by advertisers who were perpetuating a country-wide tolerance for Asian and Asian-American discrimination throughout the ’60s.

When compared to the series of events since COVID-19 made its initial imprint in March, it’s as if history flipped on its head from 1968 to now.

In 1968, businesses behaved brashly, while the leader of the free (and struggling) world was touting his vision for better relations with China.

In 2020, businesses are focused on pragmatically broaching opportunities to offer aid to those in need.

Meanwhile, the current White House administration revived Asian-American discrimination by initially labeling COVID-19 the “Chinese Virus.” The president has also publicly pondered if intaking disinfectant can treat the greatest epidemiological threat in modern history.

A double-whammy, if you will.

Speaking of disinfectant: As you may already know, Lysol doubled as a disinfectant and a political fact checker on social media during this past April.

What you may not have known is that, Lysol, once again, had a seat at the table as the Hong Kong Flu was ravaging societies around the world. This 1968 American newspaper ad shows how they were flaunting their own product as a preventative solution to a globally disruptive virus.

Lysol offered its product as a general solution for killing influenza, without calling out Hong Kong Flu by name.

Lysol’s print ad is indicative of how most brands navigated the Hong Kong Flu in their advertising efforts: They presented their offerings as head-on solutions to the virus at hand. Alternatively, similar to some of the poorer advertising that’s being done today, some advertisers plowed full steam ahead without regards to tonally adjusting their message to the cultural climate.

Musterole (left) was positioned to not just treat any flu, but the “Asian” flu. Bank Americard (right) positioned their services, business as usual.

In 1968, companies didn’t cast a light on their do-good initiatives to support communities affected by the virus. Companies were companies that existed to serve a bottom line.

Nowadays, with social media as an always-on consumer watchdog forum, brands that do not appear to be providing tangible goodness to the communities they serve are publicly put on notice.

As a result of consumers more diligently, rightfully, and unrelentingly scrutinizing brands’ actions, brands are behaving more responsibly.

Meditation apps are being especially compassionate.

Sneaker brands morphed into face mask manufacturers.

Even potato chip manufacturers became humanitarian.

Say what you will about the substance behind the new, care-fueled method of brand building, but relics from an advertising era coinciding with a not-so-different pandemic leave me thankful for what can only be described as progress.