Thank you, Luana, for your comments; I'm very excited to hear your professional point of view on my study! The reason I refer to these adverts as "moderate" forms of CSR are to distinguish them from the more practical CSR activities undertaken by some other companies and commercial brands, such as the production of ventilators or PPE. While both types of actions are intended to help the public in some way, I maintain that simply echoing common health and safety advice constitutes more moderate CSR activity; as much as such adverts remind viewers to follow safety advice, they also work to boost the company image at a very low cost. That being said, I very much enjoy your point of view of brands being hijacked by the pandemic, rather than the other way around. One of the articles I cite (Aronczyk, 2020) makes a related point; that the immediate response from brands was avoidance to place their advertisements next to news or information about the virus, meaning most brands chose to shrink from public view. Aronczyk states that after this was not found to be sustainable, it was better for brands to re-insert themselves into the cultural conversation through something related to the pandemic, i.e., some form of CSR activity. In that sense, I understand the perspective of brands being hijacked by the pandemic, in that they were unable to proceed with marketing as usual. However, since the campaigns I study are generally those of large international brands, I believe it is important to question to what extent these brands needed to re-insert themselves into the conversation at this time; these are not small companies or shops trying to stay in business, and most of the campaigns rely on viewers already understanding the context and the health and safety messages being referred to, thus contributing relatively little to actually providing information about the pandemic to the public. This, of course, ties into my discussion on legitimacy, i.e., how some brands can be argued to have more legitimate reasons than others to involve themselves in the pandemic conversation. I hope this answers your questions to some extent. Thank you very much for your insight and your questions, and I look forward to discussing with you further this afternoon!

Thank you, Lieselott and Väinö, for a very interesting talk. I enjoyed seeing how the signs changed over time, with the more recent ones often not referring directly to the pandemic or virus at all. The different approaches to languages used for authorities and commercial actors is also fascinating; in the Helsinki data it is interesting (although not unexpected) how Swedish falls away in the 'homemade' or unofficial signs. I was wondering how (or if at all) differences in the two countries' approaches to the pandemic are visible in the data? Sweden's approach was famously very different from that of its neighbours or most of Europe, and so I would be interested to know to which extent this is visible in the LLs of Stockholm and Helsinki.

Thank you for your interesting talk, I very much enjoyed learning about the change in the meaning of pangyek and about how the signs related to the pandemic have changed over time in South Korea. I also find the specific focus on prevention of mental attachment (and 'Corona red') very interesting, as this focus on mental health is not something I've seen receive a great deal of focus on signs elsewhere, at least not in my corner of Europe. Thank you again!

Thank you so much for your kind words, I'm really happy you found my presentation interesting! I must admit I had somehow completely overlooked this particular work by Thurlow, so I am very grateful that you bring it to my attention! I also find it interesting that you describe the hashtags as a potentially humble or ambient kind of CSR, as I believe this is certainly the intended interpretation by the companies. The brands know that any message or ad can potentially be seen as them trying to boost their own image, but they still want to be seen as taking some action in the pandemic, even if it is as minimal as using the widespread hashtag #StayHome or creating their own. It could, perhaps, be argued that using the well-known, widespread hashtags is perceived a particularly 'humble' form of CSR activity, given that such a message does the least to actively boost the company's own brand? Thank you for making me think about this, as this is certainly a factor I will consider further when revising my paper!

Thank you, Eldin, for this very interesting presentation! I particularly enjoyed the discussion about places and situations in which people break or flaunt the rules and unmask (and responses to such behaviours), as well as the mention of soundscape with regards to the audio material in the form of announcements; I think the latter are relatively common with regards to upholding rules regarding pandemic health and safety in public spaces, but it is often overlooked in discussion. I also find the comparison between the US and South Korea to be very relevant and poignant. From my perspective (having lived in, for instance, Finland, the UK and the Netherlands, where you find a mix of prohibiting signs with or without fines), I would agree with Susanna's comment, i.e., that the message "if you don't wear a mask, you can't board the bus" can also be perceived as a threat. Perhaps it would not be perceived as direct threat to quite the same extent as specific information about a fine; however, given that the sign is displayed in a situation where, presumably, the intention of most viewers is precisely to board the bus, it does seem like a legitimate threat. It is very interesting to hear that such language in South Korea (and potentially other places) might rather be perceived as simply being instructional. Thank you again for the interesting and thought-provoking presentation!

