Archive for Family Values
Chipotle is Going Back to the Start: Marketing with Integrity
Posted by: | CommentsIn a day and age where fast food is made up of ingredients many of us are oblivious to, it is refreshing to see a company stand out from the rest and base their entire marketing mantra on a concept unfamiliar to many people in this fast paced, “I want it now” society we live in. The idea of “Going Back to the Start” is the face of Chipotle’s new viral marketing campaign aimed at informing consumers that there is such a thing as “food with integrity,” which is simply natural, family-grown or raised, and ultimately socially responsible.
An article by the Chicago Tribune discusses Chipotle’s recently released video featuring Willie Nelson’s rendition of Coldplay’s popular song, “The Scientist,” which depicts a small town farmer shifting away from his traditional farming roots and adopting an industrialized and unnatural method of cultivating his livestock. Eventually, the farmer realizes his original way of farming was far superior and decides to do the environmentally responsibly thing and “go back to the start.” Chipotle does an excellent job in getting people to think about the serious issue, while promoting its brand in the meantime.
The advertisement, which is intended to create somewhat of an emotional reaction to people viewing the harmful effects that industrialized farming brings with it, creates a sense of sadness and empathy for the farmer. It really gets people thinking about the differences between Chipotle as a fast food chain, as opposed to say, your typical McDonalds ad.
Sustainable farming, which Chipotle bases their entire positioning off of, “uses techniques such as crop rotation, soil conservation, natural fertilization and polyculture planting. In livestock production, they use pasture-based systems, feed animals what their bodies are designed to digest, and treat their animals humanely. Sustainable farms produce foods that are tastier and more nutritious than foods produced on factory farms, while also preserving the long-term health of our environment.”
Simply said, this is responsibility at its finest, despite the negative stereotypes that many fast food restaurants must battle. Chipotle seizes that opportunity in the marketplace to finally provide a fast food experience that defies the typical processed and unnatural methods of creating food and opts for an experience that provides healthy, fresh, locally grown, and socially responsible options. By raising awareness about what responsible farming is, they are fostering a need for healthy and naturally raised food that many people were unaware they had.
As many people are trying to do their part in going green and helping the environment in any little way, Chipotle has made the responsible choice. The powerful “Going Back to the Start” video sets the agenda that people should be concerned about where their food comes from originally. But, while many people may view this as just a healthy food option, when going to the roots of what Chipotle is really doing, they are keeping small family farmers in business and helping the economy along the way.
Many people may think, however, why haven’t I seen these advertisements? Chipotle is again set apart from the rest, they choose not to engage in heavy television or radio advertising, but instead to stick to simple movie-theater ad placements, word of mouth, and public event sponsoring to raise awareness of their brand’s positioning as an environmentally responsible company. These ads create a positive impact on those who view them, while informing and motivating consumers to learn more. Chipotle also discusses their farming methods and responsibility in using sustainable farming techniques all over their website in order to raise awareness about the importance of such a trend.
This popular concept of going-green, being environmentally responsible, and incorporating organically grown food helps Chipotle to solidify their standing as a company that truly cares about the implications of their actions. Their growing popularity and extreme success in the business world teaches other companies in the fast food industry that caring about the long-term effects of your business’ actions will carry with it many positive benefits.
In the case of Chipotle, this is truly marketing with integrity.
Chicago Tribune Original Article
Chipotle’s Webpage: Food With Integrity
Sustainable Table: The Daunting Techniques of Factory Farming
Controversy Over Proposed Food Marketing Guidelines
Posted by: | Comments
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
The Enterprise Way
Posted by: | CommentsEnterprise Rent-A-Car. When you hear this name what is the first thing that comes to mind? Perhaps it is a picture of a wrapped car and the slogan “We’ll pick you up.” This could be because Enterprise has had the same advertising campaign for over two decades.
Earlier this year, the company announced a brand new advertising campaign that will be focused around TV commercials and social media. The campaign emphasizes the brand’s main philosophy, “Take care of your customers and your employees first, and the profits will follow.” Founded by Jack Taylor, and currently owned by family members of Mr. Taylor, Enterprise is a company that deeply cares about its customers.
