Advertising & Consumer Culture @cmcl315-blog - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Sure, everyone knows what a brand is. Coke, Pepsi, McDonalds. But why should you care about branding? Read on for a breakdown of this job-search buzzword and some practical steps for how to get started.

2013 Obsession with Branding

#TieaTuQul

Chick Fil A and its view on Homosexuality

The largest public controversy that has flooded the media this year and last was the public decree that Chick Fil A is a homophobic corporation and follows religious values. This comes on the coat-tails of the CEO Dan Cathy speaking out against gay marriage (Shapiro, 2012). This all occurred prior to the Supreme Court overturning DOMA this year. Since this declaration by the CEO, many activist groups have tried to demonstrate how much of a monster the company is to demonstrate the values of a senior executive. The interesting fact is that the company employs many homosexuals in the countless restaurants in the US. Even on the company's Facebook page is says, "The Chick-Fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect - regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender." Completely contrasted with the actual values and actions that the company has put forth within the last year, the mission statement listed above is just ignored and devalued. However, all employees have received emails asking them to remain neutral when interacting with customers on either side of the fence. Even though no employees have received any homophobic treatment the support of both the company and its views as well as the disdain from activist groups is endless.

Chick-Fil-A responded to the controversy on Facebook to ensure that a response was seen by its may followers. In which, it restated its mission statement (mentioned above) and explained that ever since its founding that the company has integrated "biblically based principles into the company" (Huffington Post, 2012). The company also reiterated that the corporate giving and donations to organizations that have homophobic leanings have no bearing on how each employee or customer is treated. The privately owned fast food giant serves millions a day and has been praised and scrutinized as a result of this public information. Even after the company has been placed in the public eye for this matter it still functions and profits and the hands of consumers all over the mid-west. Chick-Fil-A stands behind the fact that, "A part of our corporate commitment is to be responsible stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Because of this commitment, Chick-fil-A's giving heritage is focused on programs that educate youth, strengthen families and enrich marriages, and support communities. We will continue to focus our giving in those areas. Our intent is not to support political or social agendas." (AP, 2012) Chick-Fil-A has strong views on its duties to God and its contributions to those that value the same duties.

This example, leads to show that consumers will shift buying habits or completely black ball the company if their beliefs do not fall in line with that of a specific company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-responds_n_1686682.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chick-fil-a-makes-statement-on-controversy/

#Garrett Kassel

Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby is a company that has been built from the ground up. This company started out of a small garage in Oklahoma City in 1970 and has grown to be well known around the country. Hobby Lobby now has more than 500 stores in 41 states at an estimate of 22,500 employees. This company is a very successful and is built on its key value of “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles” (Our Company). With this strong value at the core of the company, it is almost expected in today’s world for controversies to come about when discussing religion and/or morals.

With the election of our president Barack Obama, came changes into our country; one of these changes being the provision of Obama Care 2013. This new establishment is to increase the number of Americans able to access health care and insurance. Because of the creation of Obama Care 2013, Hobby Lobby’s morals and values were faced with a dilemma. Hobby Lobby being founded by a Christian family running their company on Christian principles forced CEO and founder, David Green, to take action. "The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees," Duncan said. "To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.” (Berman). Green states he is willing to provide by this health care law if there can be a narrow exemption blocking part of the requirements of Obama Care 2013.

Around the end of 2012 and attorney for Hobby Lobby said, “Thursday the arts and crafts chain plans to defy a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill, despite risking potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day” (Berman). Though facing a huge loss, leading to the store potentially closing, Hobby Lobby from the beginning believed in honoring God before a profit. After filing to court against the government, David Green then responded directly to his customers around the country by writing a letter explaining the company’s background and values to why he is challenging this new establishment of Obama Care. In his letter Green states a key point in many of the outstanding work Hobby Lobby has done for the people around the country and why it has been successful. “We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage” (LifeNews).

It is unbelievable to me that this family’s core morals and values remain, even after realizing everything they worked for the past few decades could be gone instantly. Green is an inspiration to many who face controversies against ideas and dreams of their own. He ends his letter by stating, “The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that is a choice no American – and no American business – should have to make” (LifeNews). This controversy could have an upsetting affect on all men and women consuming from this company’s enormous craft selection.

Work Cited

Berman, Jillian. "Hobby Lobby Plan To Defy Obamacare To Cost $1.3 Million Per Day." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/hobby-lobby-obamacare_n_2375041.html>.

"LifeNews.com." LifeNews.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013. <http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/04/hobby-lobby-ceo-pens-tragic-letter-about-loss-of-religious-freedom/>.

"Our Company : Hobby Lobby - Hobby Lobby." Our Company : Hobby Lobby - Hobby Lobby. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013. <http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/>.

