The advertising industry, as a whole, has a hard time gaining and maintaining a reputation of being socially responsible.  One way to combat this issue is to make it a priority to go beyond what is asked of you in order to find a more responsible result.  Is the inclusion of one group of consumers and the exclusion of another considered socially responsible, or is this issue simply up to the consumer to decide?  The new Dr Pepper Ten campaign that recently rolled out serves as an excellent example of how this issue could be viewed from multiple perspectives.

Dr Pepper Ten, a reduced-calorie soda, has recently produced a national ad campaign specifically targeting men.  This campaign does so bluntly, proudly, and unapologetically through the use of the tagline “Not for Women.”  Dr Pepper Ten was developed after the Dr Pepper Snapple Group found that men desired a low calorie soda that was more manly appearing that that of current diet sodas.  It was this finding which prompted them to target their advertising explicitly at the male population.  However, the question still exists…is this considered socially responsible?

Not only to the print advertisements read “Not for Women,” but the commercials, as well as the Dr Pepper Ten facebook page unambiguously leave out women as well.  The commercials depict muscled men running through the jungle in a combat-like setting, all the while saying, “Hey ladies, enjoying the film?  Course not.  Because this is out movie, and Dr Pepper Ten is our soda.  It’s only ten manly calories, but with all 23 flavors of Dr. Pepper.  It’s what guys want…so you can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks, we’re good.”  Their facebook page has a list of the “Ten Man’ments” describing the “definitive guide to social protocol for men.”  Some of these include: “Thou shalt not OMG. If it’s not exploding, its not exciting,” and “Thou shalt not pucker up. Kissy faces are never manly.”  This campaign will also include a mobile “Man Cave” that will travel across the major markets, as well as “testosterone zones” where men will be able to watch TV and play video games at sporting events and car shows.  Did Dr Pepper need to go this far to target the male population?  Does simply targeting men actually make it a “manly” drink?

Dr Pepper TEN

Unfortunately, these are the types of advertisements that bring up the issue of what is actually considered socially responsible in the advertising industry.  This ad campaign automatically raised the question of social responsibility in the industry from news outlets all over the place.  These instances are the ones, which need to be kept in mind when determining the effectiveness of targeting certain groups of people in advertisements.  Many of the advertisements like the one above would reach the same conclusion without excluding significant portions of the population.  Consumer behavior and persuasion theories are all about providing the most relevant information to the most relevant groups of people, however this can be done just as easily in a more socially responsible way.  It is important to keep in mind the personality characteristics of individuals when creating ad campaigns.  Specifically, Dr Pepper must realize how gender and sexual orientation affect consumer behavior.  It is increasingly difficult to simply advertise to just men, or just women as many men may exhibit feminine qualities as well as women exhibiting masculine qualities.  With this being said, both men and women could ultimately take offense to this advertisement.  Men may find it an overt stereotype, while many women may find it extremely sexist.  Dave Fleming, Director of Marketing at Dr Pepper says that they are not out to alienate women, but isn’t that exactly what they are doing?  With a company as popular as Dr Pepper, don’t you think they should make more of an effort to product more socially responsibly ad campaigns?

This advertisement is just one example of an issue that faces the advertising industry on an everyday basis.  There are too many different types of individuals in our consumer culture today to simply exclude a group of consumers who have just as much buying power as those who are targeted.  If this trend continues, the advertisements may start getting much more offensive than what we are seeing today.  Is excluding a specific group of individuals socially responsible.  It doesn’t seem so.

http://adage.com/article/news/dr-pepper-10-avoid-marketing-missteps-pepsi-coke/148983/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/10/dr-pepper-ten-its-not-for-women-macho-marketing-campaign-says/

Ad Week recently reported that in response to pressure the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children is considering making changes to their proposed voluntary guidelines for food marketers targeting children. The controversy over the regulation is indicative of our increasing concern as a society over both childhood obesity and the effect advertising might have on that problem. In a nutshell, the plan proposed that marketers either change the formulation of certain products aimed at children to make the foods more healthy or cease marketing those products to children. While the proposal has a number of Senate Democrat supporters, it has generated strong criticism for being too heavy-handed (despite being completely voluntary) from both the advertising industry and GOP congressmen. While the goal of reducing childhood obesity is laudable, those in favor of increased regulation of advertising need to realize that, in this case, regulation of advertising may not achieve the desired effect.