Thank you for your kind words, I'm happy you found it interesting! I actually hadn't seen the 'Steak-umm' Twitter account before, but I'll be sure to follow it now! I don't really think I saw any adverts that would have been brazen about trying to sell something in the way that you describe, although it is possible that I have overlooked something. I think perhaps because the pandemic is so serious and has affected so many lives, companies are extremely careful about seeming like they want to profit from it, and they are not necessarily willing to risk potential backlash in a way that some might normally do with a "risky" campaign. The closest example I can think of (mentioned in m paper but not the presentation) is perhaps the 'Social Distancing Whopper' which was advertised by Burger King in Italy; it was described as "a Whopper with triple onions that will keep others away from you". In comparison to most other adverts, it seems very bold in how straightforwardly it advertises a product. However, for this campaign I think the timing was crucial: it was released at the beginning of 'Phase 2' in Italy, when the initial lockdown began to ease up a bit and people hoped that things would return to normal, and so maybe that allowed BK to be more brave and sassy. I do, however, think that you may be right in that smaller companies may be willing to take more risks when it comes to the self-aware type of advertisements; audiences may also be somewhat more forgiving to smaller businesses, whom they might want to help to stay afloat in the pandemic. This is certainly an interesting topic, although it is not something I have really included in my paper at this time, since my focus is largely on the larger international brands.

Thank you, Galey and Katie, for this very interesting insight into the pandemic LL of Washington, DC. I find it particularly fascinating how businesses requiring customers to wear masks is such a heavily politicized act. In many places the signs for mask requirement are designed in such a way that they mitigate or minimize any inconvenience for the customer on behalf of the business, so it is striking to see this requirement used to display a political stance. Additionally, it is interesting to see how the increased interest in workers' rights continues to be demonstrated by the signs even after the country begins to return to its pre-pandemic state. I also enjoy how you summarized a central fact of about LL research (both during the pandemic and in general), that is, how such micro-level signs in windows on a single street can reflect attitudes and macro-level changes in society and the world.

Thank you all for this interesting insight into Östermalm’s linguistic landscape during the pandemic. Sweden is certainly an interesting target for pandemic LL studies, due to how the country approached the pandemic compared to other countries. I very much agree with the statement that these signs, which are intended to inform about safety measures and restrictions, are transformed into a kind of advertisement that instead indicate reassurance from the brand or shop. I find this reassurance and indication of concern and care particularly striking in the multiple signs that contain hearts, as well as in the Peak Performance sign where the sign-off phrase is “With Love, Peak Performance”. I would be interested to know whether at any point you had considered a comparison between upper-class Östermalm and another, perhaps more working-class neighbourhood? This may be a moot point to discuss at this time, but it would perhaps have provided more data and thus possibility to generalise about the findings (a limitation that you identify), as well as allowed for comparison of how different neighbourhoods of the diverse city of Stockholm approached the pandemic.

Thank you for watching my talk and for your wonderful words, Andre! The term newsjacking is indeed quite interesting on its own. I myself (as you), would definitely consider it to have negative connotations, but interestingly, Scott (2011, 2020), who coined the word, uses it in his books which actually instruct readers on how to successfully newsjack, suggesting he himself did not consider the word (or the practice itself) negative or questionable. You are also absolutely right in that it is interesting how something like an IKEA instruction leaflet is so universal that it can be used in such a way on an international level. Many of the other brands who emulated CSR activities in their ads simply altered their logos, which are perhaps more expected to be well-known and instantly recogniseable. In comparison, it is indeed noteworthy that IKEA was able to successfully parody specifically its own instructions in this way (rather than simply create a logo with I-K-E-A further apart, for instance). I also don't have any answers for why some forms gain this distinctiveness over others, but that is certainly a definitely a topic worth consideration!

