responsible or not? | The Responsible Marketing Blog

Archive for the ‘responsible or not?’ Category

Responsible or not? Audi’s “Do Your Part”

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

It ain’t so easy being green. Unless, of course, you buy a clean diesel from Audi.

That’s the message of this Audi A3 “Do Your Part” advert:

I get the idea: Show you can be environmentally responsible without having to put yourself out. You can have it all.

Here’s one point of view from @motorad666 on Twitter:

If ads are supposed to make you want to buy stuff, the Audi A3 Clean Diesel ads are working on me, and I should know better. Good work, VBP.

And the counterpoint from @markapennington:

bike riding: green. bus riding: green. buying an audi: not green. http://bit.ly/hD8TN Is this “green-jacking”?

Some might call this greenwashing because it implies driving a diesel is as good or better than riding the bus or a bike to work.

But this ad’s greatest offense is that it mocks its target audience. Was the Members Only jacket and tie for the guy on the Segway really necessary?

So what do you think? Is Audi’s “Do Your Part” ad is Responsible Marketing or not?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Tags: A3, Audi, clean diesel, eco, environmentally responsible, green, responsible marketing, video
Posted in advertising, environmentally responsible, greenwashing, message responsible, responsible or not?, videos | 4 Comments »

Evian’s hip-hop roller babies: Responsible or not?

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

By now, you’ve probably heard about Evian’s new “live young” campaign featuring the roller babies.

You haven’t? Well, now you are in the know:

There’s a lot to like here: It’s fun, unique, the CGI was done well and who doesn’t love Rapper’s Delight? It’s the type of video you can hardly resist hitting the “share” button on and it’s really making the rounds.

Irresistable? Fun? Must be Responsible Marketing, right?

Well, yes and no.

Really, it depends on whether you think it’s possible for a company marketing a product many deem to be irresponsible can ever do Responsible Marketing.

Here are five reasons to not drink bottled water, from Lighter Footsteps and the Sierra Club:

Bottled water isn’t a good value
No healthier than tap water
1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year
Requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce
Creates a risk to marine life
Results in less attention to public systems

So what do you think?

Can an irresponsible product be marketed responsibly?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Tags: bottled water, environmentally responsible, evian, rapper's delight, responsible marketing, roller babies
Posted in advertising, creativity, environmentally responsible, responsible or not?, videos, viral marketing, word of mouth | 6 Comments »

Is Burger King’s “Square Butts” ad responsible?

Friday, April 10th, 2009

Last night, a friend from high school sent me this question via Facebook:

Can you explain why ANYONE (let alone Burger King) would think it a good idea to adapt “I like Big Butts” to market a children’s meal?

Here’s the ad in question:

Extended version

This is one of the classic Responsible Marketing questions we talk about here. It takes real creativity to break through, and this ad is creative. But it’s also controversial, and controversy gets people talking and drives word of mouth. I’d argue this ad is almost impossible to keep to yourself.

Burger King knew exactly what they were approving: A funny, but potentially offensive ad for parents that they’d never want their young children to see.

Mission accomplished.

I am Burger King’s target:

I have small children
Sir-Mix-A-Lot song was popular when I was in college
And I laughed out loud when Mix-A-Lot himself said “Booty is booty” at the end

But the idea of my kids seeing this ad makes me cringe. The word “butt” is off limits in my house (my kids are age six and four), and the sexual references are everywhere.

Hamilton Nolan at Gawker.com puts it this way:

The point is Sir Mix-a-Lot is teaching obesity and sexuality to your kids and you’re really okay with that, deep down, because you love Whoppers.

Is this ad message responsible?

I don’t think so.

But what’s your take?

Subscribe to this feed.

Tags: advertising, Burger King, commercial, offensive, SpongeBob, The King
Posted in creativity, message responsible, responsible or not?, sex sells, videos, word of mouth | 10 Comments »

The Southwest Airlines Bikini Controversy

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

Remember a few years ago when a woman was thrown off of a Southwest Airlines plane because her outfit was too revealing?

Imagine her surprise when Southwest launched the “SI One,” to promote Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit edition last month.

Southwest Airlines "SI One" featuring a Sport Illustrated swimsuit model

The airline expected controversy, but probably didn’t expect how polarizing the image would be.