“The Enterprise Way” created by St. Louis based Cannonball Advertising focuses on the most important values of the company. “The Enterprise Way” campaign uses current employees to tell the story. Each employee expresses how they feel about the brand’s customer service, heritage, and culture.
Along with TV spots, the campaign is also relying heavily on social media outlets. Their Facebook page includes all of the TV spots, but it also shows additional interviews with Enterprise employees as well as outtakes from the commercials. The company is also utilizing Twitter, YouTube and Flickr outlets to promote the new campaign.
These two TV spots are very simplistic and straight to the point. It is obvious that Enterprise values the fact that the company is family-owned. This campaign is responsible in the aspect that the commercials are not trying to shove the brand down the consumer’s throat, compare themselves to another brand, or market tangible items. Instead they are reinforcing some important values that customers find important such as family, hedonism and authenticity. This campaign is relevant to the large percentage of the population it will reach, as the values it touches upon are shared among our culture. When watching the TV spots, consumers will get that warm and fuzzy feeling by knowing that the company will be there for them in a time of need. The way that these commercials promote the brand is very successful because it will motivate the consumers to go to Enterprise when they need a vehicle, whether it is because theirs is in the repair shop or just because they want to go on vacation.
In the “Family Business” commercial shown below, it touches upon the aspect of not only getting a customer to come to Enterprise once, but keeping them for the long run. By showing the values that the company is based on and communicating good customer service to potential consumers, those consumers have the opportunity to develop enduring involvement with the brand. After all, everyone will probably need to rent a car at some point in life, right?
The portrayal of the company and showing that they will be there for their customers has made for a very successful campaign. Through “The Enterprise Way,” they have communicated that consumers will have peace of mind when working with Enterprise, and any experience they have will be one to remember (and hopefully one that promotes a long lasting relationship!)
Below are two additional commercials from the campaign:
Indulgence vs. Indecent…when advertising takes guilty pleasures too far.
Posted by: | CommentsFast Food, Shoe Sales, Ice Cream, Reality TV…The things that we absolutely adore, but rarely admit for fear of facing judgment. Things we don’t need, are not necessarily good for us, but we occasionally justify because they make us feel so good.
Haagan Daz Print
Sound familiar? It should, even if you never fall prey to temptation. Ad agencies learned long ago how effective it is to appeal to consumers’ hedonic needs. Of course consumers purchase products and services to fulfill functional needs. We need water to stay hydrated, food for sustenance, gas to make our cars run, but often the things we really desire; decadent food, lavish clothing, and sex, drive our behavior. Marketers and agencies alike have told us to spoil ourselves, to give in and let our temptations take over, be it chocolate, ice cream, a soothing bubble bath or big greasy cheeseburger.
Adrina Patridge for Carls Jr.
Some of these indulgences are worse than others and because many of them conflict with our symbolic needs, (our desire to be perceived in a particular way by and how we relate to others), many people keep their “guilty pleasures” a secret.
Yes, consumers go to great lengths to hide these little imperfections. Women cut the tags off of new clothing before slipping it in the closet, hoping their husbands won’t notice. Meanwhile their husbands are careful to dispose of the cheeseburger wrapper from their fast food lunch before pulling in the driveway. And who hasn’t spent a Saturday in your pajamas watching an all day marathon of Jersey Shore or Top Model, all the while hoping your friends don’t call so you won’t have to come up with an excuse for missing spin class.
All of these things, despite the pleasure they provide us, create turmoil in our minds because although they bring us pleasure, “we know better.” It’s an approach-avoidance conflict that we all experience when we desire something that fulfills one need, but fails to meet another. These examples are mild; we know that all things in moderation can be healthy, but what happens when the desire is truly wrong? As consumers, where do we draw the line at acting on our hedonic needs and overlooking our symbolic needs. And as advertisers, is it right to encourage an unethical action to fulfill these needs?