#laurenwhitmore

BP Controversy

BP’s Deep water Horizon oil spill in April of 2010 could better be described as a brand catastrophe (even this may be an understatement). The spill put BP in the spotlight for it’s “green washing” advertising campaign. Now that the Deepwater Horizon controversy has played out on household television screens around the world, BP is pleading for forgiveness from the public and trying to “earn the worlds respect”

BP’s story goes back to July, 2000, when the company launched a high-profile, $200 million public relations ad campaign to position the company as environmentally-friendly. BP introduced a new slogan, "Beyond Petroleum," and changed its 70 year-old, shield-style logo to a new, cheerful green and yellow sunburst. BP was also the first oil company to recognize the scientific consensus on climate change. This position only added to the brands environmentally friendly image.

In reality, the "Beyond Petroleum" campaign was completely ludicrous. With this slogan, the company pitched its BP's smallest energy sector while ignoring its major one. BP's investment in extractive oil operations disproportionately outweighed its investment in renewable energy. For example, BP spent a mere $45 million in 1999 to buy a solar energy company called Solarex -- a microscopic acquisition compared to the $26.5 billion it invested to buy ARCO to expand its oil drilling portfolio. This advertising strategy is a clear example of “greenwashing.” This is a technique used to deceive the public and spin green PR and marketing to promote the image of an organization’s products being environmentally friendly. This is why the environmental organization Greenpeace awarded BP with its Emerald paintbrush' award for “greenwashing above and beyond the call of duty.”

BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign ultimately backfired on April 20th of 2010, when the BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and began spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The catastrophe is considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. In the wake of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP's greenwashing campaign was given global media attention. The public was finally aware of BP’s manipulated brand image.

Just 20 months after the spill, BP attempted to pick up the pieces with a new campaign that many reject as another propaganda scheme. In a nationwide public relations campaign, one BP brand representative states, "I'm glad to report that all beaches and waters are open for everyone to enjoy!" BP representative Iris Cross says in one TV spot to an upbeat soundtrack. "And the economy is showing progress, with many areas on the Gulf Coast having their best tourism season in years." It is clear that this campaign is not sincerely focusing on repairing damage done to the gulf. Instead, BP is working to repair what little is left of the brand’s image. However, the brand frames their efforts as a form of “civic duty.”

It is troubling that it takes a controversy of this size to engage the public about BP’s “greenwashing.” Had the public been more engaged in environmental protection, BP may have responded with preventative measures to avoid this devastating spill. When I go to fill up my gas tank, I am not keenly aware of gas company ethics. I buy whatever is the cheapest and feel that most people do the same. What does this say about our current state of consumer culture? Has the hunt for “getting more for less” caused consumers to becoming less civically engaged in the companies they are supporting. I would argue that the BP “Beyond Petroleum” advertising campaign and subsequent Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an example of consumption overshadowing democracy in our current consumer culture (until a disaster of epic proportions wakes everyone up).

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising/bp-easy-being-green-88657

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/bp-ad-campaign-gulf-oil-_n_1192600.html

http://www.prwatch.org/node/9038

#CarsonSmall

Mike Jeffries Abercrombie and Fitch controversy

Abercrombie and Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries has been under fire over his controversial words and his anti-plus-size policy. It is no secret that Abercrombie and Fitch is a store that prides itself around an image of its clothes being meant for extremely cool and good-looking people. If you have ever walked in the store, it is evident immediately the image the company promotes. With large pictures everywhere of incredibly good looking male and females wearing their clothes, as well as the employees also having to have good looks, A&F certainly isn’t shy about letting the public know what they are about. This was made ever more clear by CEO Mike Jeffries this past summer when a report came out detailing the target customer for his store. In the article, Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries under fire for 'harmful' anti-plus-size policy, author Xenia Chan discusses Robin Lewis, co-author of The New Rules of Retail, and CEO and Editorial Director of The Robin Report, and how she reignited the talk about Jeffries when she reported that A&F doesn’t carry XL or XXL in women sizes, limiting the size from extra small to large. Jeffries, Lewis said, “Doesn’t want larger people shopping in his store, he wants thin and beautiful people, and he doesn’t want his core customers to see people who aren’t as hot as them wearing his clothing. People who wear his clothing should feel like they’re one of the ‘cool kids.” Hard to believe that this is seriously how a CEO and businessman feel about his clothing, but not so long ago in 2006, Jeffries gave an interview where he said the following. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.” (Chan) How is it possible that a CEO could say such a thing about his company? From a public relations standpoint it’s a mess, as well as cuts off a huge portion of the market for women. In a business sense, when thinking about potential revenue, it is simply foolish.