A few comments on the company blog include:

Awesome!!!! Makes me want to fly SouthWest!

Kudos to Southwest for being savvy in its marketing.

Your planes are sexist and completely inappropriate. I (and my family) will NEVER FLY YOUR PLANES AGAIN!!

Looks like a Las Vegas Strip taxi cab!

BOYCOTT SOUTHWEST!!!”

So what do you think?

Is Southwest Airlines responsible or not?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

. . .

Thanks to Lissa Boles for sharing this with me.

Image: Nuts About Southwest Blog

Tags: Southwest Airlines, Sports Illustrated, SWA, swimsuit edition
Posted in boycott, creativity, promotion, responsible or not?, socially responsible | 8 Comments »

Skittles Twitter homepage: Responsible or not?

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Skittles, the chewy, fruit-flavored candy from Mars, Inc. has jumped into social media in an innovative new way: They have coded their website so their navigation now floats over three of the most popular social media websites.

Skittles.com is now nothing more than a navigation box floating over the Twitter search results for the term “skittles.” Essentially, this is capturing all the Twitter conversations regarding their brand (and their new marketing tactic) right on their homepage. Click the the Friends button, and the nav will float over their Facebook Fan Page. The Media button floats their nav over their YouTube channel.

“Skittles” has been the number one search topic on Twitter and in social media since Sunday, and as you might expect, most commentators love it. It’s bold, innovative and its helping drive word of mouth regarding the Skittles brand with people who love to share ideas.

The company has been criticized for abdicat[ing] their brand voice and failing to filter the feed, resulting in competitors links, profanity and some unsavory tweets from pranksters.

Whether the failure to filter was intentional or not, I don’t know, but by not filtering visitors get to see the authentic conversations regarding the brand. Still, all tweets aren’t suitable for children.

So, do you think Skittles new social media play is responsible or not?

Comment below to share.

Subscribe to this feed.

Tags: Facebook, MySpace, Skittles, social media, social networking, Twitter, word of mouth
Posted in authenticity, branding, responsible or not?, social media, social networking, word of mouth | 2 Comments »

A-Rod and Kobe and Phelps, oh my!

Friday, February 20th, 2009

It was a risk when Activision cast four of the world’s most recognized athletes to dance in their underwear for a video game that that wasn’t sports-related.

Imagine it: The greatest Olympian of all time (at least by medal count), the best basketball and baseball player today, and the person that has almost single-handedly popularized skateboarding and extreme sports—all in the same ad.

Wow.

Here’s Activision’s Guitar Hero ad featuring Kobe Bryant, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Phelps and Tony Hawk:

Of course, now the ad features a basketball player accused of rape, an Olympian caught smoking dope and a baseball player that has admitted to using steroids.

For most products, this ad would be pulled immediately. Not so with Activision.

In an interview in the New York Daily News, sports business consultant Marc Ganis said these controversies won’t necessarily hurt sales, stating that “the target market for Guitar Hero is younger counterculture youth for whom this kind of behavior is not considered very negative.”

That raises so many questions, doesn’t it?

Considering the Guitar Hero target, have the A-Rod and Phelps revelations actually helped Activision?

Do you believe the associated PR is hurting or helping?

Is Activision marketing responsibly?

How should they respond?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Tags: A-Rod, A-Roid, Alex Rodriguez, Kobe Bryant, Michael Phelps, Tony Hawk
Posted in ethics, morality, responsible or not?, videos | No Comments »

Is Budget’s PrivacyGuard offer responsible?

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

Why would anyone want a free credit report from FreeCreditReport.com when Budget has partnered with PrivacyGuard to pay you $10 to sign up for ID theft and credit monitoring?

Well, as we discussed here before, the credit report from FreeCreditReport.com isn’t free and as you might guess, the PrivacyGuard offer has plenty of strings attached, too.

Even though I’ve only rented from Budget once, they were nice enough to sell share my personal contact information with PrivacyGuard.