At first glance it may seem like regulation is the way to go. While children aren’t making most of the final purchase decisions, they do play a strong role in influencing their parents’ decisions which is part of the rationale for marketing to children. Yet because children aren’t fully developed mentally, they may be more prone to impulsive behavior and less capable of making rational decisions, making them more likely to be misled by advertising. As childhood obesity is now widely recognized as a major social problem it therefore might seem like a no-brainer to push the kind of regulation the Interagency Working Group is proposing.

However in this case regulating marketing efforts may not be the best way to go about achieving the ultimate goal of promoting healthy eating during childhood. Faced with the prospect of the stick rather than the carrot, advertisers may simply find ways around the regulation while technically remaining in compliance. In fact this might already be happening to some extent. An earlier piece by Ad Week mentions a report by the Rudd Center noting that while advertisements for junk-food aimed at children are down, children’s exposure to junk-food product placement is up.

For their part, advertisers need to realize that concern over childhood obesity and worries that marketing efforts are exacerbating the problem aren’t going away. Rather than continually taking defensive action against this kind of regulation they need to consider the benefits of developing and advertising healthy products that kids actually like. Easier said than done, but considering the influence children have on family purchases how much easier would it be to increase sales if the foods they wanted didn’t cause parents concern?

Ad Week: Feds May Soften Controversial Food Marketing Guidelines

Ad Week: Study: Industry’s Found Sneaky Way to Keep Advertising Junk Food to Kids

Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children’s Guidelines

Advertising for a cause in tangent with a product is all the rage these days in the industry.  When done tastefully, cause-advertising can really be an altruistic gesture and a way for a company to give back.  Unfortunately, all too often it seems as though these philanthropic tendencies are supported by ulterior motives, mostly dealing with a company’s bottom line.  Consumers today will get on board with almost anything that seems like a worthy cause.  It’s trendy to be tolerant, chic to be charitable.  But how far are some companies willing to go to make the public believe that they are in support of the various causes of today’s society?

In a recent article on Advertising Age, KFC takes heat for joining forces with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation in an effort to raise money and awareness for breast cancer research.  For every pink bucket ordered, KFC pledged 50 cents to Komen.  While this certainly seems like a philanthropic cause, it raises a few questions.

For one, it’s hard to understand the correlation between breast cancer awareness and a bucket of fried chicken.  KFC probably could have found a more relevant way to show support for a cause.  That aside, it is difficult to understand who exactly KFC is trying to target with this campaign.  Instead of advertising with the intention of being perceived as a restaurant chain that offers delicious crispy fried chicken, KFC is attempting to be branded as a cause worthy, charitable corporation.  In reality they should probably stick with that they’re best known for and not try so hard to fit in with the multitude of other corporations aligning themselves with the next popular movement.

The FTC had bigger problems with KFC’s campaign.  The article cites (then) Federal Trade Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour:

‘KFC … is fully aware of our nation’s struggle with obesity, yet has cynically attempted to exploit a massive health problem through deceptive advertising. Companies should not be allowed to benefit monetarily from this kind of deception, especially where the health and safety of consumers are compromised.’

KFC broke a golden rule: When advertising for one cause, make sure you aren’t simultaneously undercutting another one.  It seems obvious, especially since “fried” is in the name.  The article begs the question, why does KFC feel the need to be perceived as a company filled with philanthropic ideals and healthy attitudes?  The whole campaign seems like an oxymoron, and completely incompatible with the fact that fried chicken is a guilty pleasure, not a fight against cancer.  This incongruity makes KFC’s efforts seem transparent and their motives questionable.  Regardless of whether or not KCF was trying to advertise responsibly, the campaign was interpreted as simply another means for KFC to make a profit off of charitable consumers.  Consumers can be manipulated by advertising messages; they form inferences and interpretations based on marketing elements, a concept called subjective comprehension.  KFC’s campaign seems more like an attempt to twist their image into something that will be misinterpreted by consumers as “good for them,” rather than a genuine concern for breast cancer awareness.  This misuse of cause advertising is irresponsible and a poor reflection of the industry.