Along with his controversial size policies, Jeffries also has been criticized for the companies hiring policies. Going as far as actually having a “measuring system” for employees: “they were ordered to perform military-style exercises while at work so that they would stay “thin and beautiful”. It’s obvious that thin and beautiful are exactly what the company strives for and Jeffries doesn’t deny it having said, “That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other than that.” His words have caused outrage amongst consumers and have gotten plenty of attention from celebrities such as Kirstie Alley. It is discriminatory and has left Abercrombie and Fitch in a bad light in recent years. Discriminating in hiring practices as well as discriminating against plus size women is something that Abercrombie and Fitch could not ignore from a Public Relations standpoint

In response to Jeffries words in 2006 resurfacing, he released a statement saying, “While I believe this 7 year old, resurrected quote has been taken out of context, I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense. A&F is an aspirational brand that, like most specialty apparel brands, targets it’s marketing at a particular segment of customers. However, we care about the broader communities in which we operate and are strongly committed to diversity and inclusion. We hire good people who share these values. We are completely opposed to any discrimination, bullying, derogatory characterizations or other anti-social behavior based on race, gender, body type or other individual characteristics.” (Huffington Post) To go even further, the company released a statement in early November that they will be making a big marketing shift. Abercrombie and Fitch said it would offer larger plus sizes for some of its women clothing online in 2014. This is a small step in the right direction for a company that has been hobbled by criticism and haunted by youth advocacy groups and consumers since CEO Mike Jeffries controversial comments. Consumers are reacting positively to the change as shopper Karen Black was quoted as saying “I think it’s a good idea they are doing that, half of the clothes are too small for me. It’s stupid.” Although Michael Scheiner, director of marketing and public relations, would not go into detail about the exact plus size options the company will provide, he did give some encouraging words of a culture change in the brand as he said they will “Continue monitoring customers' demands and preferences. We will continue to make decision based on that.” (CNN) One concern I have with this solution is although the issue of offering plus sizes has been resolved online, why aren’t these sizes available in the store? If the company is trying to adjust the culture of the brand as well as market towards a larger audience, why do they not sell the plus size items in the store? It seems as though they are saying women with larger bodies are more than welcome to purchase items online behind a computer in their own home, but do not come into our store. For a company whose image has been tarnished in recent years, although changes are being made, they still have a long way to go.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1233837/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-mike-jeffries-under-fire-anti-plus-size-policy?page=all

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/investing/abercrombie-fitch-plus-sizes/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-controversy_n_3286502.html

#ScottFenton

McDonald's Controversy

Large corporations are never without controversy. Whether it involves a poorly thought out statement from a CEO, or a sexist ad, companies always have to respond to some offended customers. Being the largest fast food company in the world begs constant scrutiny by consumers; McDonald’s seems to be in the news every other week in regards to some sort of public outcry.

In the summer of 2013, McDonald’s sparked public outcry when they released a sample budget for employees to plan out their monthly expenses. It seems like the fast food company was trying to do something helpful for their employees, but they really showed a big disconnect between the entry-level workers and those that work for corporate McDonald’s. As the Forbes article points out, the budget seems to imply that no one can live on minimum wage, or whatever McDonald’s pays their workers.. The budget assumes a person working two jobs. Beyond that, many estimates, such as rent, are well below the national average. The company also writes in $20 in the health insurance line, which is less than a tenth of the national average. The Forbes article also noted that this budget does not include any day care, groceries, clothes, or gas money, which the average family spends nearly $250 a month on, allotted to the worker.

In response to this controversy, the CEO of McDonald’s Don Thompson claimed that his company has “always been an above-minimum wage employer” (Huffington Post). He said that McDonald’s helps people to gain wealth and income and eventually status in the company. They provide opportunity, the CEO said. His response was basically to just dismiss notions that McDonald’s does not under pay their employees, which is hard to actually determine. According to the Huffington Post article, analysts estimate that McDonald’s is actually dragging down the average $8.94 per hour wage of fast food workers in the U.S. It is hard to tell what they actually do pay because McDonald’s is typically not forthcoming in their numbers.

This controversy illustrates well the big gap between the company’s executives and its numerous lower-level employees. The people near the top are incredibly out of touch in regards to actually living on a budget, especially a tight one. When an employer assumes that their employee must have a second job to get by, they almost certainly are not paying very well.