Here’s the classic cash-the-check-and-you’ll-sign-up-for-our-overpriced-service-indefinitely-if-you-aren’t-paying-attention offers they sent me recently:

Budget PrivacyGuard credit monitoring

Here’s a key section from the fine print on the back of the check:

By cashing this check I agree to a thirty-day trial offer in PrivacyGuard. I understand that the $64.99 semi-annual membership fee will be automatically billed to the card I have on file with Budget unless I cancel my membership by calling 1-866-622-5186 before the end of the trial period. My membership will be automatically renewed and I will also be billed every six month period thereafter at $74.99 or the then-current fee unless I call to cancel for a refund of the unused portion of the current fee.

So, cash the check, and here’s what happens:

You are automatically signing up for their service
You are giving Budget permission to pass your credit card info to PrivacyGuard
You will pay $64.99 immediately (kiss your $10 goodbye)
You are agreeing to pay $74.99 or the then current fee (it could be any number) from that point forward

Oh, the irony: Budget has sold their customers personal information to a company marketing a product that’s supposed to protect—that’s right—personal information.

When I see offers like these, I think about my dearly-departed grandparents. Would they have been fooled by an official-looking check coming from the “Processing Center.”

I don’t know if I’d go so far as calling this marketing practice predatory, but it’s clearly deceptive.

All that being said, offers like this have been around for years and won’t go away.

Why?

They work. It fools some of the people some of the time.

What’s more, people that read the fine print cash the checks as well, thinking they can game the system. Sometimes they do, but often they forget. The charges get lost in their credit card statement, and three years later they are still paying.

It happens all the time. They’re counting on it.

So, is the PrivacyGuard offer responsible or not? How about Budget selling customer data?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Tags: budget, deceptive marketing, FreeCreditReport.com, PrivacyGuard
Posted in deceptive marketing, responsible or not? | 4 Comments »

VitaminWater or the CSPI: Who do you believe?

Friday, February 6th, 2009

vitaminwater-from-coca-cola-cspi

The Coca-Cola Company is being sued by the Center for Science in the Public Interest for deceptive claims regarding it’s VitaminWater product line.

Coke markets VitaminWater as a “healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors with such health buzz words,” and claims they “variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function.”

The CSPI news release further asserts, “VitaminWater contains between zero and one percent juice, despite the full names of the drinks, which include “endurance peach mango” and “focus kiwi strawberry,” and “xxx blueberry pomegranate acai,” among others. A press release for the “xxx” drink claims its antioxidants makes the drinker “last longer” in some unspecified way; in any event, it has no blueberry, pomegranate, or acai juice, nor do the others have any cranberry, grapefruit, dragon fruit, peach, mango, kiwi, or strawberry juice.”

Here’s Coke’s response to the CSPI lawsuit:

This is a ridiculous and ludicrous lawsuit. glacéau vitaminwater is a great tasting, hydrating beverage with essential vitamins and water, with labels showing calorie content.

Filing a lawsuit is an opportunistic PR stunt. This is not about protecting the public interest. This is about grandstanding at a time when CSPI is receiving very little attention. There is no surprise that one week before the inauguration of the U.S. President, with the flurry of activity in Washington, D.C., that CSPI has chosen today to try to bring attention to themselves.

We don’t need a “healthful” alternative to sodas. All our beverages, including sparkling and diets, can be part of healthful diet. Furthermore, consumers today are aware and are looking for more from their beverages than just hydration. Products like glacéau vitaminwater provide a great tasting choice for hydration that also helps contribute to daily needs for some essential nutrients.

Consumers can readily see the nutrition facts panels on every bottle of glacéau vitaminwater, which show what’s in our product and what’s not. The success of glacéau vitaminwater is due in large part to consumers looking for a product like this to help support their healthy, active and on-the-go lifestyle.

Put simply, glacéau vitaminwater is a great complement to our often less-than-perfect diet with each of the different glacéau vitaminwater varieties providing a convenient, great-tasting way to get more of some of the vitamins and hydration we all need each day.

Public opinion on the topic is polarized, as you might expect.

So who do you believe? VitaminWater or the CSPI?

Is VitaminWater responsible or not?

Subscribe to this feed.

. . .

Image: The Coca-Cola Company

Tags: Center for Science in the Public Interest, Coca-Cola, Coke, CSPI, deceptive advertising, VitaminWater
Posted in advertising, deceptive marketing, ethics, responsible or not?, socially responsible, who do you believe? | 5 Comments »