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