The response by Don Thompson was not very satisfactory. All he did was to say that his workers are not exploited, but it is really hard to tell from a perspective outside of the company whether that is true or not based on the fact that McDonald’s “has never been transparent about its wages” (Huffington Post). It’s easy to say that you do not exploit your workers, but when a budget that your company made up assumes that the people working for you have two different jobs, and you don’t talk about how much you actually pay a cashier, it seems as though there is some cause to question the executives at McDonald’s.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/mcdonalds-minimum-wage_n_3644081.html

#delaneygardner

Victoria's Secret Controversy

In the year 2012, popular lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret sparked controversy during their annual Fashion Show due to a look that was worn in the show. One of the faces of Victoria’s Secret, Karlie Kloss walked down the runway wearing a “Native American-style outfit to represent November during a segment meant to represent the 12 months of the year” (ABC). It was when the photographs were released that the backlash against the brand occurred. In the images that were virally spread, Kloss is wearing turquoise stone jewelry, leopard print lingerie, and skin hide fringe shoes and accessories. The main visual point of this outfit, however, is a large white and red feather headdress, which falls to the floor in length. In Native American culture, “Headdresses historically are a symbol of respect, worn by Native American war chiefs and warriors. For many Plains tribes, for example, each feather placed on a headdress has significance and had to be earned through an act of compassion or bravery. Some modern-day Native American leaders have been gifted war bonnets in ceremonies accompanied by prayers and songs” (Huffington Post). From an outside standpoint, Victoria’s Secret took a part of Native American culture and recontextualized the meaning of this headdress. The intention of this outfit may not have been to be harmful, but even so ignorance to another culture is unethical.

Jennie Luna in response to this controversy stated that “we are people; we’re not a fashion statement” (Huffington Post). Through this powerful statement, thought goes back to the brand of Victoria’s Secret or that of clothing brands as a whole in regards to how incorporating cultural elements in fashion can sometimes be viewed as ethically immoral or sometimes viewed in a positive light. I believe that due to the headdress being worn with lingerie is the first major issue with this controversy. As stated above, headdresses in Native American culture symbolize hard work and respect. Placing this headdress on a Victoria’s Secret model while there is music and lights, there is no real connection to the true meaning of Native American culture but rather it is as Luna stated a fashion statement. Even if it were a Native American model wearing this outfit, I believe the same reaction would have happened as there is so much exposure of the body.

Victoria’s Secret responded to the commentary of these photos through social media outlets with an apology stating that “’We are sorry that the Native American headdress replica used in our recent fashion show has upset individuals’ the company said in a statement posted on its Facebook page and to Twitter Saturday. ‘We sincerely apologize as we absolutely had no intention to offend anyone. Out of respect, we will not be including the outfit in any broadcast, marketing materials nor in any other way’” (ABC). The model who was wearing this outfit even responded with an apology through her Twitter page. I believe that the apology was necessary and the decision to not broadcast this outfit on television was appropriate. Even so, I find it to be a bit odd that these apologies were delivered through social media outlets rather than publically stated through some other medium. I feel like this way many people may not be aware of the controversy as it was removed and the apology was on social media platforms. The apology could get lost within the page if the brand posts several posts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121113/us-victoria-s-secret-headdress/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/11/victorias-secret-apologizes-to-native-americans/

#lauramarkou

Paddy Power

Many different companies have unfortunate scandals and controversies wen it comes to marketing campaigns and branding their products and company image. I have found that the online sports gambling website Paddy Power has had many instances of controversial branding and advertising in the past couple years. They have touched on many controversial issues in their online and TV advertisements, everywhere from animal cruelty to sexist representations and portrayals. Paddy Power’s marketing team’s strategy is to top their creativity each time they put out a new advertisement, even if that means they are continuing to cross the line in terms of controversy. In recent cases, Paddy Power’s upper management has received a lot of negative feedback and criticism from the public for their actions and from the Advertising Standards Authority. While the upper management and CEO seem to respond to the call-outs from the public addressing their controversial nature of advertisments, such as the “cruel cat ad” of 2010, they do not intend on changing their branding approach that has brought them recent success financially.

“Kennedy (CEO) today gave an unequivocal "no" when asked it Paddy Power would pullback from controversial ads. Kennedy was speaking as Paddy Power today reported a 29% leap in online revenues, as the Irish bookmaker saw more of its customer place bets online and via the mobile phones. Paddy Power updated the market with its trading performance between 1 January and 12 May. Group net revenues were up 20% in the year to date, driven by 29% growth in online revenues” (http://news.sky.com/story/780647/cruel-cat-ad-puts-paddy-power-in-doghouse).

In fact, Paddy Power believes that it can make a serious push at becoming The Marketing Society’s Marketing Leader of the Year 2013 despite their unethical maneuvers in the branding society. In a situation where most company’s PR staffs would be chewing their nails off in effort to reverse the criticism from the public, Paddy Power is parlaying their critical feedback and using that leverage to target consumers that simply are not affected by the unethical nature of the advertisements. This continued effort towards putting out ads that play on controversial issues such as the “transgendered ladies ad”, “second jobs for subs ad”, and other instances of nudity and distasteful representations, it actually unaffected the company’s success (or at least didn’t hurt it). According to an article written in May by John Reynolds of marketingmagazine.uk, the company has seen mobile betting increased by 112%, and net revenues up 2% driven by strong sportsbook growth with an offsetting decline in machine gaming (http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1182139/).

