Archive for Family Values
With the “Gifts That Do: What Will Your Gift Do?” Campaign, Best Buy proves that ads do not need to be cause related to promote positive change.
In a series of 30 second spots, Best Buy demonstrates how family members can inspire and motivate loved ones to pursue dreams, business and even love through the gift of technology.
The campaign integrated true representations of traditional families of all genders, races and generations to exemplify that anyone has the ability to change lives with the gift of technology.
Best Buy also built a relationship with viewers by stating, “Let us show you how the right gift can make all the difference”, implying a hands-on and personalized in-store experience. They want to help you make a difference in someone’s life. They want to make your purchase matter.
This campaign is an example to the industry that although we, as an industry, are selling products & services, we can make those products & services create a real difference. By simply encouraging consumers of all races, genders and ages to make a difference, the industry itself can make a difference. This socially responsible theme can be seen across all of Best Buy’s campaigns this year.
Capitalism has now become a cycle of consuming for consuming sake. By means of Cultivation Theory, if all campaigns found a way to create a sense of “making a difference” in some form (cause related or not), then perhaps the idea of consuming could be altered into consuming in the best interests of the whole.
By using an emotional appeal, Best Buy brought a sense of warmth, belonging, and inspiration to their campaign. They created aspirational characters that used technology to generate positive results. They cultivated a relationship with viewers by addressing that they want to help you make a difference in someone’s life. Best Buy is changing their industry and influencing ours by nurturing the idea of “making a difference”.
We all saw the ad: Tiger Woods stares stoically and misty eyed into the camera in his usual Nike apparel. The voice of Earl Woods, Tiger’s late father, questions him about his infamous adulterous escapades. “Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion,” Earl Woods says. “I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. Did you learn anything?”
Talk about powerful advertising. Nike is a company that sells sports gear, but this commercial is proof of just how far advertisers in our culture have come from simply selling products. For years, Tiger Woods has been the face of Nike, establishing a fiscally beneficial situation for both parties, who grew into a kind of comfortable codependence. Tiger was able to finance his yacht (or whatever it is celebrity billionaires do with the cash from their endorsements) and Nike was able to capitalize on an athlete whose talent on the golf course was matched only by his squeaky clean image. Tiger was a marketer’s dream, and Nike amassed the revenue to prove it.
Nike sold Tiger’s image just as much as his short game and swoosh-embossed polos; he was a family man to be revered for his unwavering morals. In the face of the past and present multitude of adulterous athletes who still received millions in product endorsements after their transgressions (think Kobe Bryant), Tiger Woods was a wholesome breath of fresh air. As a company, endorsing Tiger Woods meant representing his personal life, which at the time, was all about the values of our country. Or so it appeared.
Did consumers buy Nike products partially because they believed that Nike was a company with a similar set of values to their own? I’m guessing the marketers at Nike have heard of value segmentation, and targeting consumers who placed high value on family or who admired Tiger Woods for both his professional career and admirable personal life wasn’t a coincidence. Tiger Woods was a figure whose life was consistent with Nike consumers’ values, or so it seemed. When the Tiger scandal hit the media, the endorsers who had made him the most highly paid athlete in the world were faced with the big decision: damage control or exit stage right.
Several of Tiger’s endorsers did in fact choose to bow out, deeming his reputation irreparably damaged. But not Nike. Nike’s response to the scandal was this commercial, which in one thirty second spot repositioned Tiger as a living commentary on our society’s changing values. Instead of marking him with a letter “A” and writing him off as another professional athlete turned modern day Hester Prynn, Nike did what they do best: emblazoned their famous logo on their fallen spokesman and used the media to cleverly redefine him as a man who needed his father to help him through a difficult time in his life. Nike battled the public’s critique of Tiger’s tainted family values with the ultimate trump card- more family values. The only way Nike could continue to endorse Tiger, who at that point was so ingrained in the culture of their brand image and company that dropping him would mean redirecting efforts towards an enormous and risky counter-campaign, was to fight fire with fire.
The question remains: did Nike make the right choice? Was this commercial just about the money, and saving face? Or does it speak to our culture’s values at large? In spite of his egregious transgressions, Nike supports Tiger Woods. Advertising as an industry now carries a lot of social responsibility that it never did before, possibly because agencies now brand their image with meaning beyond simply functions of the product they’re selling. No matter what, Nike’s decision was going to make a statement, and the impact of the decision and the ad are unmistakable. Instead of changing their spokesman to an athlete who was a better representation of their values, Nike changed their values, and attempted to change ours as well. Did we fall for it? Like I said: talk about powerful advertising.
I’ve been seeing a lot of Stouffer’s ads for their new campaign “Let’s Fix Dinner.” Let’s fix dinner has a double meaning, you could see it as let’s cook dinner or fix dinner as in let’s change it for the better. Stouffer’s ads encourage families to have dinners at the table more often. In the spot Stouffer’s say that there a number of statistics that prove that having family dinner can keep kids off drugs, keep girls from developing eating disorders, and improve family relationships. I didn’t believe these claims at first until I visited the website and there are actually some pretty good claims, such as “teens that have family dinners at least 5 times a week are 45% less likely to drink and 66% less likely to do drugs.” If this is actually true, its a pretty good idea to base a campaign around. Eating dinner as a family does increase family relationships, and I think it is great and appropriate for Stouffer’s to advocate bringing families back to the table.
Family values are a central part of the traditional American life. The traditional family presented in images and media consists of a stay-at-home mom, a working dad, and their children. Today’s modern families, however, don’t necessarily fit this mold. Modern families may consists of dual career parents, single parent, same sex parent families, or families with no children at all.
With a variety of modern family types, some Americans believe the traditional family values of love, security, and nurturing are losing their importance in modern culture. How can advertising help to promote these family values? Through messages that emphasize family over work, family teamwork, and spending time together as a family, no matter what your family may look like.
Dual-career families are more prevalent than ever in modern society. Families with two incomes tend to have higher discretionary spending and less traditional household decision roles. But most importantly, dual-career families can suffer from role overload, meaning parents may have less time because they juggle a career and family.
This TV spot for MassMutual depicts a workaholic father who faces a difficult decision between work and family:
The father, who has a great office with a fantastic view, chooses to move his office to home to spend more time with his daughter. The commercial asks the consumer, “What is the sign of a good decision?” The spot clearly supports spending time with family as a good decision. This classic debate over work and family has been featured many times in popular media, including movies like Click with Adam Sandler.
This TV spot for Stouffer’s uses family values like teamwork, spending time together, and creating memories to promote their dinner entrees:
The copy states: “Tonight’s dinner specials: teamwork, time together, real conversations, and memories. All for under $2 a serving.” Stouffer’s attempts to position their dinners as a way for families to connect and spend time together.
MassMutual and Stouffer’s are just two examples of brands using family values in advertising messages. These brands recognize the diversity of modern families and a problem that many families face: choosing between work and time with family.
Family values are not uncommon in advertisements today, especially within household product categories. It takes consumers like us to identify the positive messages and family values in advertising today and to realize the socially responsible implications of these messages.
What examples of family values have you seen in advertisements lately?