Earlier this month the Buffalo Bills radio network dropped an advertising campaign for AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that uses the tagline, “Life is short. Have an affair.” This isn’t the first time that this site has been dropped from or denied an advertising buy based on the ethical position of the network or broadcast association. The site also tried to purchase a spot in the 2009 Super Bowl and the 2010 Academy Awards. Both networks denied the site’s bid for airtime citing a conflict of interest between the ad content and the demographics of the audience. The site was however, allowed to run an ad during the February 2010 Pro Bowl which reached an audience of 5 million viewers.
Jenna Jameson for PETA
It’s no secret that sex sells. In recent years we’ve seen ice cream, fast food and even PETA embrace sexual images as a way to capture attention and sell their products and ideas.
Obviously everyone has a set of values and ethics that we live by and we make choices based on these values, a sort of internal monitor as to what we find offensive, inappropriate, or edgy, but acceptable. Sometimes these perceptions very by situation and company, but with changes in social values, the proliferation of free media and a desire for networks and terrestrial radio to keep up with cable and satellite competitors, it’s no wonder ads are constantly pushing the limits of social propriety.
Advertising has the power to persuade. It’s dependent on each of us within the Advertising Institution to determine how we use that power. Some say because a product is legal, it’s fine to promote, while others think there is a right place and time for specific products and messages given possible dangers, i.e., alcohol, and tobacco. Given the content of the AshleyMadison.com commercials, what do you think?
The 30-second spot is beyond suggestive. It outright tells you to go out and cheat on your spouse. The company even has additional campaigns running online to teach you how to cheat without getting caught. Talk about a guilty pleasure you want to keep under wraps!
You might expect to see commercials like these on an adult cable network, or hear the radio version of it while listening to Howard Stern on satellite radio, but during the Super Bowl or any other professional sports event? Never! There are children watching those games, who follow their favorite players week after week, dreaming of emulating their performance on the field. It’s bad enough that parents have to hope their son‘s or daughter’s idol is truly someone for them to look up to, without also having to censor the ads they will see while watching them perform.
I applaud the networks that denied AshleyMadison.com these opportunities. Everyone knows that extra-marital affairs happen. In fact, Americans are seemingly intrigued by adultery scandals involving celebrities, professional athletes, even the President of the United States. The more scandalous, the better, but that doesn’t make it right.
In a society where bisexuality, homosexuality, co-habitation, divorce, and multiple marriages are widely accepted there should be no need for a service like AshleyMadison.com or for the promotions of the service to be placed in mainstream media where inappropriate audiences could be exposed to the messages. We as advertisers need to recognize that there is more to life than pleasing a client and making “funny” or “pretty” ad. We need to show more social responsibility when considering the time, place, content, and context of the messages we produce and places in which those messages are received.
AshleyMadison.com can keep running on the Playboy Channel, Howard Stern Radio and in Maxim magazine where the appropriate (if there is such a thing), audiences can receive their messages. The only guilty pleasure I want with my football is a big plate of hot wings and a frosty beer.
Did Nike Buy off More Than Tiger’s Reputation?
Posted by: | Comments
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.
Let’s Fix Dinner
Posted by: | CommentsI’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.
MassMutual and Stouffer’s: Promoting Family Values in Advertising
Posted by: | CommentsFamily 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?
“Today’s the Day” at JCPenney
Posted by: | Comments
This is an example of using advertising as an effective sales tool while not being too in your face. JCPenney shows their wide range of products without reverting to the cliche “car salesman” technique.
The simple concept of having an item for every room in your house is combined with promoting family values and reminding consumers to stop and appreciate the little things in life. The simplicity of the spot is beautiful and the lack of a voiceover is a welcome change from the usual commercial.
It also uses vignettes from everyday life that the target market can relate to and see themselves in. Using this technique of self-referencing creates an affective involvement with the consumer and helps them to remember the brand.
The virtuous aspect of this ad comes into play with the potential impact it could have on society and family “norms.” This is a great example of how advertising can “mold” society in a positive way. By promoting family togetherness and a general sense of love, this commercial projects a slice of reality that should be more celebrated.
Since it’s the holiday season, maybe this spot will convince you to consider JCPenney’s for your holiday needs. And don’t forget, “Today’s the day” to start living your life, because “Everyday matters.”