This provides an interesting perspective in the online gambling community, which is already a questionable market in terms of ethical business procedures. The fact that a company decides to respond to negative criticism from the public with more unethical branding campaigns and actually sees increased success financially, defies all modern approaches from companies in the marketing community.

#AdamD'Addario

Barilla

Barilla is a pasta company that bases its brand identity on the family and the role that its pasta has in family dinners. On September 26, 2013 pasta heir Guido Barilla said “I would never do (a commercial) with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them.” He then went on to say, “Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role.” He then concluded the interview by saying that if gay families, “like our pasta and our advertising, they’ll eat our pasta. If they don’t like it, then they will not eat it and they will eat another brand. These comments lead to a boycott of the brand. On September 30, 2013 posted a video apologizing for his remarks on the company website. He also vowed to meet with groups “that best represent the evolution of the family, including those that have been offended by my words.”

There are ethical concerns about Barilla’s statements. The first and largest is his attack of gay families. He stated that gay families were not families because he thinks that in the classic family the woman plays a “fundamental role” this is also infuriating to me because it implies that a family is not a family without a woman relegated to the kitchen preparing pasta for her family. Barilla’s comments are a problem to the brand’s identity because no one wants to buy bigoted pasta. If the brand is associated with ignorant and outdated ideals that it may be considered wrong to buy that pasta. These comments could also be harmful to children to have heteronormative hegemonic ideals reinforced through their parent’s choice in pasta.

I think Barilla’s apology is satisfactory provided he follows through with his vow ad actually meets with the groups that he said he would. The company should not have to change drastically in order to repair its image after the controversy. They do not need to start huge new advertising campaigns directed towards same sex couples. It would just be nice if they were to briefly include a gay family in an advertisement as gesture to signify that they are trying to be more inclusive of different lifestyles. They may also want mix it up and maybe have a woman come home to a meal prepared by a man, just to mix it up. It is still too early to see the effect that these comments will have on the company, if they effect the company, but I think this controversy serves as an important lesson to other companies who have similar regards towards gay families.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/26/barilla-chairman-gays-can-eat-someone-elses-pasta/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/30/barilla-executive-gays-apology/2895831/

#HarryDouglass

Nike Controversy

Nike has been dealing with the sweatshop controversy for about 15 years now. The biggest critique of that is, even though they keep saying they are going to take action and fix the problem, the company is still facing allegations. They are using the controversy as a way to put the Nike brand in the media. Because they keep responding to the allegations with promises to change their labor conditions it sends a message to the public that “they do care”.

This tactic also makes other companies look bad in the consumer culture. “A New York Times editorial suggested that Nike’s new reforms ‘set a standard that other companies should match’.” (Connor, Global Exchange) Even if other companies are not using sweatshops, because they have not had a controversy they don’t have a chance to show the public that they do have morals and values when it comes to human rights. Nike is also spinning the controversy into an issue of public relations rather than human rights issue. Philip Knight made promises at the National Press Club in 1998 to solve the sweatshop scandal. Most of the promises did not have to do with Nike factories or they have not been fulfilled. “The promises made by Phillip Knight were an attempt by the company to switch the media focus to issues it was willing to address while avoiding the key problems of substance wages, forced overtime and suppression of workers’ right to freedom of association.” (Connor, Global Exchange) The company has worked its way around the real issue and spinning it to make them look good in the eyes of consumers.

The fact that it has been 15 years and Nike is still known for using sweatshops is a question of their ethics. They respond to every sweatshop allegation with a positive way to stop it, yet the company has not followed through. They need someone to tell them to “Just Do It”. I think because Nike has been around for so long they are able to get away with controversial ethical behaviors. They have already established their brand image and have developed enough loyal consumers to risk the use of sweatshops. “Nike in 2005, became the first major apparel company to disclose the names and locations of hundreds of plants that produce its sneakers, clothes, and other products.” (Daily Mail Reporter) In the media Nike comes across as having good ethics because of their promises. Even if they are not keeping the promises consumers hear positive responses from Nike. The company knows that their customers are already hooked on their brand. Loyal customers are not going to double check to see if Nike took action on their promises because they do not want to hear it. Consumers will see the positive in the situation and not dig any further so that they do not feel guilty buying Nike products. Nike has questionable ethics, but the bottom line is that not much will change.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014325/Nike-workers-kicked-slapped-verbally-abused-factories-making-Converse-line-Indonesia.html

http://www.globalexchange.org/sweatfree/nike/stillwaiting

#racheljames

Chick-FIl-A's Same-sex Marriage Controversy

In the summer of 2012, Chick Fil A fell on hard times when president and COO Dan Cathy proclaimed, “guilty as charged” when questioned about the company’s support of the Biblical definition of the “traditional family” (Blume). Many Chick Fil A customers took this as a direct attack on same sex marriage, which is the issue that lies at the heart of Chick Fil A’s controversy. This statement directly challenged Chick Fil A’s corporate identity and philosophy as a business whose “service tradition… is to treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect—regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender” (media.chick-fil-a.com). Immediately after the article stating Cathy’s comments was published in the Baptist Press there were nationwide boycotts of the franchise and many cities, including Chicago and Boston, pushed back as Chick Fil A attempted to open stores in the area. The company was ridiculed for its Christian agenda and as a result, sales fell the first week after the statement was made.