KFC can’t be blamed for the fact that they sell an unhealthy product.  Tons of companies sell products that are bad for people.  However, if KFC is going to continue to advertise through causes they would be wise to do so more tactfully, and more virtuously.  Since they are a company that sells food, perhaps they should look into joining the cause against hunger.  While they might take some criticism for the obesity epidemic sweeping our nation, at least they could make a case about the relevancy of their contributions.  Ultimately, they could argue that they do have a genuine interest in the fight against hunger, as opposed to the seemingly irrelevant breast cancer awareness campaign, and in a less blatant way than trying to make people feel good about themselves for getting overweight.

Article:  http://adage.com/article?article_id=144143

Social media is truly the wild, wild, west of the advertising industry.

This is especially true when deciding how to regulate information as it is disseminated throughout social media channels. The regulatory bodies are struggling to police an overwhelming amount of new content (the internet) while staying current by creating and enforcing applicable regulations.

One example of regulation in the new medium comes from the Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications. The FDA was able to find and reprimand a pharmaceutical company based on its use of social media.

The company, Novartis, was providing information through a Facebook sharing widget on the company’s US consumer website. The widget is simply a clickable button (Pictured below) that will allow consumers to share the Novartis generated content with everyone in their Facebook and Twitter networks.

The content would be shared without the normal regulations placed on pharmaceutical companies such as conveying risks, directing them to more information or possible side effects.

In a letter sent to Novartis, the FDA stated that the shared content is deceptive because it “makes representations about the efficacy of Tasigna but fails to communicate ANY risk information associated with the use of this drug”. Tasigna is a drug that treats chronic myloid leukemia and the FDA realized that the risk to consumers was substantial.In this case, the FDA was fortunate to catch the unintentional deceptive practices but the era of relying on regulators to help weed-out misleading messages is over.

Social media has many murky areas for advertisers, including marketing of alcohol.  In the past, manufacturers have required everyone to enter their birth date when entering their private website while Facebook and Twitter don’t require a minimum age to access content. The general rule in television advertising is that the general audience for the ad should not have more than 30% of the audience under 21. With social media, curious consumers of any age can access pictures of adults at various stages of intoxication, read comments advocating the use of alcohol, see promotions, and play games directly on the libation manufacturer’s page.

The Federal Trade Commission and consumer watchdog groups are doing their best to monitor alcohol-related content, but are having little success because of the overwhelming number of outlets.

So where does the responsibility fall?

The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the institution of advertising, now more than ever. Advertisers and other message builders must step-up and take responsibility to police their own actions and realize the impact that the institution has on society. Not only does the institution of Advertising reflect societal and cultural beliefs, it also models ‘rules’ of behavior. If agencies continue to use misleading practices and model negative behavior they could change the normative values of society.

These ideas are especially important when addressing the issue of social media because the enormous volume of messages shared daily can never be monitored comprehensively. So with the shift of power from the few traditional gatekeepers to the general public, the institution of advertising must mirror this move and take on more responsibility.

In the fast evolving and quickly changing landscape of social media, the responsibility must shift toward individual agencies to produce work that is beyond the obligation to the client by serving the good of society.

Public Service Announcements. We have been seeing them for decades and many of them have famously educated us on important information about safety, health and societal concerns: if you lock your doors at night you’ll take a bite out of crime; Mr. Yuck means poison; by ten o’clock at night you should know where your children are; this is your brain on drugs… and it’s fried.

However, a new trend seems to be emerging in the PSA genre. Gone are the days of Smokey-the-Bear-type “safety mascots” and crying Native Americans on the side of littered highways. Instead, these somewhat conscientious and prudent methods of distributing information to the public seem to be taking a backseat to more realistic, graphic, no holds barred approaches. The previous appeal to subtlety and implied undesirable consequences has dissipated. And now, more than ever, it has become acceptable to portray violent behavior and physical trauma as a suitable means to drive home a point.

