Unilever accused of brand hypocrisy by consumer coalition

Here's another example of the political correctness police going after a company for what it describes as "hypocrisy" in the name of childrens' advocacy. A consumer group called The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has accused Unilever, the makers of the Dove and Axe brands, of hypocrisy for running conflicting advertising campaigns -- one for Dove that praises women and their natural beauty and one for Axe that the group said "blatantly objectifies and degrades" them.

We're all familiar with these two brands - one very mature, and targeting mature people, the other brand new, and targeting a very, very different audience - young males who are obsessed with - wait for it - young females.

This group launched a letter-writing effort on its web site and demanded that the company pull ads for the Axe line of grooming products for men, which one online pitch says makes "nice girls turn naughty." Unilever shouldn't be commended for Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty" while promoting products with a starkly different message, said Susan Linn, the consumer group's director and an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

Unilever spokeswoman Anita Larson pointed out for Ms.Linn's group and others who may be brand-challenged that the Axe ads were clearly spoofs, while the Dove campaign is serious and "dedicated to making women feel more beautiful." Larson said, "Each brand effort is tailored to reflect the unique interests and needs of its audience."

Pardon me, but - Duh! Are we really living in a society where something like this has to be explained? Have we passed through the Time Tunnel into the mid-80's and no one told me about it? If parents - organized or not - are so concerned about the messages kids are getting from this advertising, then they should just turn off the TV. I'm a big fan of Dove's "real beauty" campaign because of its depiction of real women, as opposed to Barbie Doll women. But in no way should Unilever be condemned for running a campaign for a completely different brand, targeting a completely different consumer group, that does use Barbie-types. The Axe campaign, after all, is targeting 18-24 year-old males, not women 35-plus.

The Enemies of Advertising are the Enemies of Freedom.

I recently had occasion to write a letter to the fine editorial folks at the Bradenton Herald, one of the daily papers here in the Tampa Bay region. It was actually my response to a previously written letter by a guy who is convinced that auto insurance is expensive because of all the advertising Geico places on TV to "trick" the consumer into buying their product. He actually thinks that if Geico and the other insurance companies stopped all this advertising nonsense, then the rates would be cut in half. This, as my Art Director Scott Spear would say, really "got my dander up" and compelled me to write in. The occasion also gave me an opportunity to use a great quote by David Ogilvy.

Here's my response...
The writer completely misses the point. He probably subscribes to the misguided and misinformed theory that advertising is something businesses do when they have “extra money” to spend. I’m not a particularly big fan of geckos, or even cavemen for that matter, but I know that insurance companies, including Geico, spend big dollars on advertising as part of a thing we call healthy competition – the very thing that drives consumer prices down. Yes, the cost of advertising and all other marketing costs is factored into the price consumers pay for the product, just like every other consumer product or service sold throughout the world. Auto insurance high? Yes, but it couldn’t possibly be caused by all those uninsured drivers, car thieves and a flawed “no-fault” system, now could it?

As David Ogilvy said, “Remove advertising, disable a person or firm from proclaiming its wares and their merits, and the whole of society and of the economy is transformed. The enemies of advertising are the enemies of freedom.”

Advertising walk of fame winners

In conjunction with Advertising Week 2007, the winners for favorite icon - Orville Redenbacher, the Chick-Fil-A Cows. For favorite slogan - The US Marine Corps' "The few. The proud. The marines." and Southwest Airlines' "DING! You are now free to move about the country!"

Pretty underwhelming, if you ask me. I think there were a few in both categories more worthy of the recognition, but then again it is a popularity contest. I mean, really, do those cows really deserve the same honors bestowed upon such great icons as Tony the Tiger and the Pillsbury Doughboy? The thing that is puzzling me, and probably many other people in the industry, is this - Why is the Advertising Icon Museum going to be located in Kansas City, and not in New York? Okay, I could easily accept Chicago, where some of the great icons were created by the Leo Burnett agency. But KC?