Thank you very much for your extensive response! I certainly can imagine that this is a topic with many variables, but I am very happy if my questions made you consider new angles of the study 😊 I think the comparison of cuteness-based COVID-19 signage and for instance "do not sit alone at a big table" sounds very interesting, and I will certainly look into the (Un)masking Seoul presentation for more information on mask-wearing in Korea. In general believe you have a fascinating study in the works here, and I look forward to discussing it further during the workshop!

Thank you for this great talk, Louis. It is very striking how these campaigns in the UK chose to raise awareness through putting the responsibility almost completely on the individual in fighting the virus; the neoliberal approach is most definitely in stark contrast with the idea of “togetherness” and solidarity that has been used in so much of pandemic-related communication around the world. I very much like that you also brought up that these communications are specifically placed in spaces where they essentially target 'key workers' or other individuals who may be unable to work from home. I do have the perception that while most of these communications aim to get attention through shocking or startling the viewer, i.e., through unsettling images and/or by using large capital letters that scream at the viewer "DON'T DO X" or "LOOK INTO HIS/HER EYES", the campaign "Every washed hand / covered face / day at home is making a difference" seems somewhat less confrontational in its approach. Is this something you have noted or considered?

Thank you, Louis, I'm very glad you found it interesting! I also do wonder to what extent viewers are aware of the conscious choices behind these advertisements. I expect that even if viewers are aware (to some degree) of the brand strategy of not promoting their products in the middle of a pandemic, the brands still perceive this moderate awareness of their tactic as better than if they were being considered indifferent for not showing any social responsibility (or worse, if they were perceived as callous for running a "normal" ad). The main goal is of course to create a non-promotional ad that is engaging enough so that viewers will want to share it, and the brands can gain both visibility and credit for their CSR activity. It is also interesting to see the ways in which some brands try to get around the unofficial ban on traditional advertising by almost disguising the product behind more explicit humour, for instance, as we see with the Durex ads, or with Hershey's promoting "A kiss for grandpa" with the word 'kiss' replaced by a Hershey's chocolate kiss (an example I excluded from the video in the interest of time).

Thank you, this is is a very interesting topic, and I would very much agree that the reluctance of commercial businesses to use any remotely fear-inducing or threatening messages in relation to COVID-19 is indeed motivated by a conscious choice to avoid negative connotations (which is something I also discuss in my talk, with relation to international brands and businesses). I would be interested in knowing to which degree (if any) these cute public health signs differ from information signs usually found in South Korea? You state that cute representative characters are often used even by the police and military (as well as by other organisations and businesses, of course), but do such signs differ in any way from the pandemic signs? Furthermore, do you believe that the fact that mask wearing has been relatively common in Korea even before the pandemic impacts how people respond to the instructions to wear a mask, as well as to how signs encouraging mask-wearing are constructed in South Korea?

Thank you, Joe, I very much enjoyed seeing the focus on pride and accomplishment that you have shown in the Melbourne LL after the June-October lockdown. Something I am curious about is whether or not you find similar messages of pride and enthusiasm which each lockdown, i.e., have you witnessed any ‘fatigue’ of messages of support during or after the two subsequent lockdowns? Or is it, as I may imagine, a difficult comparison due to the differences in length of the lockdowns? I am also interested in the extent to which (if at all) the LL of Melbourne shows any sign of the dichotomy between Melbourne/Australia and the rest of the world, given that Australia “destroyed the curve” so effectively in the autumn of 2020 while the pandemic continued (and still continues) in large parts of the world?