As one might expect, some of these more gritty Public Service Announcements have garnered media attention for their arguably flagrant use of violence. One such television spot that made waves in the social media community and graced the headlines of CNN, FOX News and TODAY was a PSA released in 2009 titled “COW – The Film That Will Stop You Texting and Driving.” Produced by the police department of Gwent, Wales, the short film realistically depicts an intense traffic collision, graphic injury to children, and death.  Yet another was a PSA for Women’s Aid called “Cut Movie” where actress Keira Knightly was shown being brutally beaten to spread awareness of domestic violence against women.  (The PSAs can be viewed through these links. WARNING: graphic images of violence and abuse. Please view at your own discretion.

So, herein lies the problem. Is it ethical feed into the media machine of realistic violence on television just to reach the public? Have the values and behaviors of society been altered to the point where a PSA requires tragedy and gore to obtain the attention necessary to educate? Or is it just easy?

Despite the appearance that shocking images and scare tactics are the new standard for disseminating public awareness, a PSA released by the Sussex Safer Road Partnership in early 2010 has done much to combat that notion. The announcement, titled “Embrace Life” tackles the serious issue of seatbelt safety. Interestingly enough, though, the ad is not filmed in a car, but rather at a child-sized table and chair in a living room. This setting gives the spot elements of whimsy and abstraction, but when the message is delivered, it is received powerfully and clearly.

The “Embrace Life” campaign assumes a component of responsibility lacking in the aforementioned graphic ads. It does not alienate a part of the market by being potentially disturbing for children to view, or too intense for people who abhor violence. Nor does it make the viewer want to tune out, which researcher are discovering is happening in ads using scare tactics. Recent studies suggest violent PSA are not effective and even counterproductive because they cause some viewers to take on feelings of defensiveness instead of receptiveness. While other ads are throwing physical pain, personal anguish and damnation in the face of the viewer, the “Embrace Life” PSA influences the greater public by suggesting that loved-ones care. They want you to be safe and will suffer if you are gone, which is much more impactful and positively received.

Overall, it is refreshing to know that responsible advertising can still carry some clout in regards to information dissemination. And, with this emerging information about the potential damage and ineffectiveness of fear-centric “shockvertising,” it is a wonder if advertisers will regress and pursue a different, more appropriate creative avenue. Or will they continue their current path of trauma as means of reinforcement because society claims it’s necessary in order to make a lasting impression? All I know is, we’ve come a long way from Vince and Larry the crash test dummies, folks.

Why are we as consumers continuously trying to dodge advertising? The answer is both complex and yet quite simple.

As a consumer driven culture we are inundated with ads through various types of media every second of every day. From television and magazines to Internet and buses, we are never without the influence of some form of advertisement. Even those aspiring to build a career in the advertising field do not want to see ads–thus the genius behind such technological advances as DVR and Tivo–and yet, advertising drives consumerism just as much as it depends upon it. At the heart of this infinite cycle is trust, and the ability to distinguish the responsible from the irresponsible while wading through the ad clutter.

As a consumer, we directly and indirectly live by a value system where trust is the leading act (hard to successfully get and keep). In a culture so bedecked with various media and ads, which should the consumer trust? According to Judy Shapiro, this idea of trust correlates with decreasing integrity in media as a result of too many options and undefined roles of “credible journalists, entertaining bloggers, and self-proclaimed experts.” Who is deemed credible, and how does the consumer know if the ad or advertiser is credible?

This is where advertising and its responsibility to the consumer play a part. Advertising today has evolved from simply selling a product to selling a brand, lifestyle, and most importantly, a relationship.