Chick Fil A’s brand identity is important to its success as a company. The goal of any company is to connect with its consumers in a way that they consumer can understand. Chick Fil A’s loyal customers should be able to identify with the company and its product. However, when this particular controversy is analyzed, we see that Chick Fil A did not do a good job of trying to identify and understand all of its customers. This shows that the Chick Fil A brand means more to the consumer than chicken sandwiches and a friendly staff. Chick Fil A went a little too far when it attempted to make claims about how a family should work or what genders make a family. As a result, consumers lost trust in the company, which Chick Fil A realized and began to counteract.

Chick Fil A, however, quickly publicized that it takes no position on gay marriage and that its “intent is to leave the policy debate over same sex marriage to the government and political arena” (media.chick-fil-a.com). Cathy once again made comments that Chick Fil A “does not claim to be a Christian business”, and that “there is no such thing as a Christian business” (Blume). Rather, the company operates and is based on biblical principles. In this way, Cathy, as a representative for the whole of the Chick Fil A franchise, tried to regain its customers and stay true to the company’s overall message. These statements were a way for Chick Fil A to gain trust back from its customers.

Consequently, many customers loyal to the company and its Christian viewpoints signed up to be a part of “Chick Fil A Appreciation Day” in a showing of solidarity with the company’s recent (albeit, somewhat accidental) political statements. On this day, Chick Fil A had record-breaking sales. Still, boycotts rage on across the country, even over a year later. Chick Fil A is still struggling to reclaim its image as a politics free company. It seems that this particular controversy many not be over just yet.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=38271

http://media.chick-fil-a.com.asp1-29.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/Media/PDF/LGBT-statement.pdf

#SarahYoung

The Food Network Firing Paula Deen

Back in June, a lot of controversy surrounded Paula Deen and the Food Network. With heavy allegations of racism directed at her, videos of her making the comments, and her comments about slaves, Ms. Deen put herself in a pretty bad situation. The case was brought on by one of Paula’s former employees Lisa Jackson (Tepper). Mrs. Jackson said that she witnessed several instances of Paula discriminating against blacks and sexually harassing them (Tepper). The most talked about comments were the following:

When asked if she wanted black men to play the role of slaves at a wedding she explained she got the idea from a restaurant her husband and her had dined at saying, “The whole entire waiter staff was middle-aged black men, and they had on beautiful white jackets with a black bow tie.

“I mean, it was really impressive. That restaurant represented a certain era in America…after the Civil War, during the Civil War, before the Civil War…It was not only black men, it was black women…I would say they were slaves.” (Tepper)

A representative for Deen stated that Ms. Deen “does not condone or find the use of racial epithets acceptable.” (Tepper). The case went to trial, but the outcome really didn’t matter for the Food Network. Despite her public apologies, they decided that the comments were none-the-less offensive and decided to cancel her show (Bynum).

"Inappropriate, hurtful language is totally, totally unacceptable," Deen said in the first 45-second video posted on YouTube. "I've made plenty of mistakes along the way but I beg you, my children, my team, my fans, my partners - I beg for your forgiveness." –Paula Deen (Bynum)

When talking about her use of the “N” word, Paula said “I can't, myself, determine what offends another person." (Bynum). As you can imagine, this caused a lot of criticism.

So the big question: Did Food Network do the right thing in firing Paula Deen? There are many mixed emotions. Many people said that they would no longer be watching the Food Network because of this (hard core Paula Deen fans) while others have commended the food network for their “no tolerance” policy.

The Food Network most definitely made a statement by ending one of their viewers favorite shows and firing one of the favorite icons of the Food Network. They showed that not even celebrities are above criticism and cannot simply just say what they want and expect to not face any consequences. I believe that they have set a precedent for other TV show celebrities that shows that they need to be very conscious of what they do and say outside their TV shows, because people are paying attention!

Now to play devil’s advocate, why shouldn’t Paula be allowed to speak her mind? Should she really be so heavily criticized for things that don’t even affect her cooking show? For saying something that most rappers say casually in the verses of their songs? Why was Paula held to such a high standard? It is almost like she is being punished for being so well liked in the first place.