TerraCycle v. Scotts as a Case Study

A few more thoughts on the TerraCycle suit. Writing for Chief Executive magazine, Fayazuddin Shirazi says TerraCycle's fight with Scotts Miracle-Gro might become a case study for small upstart companies on how to survive disputes with bigger - in this case much bigger - counterparts. And he points to a Wall Street Journal report indicating that TerraCycle's sales increased by 122 percent since TerraCycle launched their media campaign against Scotts. A little controversy goes a long way, and evidently it can be pretty darned profitable too.

In the epic battle of Worm Poop vs. Miracle-Gro, who's the winner?

It was the epic battle of Worm Poop vs. Corporate Giant. Last week, TerraCycle Inc. and The Scotts Company announced the agreed settlement of their legal dispute regarding false advertising claims and trade dress infringement. In this rather nasty battle, Scotts claimed that TerraCycle, the upstart company founded in 2001 by two Princeton University Freshmen, was infringing on its Miracle-Gro brand. In the end, TerraCycle agreed to change certain advertising claims and its package design to avoid possible consumer confusion, and Scotts agreed to dismiss its false advertising and infringement claims. A September 21 news release by the two companies announcing that they'd resolved their differences made it all sound very proper, with predictable, carefully crafted quotes from Tom Szaky, the founder and CEO of TerraCycle and a Scotts spokesperson.

Is there a clear winner and loser in this battle? Seems to me the Worm Poop guys come out on top. The suit can only be a good thing for TerraCycle, who prior to the suit, didnt even show up on the consumer radar screen. Although there isn't much chance this will become a standard tactic by upstart marketers, you have to admit; the whole mess certainly put TerraCycle on the map.

The bigger picture? I'm old-fashioned enough to think that marketers should use the best and brightest original thinking in product development, branding and media executions. On the other hand, I'm enough of a realist to admit that making your product look like the established big "Brand X" to intentionally confuse the consumer might bring you some degree of short-term success. Enough to charm the buyers at the big mass merchandisers. For them, it's all about the numbers. They don't care how much time, talent, creativity and sweat has gone into a brand. I'm compelled to root for the little guy in this battle, but at the end of the day you have to respect the fact that Scotts has made a huge investment in the brand and has every right to protect it. The guys who use copycat tactics may get some short-term results, but they don't build strong brands. They're perceived as knock-offs, and the consumer has a very short attention span.

What's your favorite icon and slogan? Celebrate Advertising Week 2007 and cast your vote.

The best and brightest in the advertising industry will be getting together September 24th-28th in New York City for Advertising Week. Even if you can't make it to the Big Apple for all the fun, you can cast your vote for America’s Favorite Advertising Icon and Slogan now through September 24th. This year, two icons and two slogans will join the Madison Avenue Advertising Walk of Fame. Click over to advertising.yahoo.com/advertisingweek_07/ to cast your vote.

Previous winners include Colonel Sanders, Juan Valdez, Tony the Tiger and the Pillsbury Doughboy.
If it all seems a little silly - well that's the very reason many of us are in this crazy business to begin with. It's fun. If you can have some fun and make the client's product sell better at the same time, then you've really got something. And when the business stops being fun, then it's game over.

Can Wal-Mart change its story with new campaign from Martin?

David Kiley's post about the Wal-Mart campaign breaking this week is interesting. On the Brand New Day blog he describes Wal-Mart's first work from The Martin Agency. I encourage you to check it out at businessweek.com. The new slogan is "Save money. Live better." Wal-Mart bashing has become a favorite past-time in this country. I know it has for me - for very good reasons. My feeling is this - can Wal-Mart really believe that it can promise to make the American consumer's life better? What about the typical Wal-Mart employee? Is he or she basking in the glow of the American dream, or working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet? And does having more cheap stuff make your life better?

If ever there was an accurate advertising slogan, it was "Always Low Prices." Not the most poetic, but certainly accurate. I think Wal-Mart should have stuck with that one.