They always say that the key to a good and healthy relationship in life is trust, why can’t this be true for all aspects of life? Today, consumers build and break and rebuild relationships without blinking an eye. How do advertisers get to the consumer through all other competition and ignored ads? Advertisers must successfully sell the brand image and wanted lifestyle in order for the consumer to buy the relationship. In this culture, consumers buy an identity or a symbol not a product. The black hole here, however, is that the consumer must first form a relationship to a product, which begins with advertising.

Consumers do not trust advertising because it has lost its credibility due to the volume of ads consumers are exposed to daily. Not only does the amount of advertising defer us, but also by human nature we tend not to trust. This can be attributed to our cultural foundation based on classical liberal beliefs not to trust centralized government or big businesses. Again and again, this notion has been proven through such overbearing players as the once powerful tobacco industry that used ulterior motives, morally ambiguous marketing tactics, and capitol based get-out-of-jail-free cards to enhance profit. Instead, consumers listen to other consumers through word of mouth because it is based on experience and direct human interaction, not advertising.

article resource

photo resource

Low-involvement, consumer goods brands face the challenge of differentiating themselves in product categories that are sufficiently saturated with very similar products, such as the beer industry. Dos Equis, in 2007, launched an advertising campaign centered on a fictional character, The Most Interesting Man in the World, whom they portrayed in television advertisements accomplishing outlandish feats and seeking adventures around the world. This ad campaign plays on the trickle-down effect as Dos Equis seems to assume that consumers of lower economic classes than the Most Interesting Man in the World will seek to emulate his behavior, and in this case, drink Dos Equis beer. Generally speaking, American consumers strive to better themselves economically by working hard enough so that they may achieve financial success. Thus, those in the elite are admired for their success, or envied for their inherited wealth; either way, those in the middle or lower classes tend to look up to the elite, and try to imitate their behavior. So, Dos Equis is using this wealthy and adventurous character to persuade consumers that although they aren’t as interesting as he is, they can be one step closer to being The Most Interesting Man in the World by drinking Dos Equis beer. The brand positions its beer as an affordable luxury; while the Most Interesting Man in the World enjoys the finer things in life like exotic vacations, he also drinks Dos Equis. If the average Joe can buy a six-pack of Dos Equis for $7.99 (at your nearest BevMo) and feel like the Most Interesting Man in the World while drinking one, why wouldn’t he?

Dos Equis, in creating such a worldly and accomplished man to recommend their beer, also takes advantage of the fact that consumers value the opinions of those whom they perceive as experienced. His age, estimated in the fifties or sixties, also adds to this image of a knowledgeable man. By incorporating characteristics that consumers value into the character of The Most Interesting Man, Dos Equis makes his recommendation of drinking their beer very persuasive.

At the same time, they use humor by going to such great lengths to portray him as “interesting” with absurd traits or hobbies that the viewer cannot help but laugh. These commercials entertain, and some viewers even look forward to seeing a new one, to see what his next ridiculous talent will be.

The institution of advertising as a whole is expected to be socially responsible by informing the consumer, rather than manipulating the consumer into buying products they don’t actually need. Alcohol advertising is held to even greater accountability with regards to sensitive social issues like drinking and driving and underage drinking. Though these topics are never directly addressed in these commercials, one could argue that Dos Equis is being socially responsible in the way that it frames the act of drinking beer: a leisurely activity which adults (twenty-one or older) engage in occasionally after a long day of work, or in the case of The Most Interesting Man in the World, worldly activities. The Most Interesting Man is not shown guzzling multiple Dos Equis before “curing narcolepsy” or while chest-pressing two women in chairs; rather, when the mood strikes for a refreshing bottle of beer, after a day of exotic adventures, the Most Interesting Man reaches for a Dos Equis. His now infamous tag line “I don’t always drink beer. But when I do, I prefer Dos Equis,” clearly does not encourage binge drinking or other socially irresponsible activities involving beer. This almost serves as a reminder to the consumer that excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages is very rarely perceived as a classy act. A Dos Equis, as portrayed in the commercials, serves as a final note to the day, not a start of a rowdy night.