In my opinion, the Food Network made the right move. They didn’t want their brand to be associated with Paula’s comments, and it was their place and their job to remove her to keep the brand strong. I think Paula will be just fine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/paula-deen-fired-food-network-cancels-show-after-racism-scandal_n_3480517.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/paula-deen-racist-comments-n-word-caught-on-video_n_3467287.html

#LjWhirley

Taco Bell: Real or Fake Beef?

Taco Bell was founded in 1962. Owned by Yum! Brands, Taco Bell is the sixth largest fast-food chain in the nation. The fast-food powerhouse serves more than 2 billion customers each year in more than 5,800 restaurants nationwide and in more than 30 different countries. Given the large hold Taco Bell has on the fast-food industry, the company is very often scrutinized under the public eye.

In January 2011, an Alabama law firm sued Taco Bell, accusing the nation’s 6th largest fast food chain of deceptive marketing claims, saying it’s tacos have far less beef than advertised. Claims made by the firm stated the beef had been tested and was less than 35% beef. Within 24 hours, Taco Bell’s president, Greg Creed, released a statement backing his beef and claiming the accusations were false. Firing back, the company continued to defend their product through the use of social media sources, their website, a brand new media campaign and ultimately a countersuit against Beasley-Allen law firm. Taco Bell remained defensive and transparent in every strategy they implemented with their main motivation being to reach out quickly and strategically to ensure customer trust and loyalty of their brand.

As a result of the alleged accusation and lawsuit, Taco Bell took a hit financially. Although the company did agree to being fully transparent, in an article written for CNN Money titled “Taco Bell: Thanks For Suing Us”, Aaron Smith writes, “Creed would not say whether the lawsuit has impacted sales, noting that Taco Bell’s quarterly earnings will be released next week” (Smith). However, Maureen Morrison, writing for AdAge in an article titled, “Taco Bell Counters ‘Meat Filling’ Charges in Lawsuit With Print, Web Effort,” discusses how, “Taco Bell’s brand perception dropped since the Jan. 19 filing, according to YouGov’s BrandIndex survey results. Taco Bell’s index score for adults 18 and older has fallen fast, from 25.2 to 11.7, in only one week” (Morrison).

The restaurant responded to the controversial crisis in a number of ways but probably the most effective and publicized was the national advertising campaign they launched on January 28th. This campaign, dubbed the “thank you for suing us campaign” received a notorious amount of attention. The campaign was published in full-page spreads in widely read newspapers such as The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Boston Globe and others. The text of the Ad reads “thank you for suing us,” lists the real ingredients in the questioned ground beef, describes the process in which it is prepared and takes a position of confidence and faith in the company’s product. “Taco Bell’s response is a much more public and aggressive one than fast feeders typically take” (Morrison).

Brands play a very specific role in our society. They allow our consumerist culture to find meaning in a product so they can justify their materialistic ways. Analyzing the action Taco Bell took shows us just what brands mean to us and the lengths certain companies will go to in order to protect that brand identity. When crisis erupted, Taco Bell knew that as such a large figure in the fast food industry, they needed to protect their reputation of serving good quality food at a fair price. Taco Bell took a transparent response to the situation as a way to show consumers that they could put trust in their brand and could continue to do so. Consumer’s must have a sense of brand-trust and loyalty with a product they consume to give it more of a humanistic meaning. Although Taco Bell did just this by bearing the ingredients of their products to the public and showing confidence in their brand by taking an offensive approach and filing a countersuit, they can also be criticized.

Fully knowing the company was taking a hit in the marketplace, the CEO still refused to publicly announce the company’s suffering even when asked multiple times. This without a doubt undermined the brand’s credibility. Speaking specifically to the ad campaign, I think that the brand’s super offensive approach to proving their product, filing a countersuit, etc. almost worked against Taco Bell in the sense that they felt they needed to try so hard to prove themselves. I think it was understandable that they filed a countersuit, just a good business practice. However, I think the fact that they published full-page length ads in local and national newspapers comes across as a desperate attempt to keep the brand identity they have thrived on for so long. As much as I admire the amount of action they took, I think that to an extent a bit more mild-mannered and subtle of an approach would have sufficed and would have been perceived better in the sense that they have more faith in their product.

#kelseytharnstrom

CNNMoney Article

AdAge Article

Abercrombie & Fitch

Abercrombie & Fitch is seen in every middle and high school in America. Kids associate the brand’s clothing with popularity. This is exactly what the CEO Mike Jeffries wants for the brand. This aspiration for “coolness” from the brand has sparked controversy over teenaged girls particularly and the way they “should” look. The cultural representation of beauty is challenged by the public’s reaction to the brand’s portrayal.

