Ben and Jerry’s has announced a new limited edition batch of ice cream, “Schweddy Balls.” For the uninitiated, here’s the SNL skit it’s based upon:

It’s funny. Really, really funny.

Surely some people will be offended, right? Of course. Some people will are offended when you say “darn,” too.

I’d argue “Schweddy Balls” is responsible. The product packaging isn’t lewd or crude, and neither is the product. Boring marketing is irresponsible, and this ain’t boring.

And while Ben & Jerry’s is known for their controversial ice cream flavors, they are perhaps better known for their obsession with social and economic responsibility.

So what do you think of Ben & Jerry’s new “Schweddy Balls?”

Click here to enlarge

On Bing you’ll get:

British Petroleum · www.BP.com/GulfOfMexicoResponse
Get Info about the Gulf of Mexico Response Today

Yahoo:

BP – Info about the Gulf of Mexico Spill Learn More about How BP is Helping. www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse

Normally, I’d say this is Responsible Marketing: Use paid search to share the positive and combat the negative. Bully for BP.

But where’s the competence? Where’s the character? I see neither and BP has lost my trust.

They’ve stumbled so badly, so often and on so many fronts this feels like a desperate ploy to manipulate public opinion. Actions speak louder than words and I’m no longer listening.

In fact, I’ve boycotted BP.

So what do you think? Does this feel like smart marketing or slimy spin?

And what will it take for BP to regain your trust?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Here’s what Earl is saying:

Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything?

On the surface it may seem like a bit of a head-scratcher for Nike: Woods’ father wasn’t faithful, either.

But consider this: Most of Tiger’s sponsors have bailed except Nike and it’s in their best interest to see him restored. This video shows a remorseful Woods looking his fans straight in the eye. By approving and participating in this ad, he’s showing he hasn’t forgotten his roots. That he knows his father wouldn’t approve. And that he’s learned something.

Opinions are polarized from the general public. Here are two from YouTube:

This is brilliant, Nike’s invested too much time and money into Tiger Woods to not do something like this. I give this a thumbs up with the reasoning that it isn’t often a sponsor will put money into saving a sports figure. And I think Tiger approving of it means he’s really showing the amount of change he’s willing to make to appear as an honourable sports figure again. I LIKE THIS. ~nboysis

Corporate damage control and a well-orchestrated PR campaign. And who really knows what Earl would say? He’s DEAD. Now? Tiger and Nike are bringing him back from the dead to pimp him out for greed. Poor taste Tiger….you would come across better by keeping a low profile in my opinion and working on your marriage to save your image, not your corporate whores. ~zenstate

So, is Nike’s new Tiger ad responsible or not? What say you?

Subscribe to this feed.

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

View on YouTube

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.

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?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

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.

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

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?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Thanks to Lissa Boles for sharing this with me.

Image: Nuts About Southwest Blog

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.

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?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

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:

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:

1. You are automatically signing up for their service
2. You are giving Budget permission to pass your credit card info to PrivacyGuard
3. You will pay $64.99 immediately (kiss your $10 goodbye)
4. 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.