There are opponents to this campaign, some of whom argue that the commercials are not believable, specifically in the fact that a wealthy man like the Most Interesting Man in the World would drink a Dos Equis. He is portrayed as a man who can afford many luxuries, so the question some critics ask is why would he settle for a Dos Equis? This all depends on taste, for these critics clearly do not like the taste of Dos Equis, so cannot buy into the idea that such a worldly and rich man would enjoy this specific beer. Others question why an older man was used as the main character of beer commercials, which are generally targeting college-age young men.

However, most consumers enjoy the entertainment aspect of these commercials, and those of age to consume alcohol might say, “If the Most Interesting Man in the World drinks Dos Equis, why wouldn’t I?” Class is the ultimate persuader in this ad campaign, as Dos Equis creates this character of the Most Interesting Man in the World who possesses both money and worldly knowledge. This has such an impact on the consumer because these are two qualities which most Americans strive to accumulate a wealth of over the course of their lifetimes. The commercials thus position The Most Interesting Man in the World as someone who most consumers will respect and therefore value the opinion of. The sarcastic nature of the ads simply adds to the positive associations consumers will create in their minds toward Dos Equis beer for although we strive for perfection, we do so knowing that perfection is impossible. So by making the accomplishments of The Most Interesting Man in the World so wildly impossible to believe, Dos Equis takes advantage of this tension within consumers of craving perfection while knowing it cannot be achieved. This ad campaign influences consumers to consider Dos Equis when purchasing beer, and influences the beer industry in creating an ad campaign that stands out from the rest in using such a classy and respectable character to persuade consumers.

This campaign could influence the greater society in the interpretation of The Most Interesting Man in the World’s sign-off “Stay thirsty, my friends.” This could have multiple implications, but the most plausible would be that it encourages consumers to “stay thirsty,” keep drinking, Dos Equis beer. This affects society in its promotion of alcohol consumption, and the side-effects or fatal accidents which occur when consumers do not drink responsibly, but is a relatively moderate statement due to its abstract or vague nature and the many different possible interpretations one could make of it. However, in conjunction with all other advertisements for beer, this could lead to an all too positive perception of beer by consumers; while beer is not a harmful substance by any means, irresponsible consumption thereof has caused an obscene amount of injuries and fatalities. This explains why alcohol advertising in general is a very tricky business in walking the line between promoting its products as superior to competitors while not condoning irresponsible behavior, which both public and private institutions make sure to monitor.

A compilation of the Most Interesting Man in the World commercials:

Link to YouTube

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/how-to-advertise-on-your-blog-without-completely-selling-out.html

Since this is a blog dedicated to the pursuit of responsible advertising, I found this article very interesting. While very opinionated, it gives bloggers good guidelines for adding advertising to their blogs, while limiting the intrusiveness of the ads. It also helps bloggers to decide where to post ads, offering ideas such as not advertising on new content to reward frequent readers, and perhaps delaying advertising on content until it has aged a bit.

I saw this Quiznos ad on TV earlier in 2009 and just didn’t find the humor in it at all. It seems to be making some kind of homosexual joke and maybe that’s the intention, but its a little too risque and what really bothers me is that its for a sandwich. This ad makes a torpedo look and sound incredibly unappetizing. I really don’t know who Quiznos thought would think this is funny or persuasive but it has had more of a polarizing effect on me.

I love my favorite radio station, KLTY 94.9, because of the positive music and the positive messages. It touts itself as “Safe for the Whole Family” and it is… Then why my beef? Negative political ads are infringing on my time with God.

On my drive to work this morning, I was confronted with all of the terrible thingsSenator Kay Bailey Hutchison has done in Washington. Was it investigative reporting? No, an ad by the campaign to re-elect our current Texas governor Rick Perry.

On a station that promotes such positivity in all aspects of the way it conducts business, does it have a policy about negative political ads? Does the parent company Salem Communications? Wouldn’t the world be a better place if media outlets could refuse such ads and force the politicians to promote their own positive agendas instead of just focusing on the negative aspects of their rivals. Is this censorship or a higher calling?

Gov Perry and Sen. Hutichison…Please focus on what YOU can do for Texas as you have in other positive ads!