Mike Jeffries’ had a quote from a 2006 interview reemerge this year that upset the internet world. He said “we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other than that” to Salan. Also stating they market to cool kids and “A lot of people don't belong (in our clothes) and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely." This was interpreted as meaning girls that are not thin are not considered beautiful. This caused an uproar leading to celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres and Kristie Ally to remark about the brand’s lack of intelligence about the issue. Abercrombie responded but what they did is widely regarded as too little too late. In a statement Jeffries stated “I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has caused offense” and the statement goes on to say they have a target market of thin popular teenagers but they are committed to inclusion and diversity (Forbes). In a press release Abercrombie says they are participating in anti-bullying activity by introducing graphic tees to raise awareness of bullying prevention as well as a college scholarships for people who “academically persevered while experiencing bullying.” These seen like weak attempts to strengthen brand image (Abercrombie.com). Besides statements to the public apologizing and stressing the brand’s strives towards diversity, there was one public response Abercrombie & Fitch listened to. The fact that Abercrombie did not carry sizes higher than large or pants size 10 was brought up and angered people. A campaign on the site Change.org was made to get Abercrombie to carry larger sizes. On November 6th Abercrombie announced that they will offer larger sizes in their spring clothes.

Abercrombie responded to criticism of beauty meaning skinny to them by including larger sizes in our store but did not change their marketing. They have not yet advertised the larger sizes and will most likely continue their campaigns featuring sexual images of teenagers with what they deem as ideal (skinny) bodies wearing their clothes. The question remains that if the larger sizes will help the brand and if so is it in a detrimental way to teenaged girls self esteem. Girls who could not fit into Abercrombie clothes before now can, but these clothes represent the desire to be popular. If people buy they clothes that are marketed to shinny thin girls they are buying into the brand philosophy, that was not changed for better by this controversy. This controversy certainly challenged Abercrombie & Fitch’s beautiful and thin brand philosophy but the way they responded by saying they do include all and just started selling slightly larger sizes without publicizing that greatly, shows that Abercombie did not change their brand to include more people, but kept their thin definition of beauty adding some statements and sizes to please complaints.

#KathleenRay

Allstate Controversy

Allstate Insurance has been running the Mayhem campaign for over three years now and has been able to avoid any major controversy. However, one of their very first ads did strike up a bit of concern over the abuse of overused stereotypes. The ad featured Mayhem portraying a female teenage driver talking on the phone, chatty as ever, and then crashing her car into other vehicles in the parking lot. Feminist were not at all pleased with the use of what they saw as an insulting and overworked stereotype. An article from Jezebel discussed the issue of using stereotypes in ads, particularly in this Allstate commercial. The article says that this type of stereotyping is generally seen as what they refer to as a ‘safety school.’ Writer Joe Dellosa continues on to say, “…a company as benign as Allstate, selling a product as insipid as car insurance, feels comfortable taking cheap shots at young women in a national ad campaign suggests a normalization of sexism that is noteworthy.” The issue doesn’t lie in whether or not the stereotypes are true, but that they are used so comfortably. An article from Adweek looks at the way stereotypes have been used over and over again in ads all through the years, starting with the idea of the suburban stay at home mom. The president and global managing director at Starcom Media Vest Group, Sarah Kramer is quoted in the article saying, “Too often, marketers will generalize when they could have been more personal, more engaging.” This is pretty much the point the Dellosa article is making. Sure the Mayhem commercial is funny and meant to be harmless but how long can these stereotypes be played upon before they become offensive and lose their affect completely, and should consumers stand by and let them be used? An Allstate spokesperson, Raleigh Floyd, responded to the controversy of the ad saying, “I know that, for the majority for the campaign as a whole, the goal was to portray scenarios that the viewing public would recognize… And to some extent that would rely on some stereotypes, perhaps, or else how else do they recognize them?" Of course it makes sense to show people things they can relate to as a way of selling a product, but isn’t there a way to make it more genuine?

Allstate never really responded to the complaints filed by consumers other than to justify their use of the stereotype as a way to sell their product. The commercial continued to run and people continued to laugh just the same. Even if the company didn’t take people’s distain towards the ad too seriously, they did acknowledge the complaints. Hopefully in the future, we will see less of a dependence on stereotypes in advertising as a whole. It seems unavoidable seeing as people can only respond positively to something for so long before it gets old and worn out. Personally, I see that as being the only way to really do away with the use of type-casting and stereotyping in all branches of consumerism.

#BrookeVondra

The 60 Minutes report on e-waste.

#corybarker

TOMS Consumer Activism

http://www.toms.com/evolving-our-giving/l

Toms is a great example of social activism. Their famous "One for One" campaign gives a pair of shoes to a child in a impoverished country for every purchase of shoes made.

#Scott Fenton

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Advertising & Consumer Culture