Memo to brands trying to reach teenage boys with raunchy campaigns: we can all see you.
Burger King’s Shower Girl is the latest in a series of misogynist social media campaigns targeted at hormonally-charged teenage boys, it seems. PepsiCo’s “Amp Up Before You Score” iPhone app this summer broke women into 24 stereotypes and gave guys tips on how to pick up each and tally their conquests. Remington’s “Face of Success” microsite and game encouraged guys to try out pickup lines on virtual women (these fake women had Twitter profiles and followed back successful players).
Not surprisingly, these types of campaigns have drawn varying amounts of ire, from women and men alike, who feel that they’re inappropriate, don’t advance the product being hawked, and continue to promulgate objectification of women in Western culture (and that’s a post for an entirely different blog).
The typical “defense” often heard about campaigns like this is that they are intended only for a specific target audience. To me, that’s a fancy way of saying, “if this offends you, then you’re not our target audience, so please shut up and leave us alone.” Granted, PepsiCo did apologize for its iPhone app, but it’s hard to believe that they couldn’t have anticipated a backlash before ever launching it.
Nothing is truly targeted on the Web anymore. It’s too easy for people to share and pass along links to content, no matter where that content originates. That means campaigns that are edgy or risque are just as likely to find an easily-offended audience as they are to find their “target audience” online. Organizations can’t assume that only their target audience is going to see and interpret their campaign.
I’m not purporting that all marketing campaigns should be so sanitized and boring so as to make sure no one is offended. Often edgy campaigns are the most effective; they merit attention by being different. But there’s a difference between “edgy” and “in poor taste.”
There’s no “section” of the Interwebz reserved for 16-year-old boys (or any other demographic, for that matter). Your content should definitely speak to the interests and sensibilities (or lack thereof) of the core group you’re trying to reach, but let’s not forget that it can speak to just about everyone else online, too.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Great insights, Amy. There is indeed a “difference between edgy and in poor taste.” These brands should give thought to whether there is at least a strategic sweet spot between their multiple audiences, though there may not be an executional one. As a Mom, even if I would ever take my kid to BK for a kid’s meal in the first place (which I wouldn’t) I would feel totally alienated by some of the crazy crap they do.
Thanks for sharing this, really smart stuff.
Sue Spaight
Thanks Sue – you bring up a good point. Trying to target one group through a campaign like this very likely leads to alienating several others.
Wow. What a train wreck.
I doubt there was any target demo in mind. Heck, there’s barely any marketing message.
I suspect we just have some ad kids who got a client to pay them to watch a girl in a shower.
I’d go back to the site and try to give a more specific observation, but then _I_ would need a shower.
I’ve been seeing some smart reactions to this abomination of a campaign this week, and yours is, of course, one of them. But I can’t help but feel like this IS the end game for campaigns like Burger King’s: to get a lot of people angry and talking about them. I almost wish there was a way to tell them that no, this sort of campaign isn’t right and we won’t stand for it, but without giving them the negative attention they so obviously crave. Ignoring them won’t help, but taking a stand against plain old bad business will just churn up the small minority of jerks who think this sort of thing is acceptable.
Remember the creepy Method viral video from a few weeks back? Almost the exact same scenario. I guess the only thing left for angry consumers to do when confronted with this kind of information is to quietly, personally make a mental note to stop patronizing brands that have so little creativity and respect for their audience.
I missed the Method thing so I’ll have to go back and check it out. Thanks for the tip.
I’m sure that for certain brands and companies the goal with campaigns like this is ANY publicity, good or bad. There are varying schools of thought on whether all press is good press. In the end, I just don’t see how it sells burgers, as Dan noted below.
Hi Amy,
I have a different take on this.
A marketing campaign can be ‘successful’ if you view it over a longer period than single campaigns as shown above.
For example?
1. These campaigns are pretty crass. That’s the point. They’re meant to offend you.
2. Are you offended? Yes!
3. Then you write about it and raise the item/brand on your site.
4. The response? The marketers acknowledge the ‘mistake’, beg forgiveness and run a counter campaign.
This is equally offensive in it’s PCness.
5. Now, others get offended!
They liked the ads you found offensive and start writing about.
..raising the brand awareness again…
6. The response? The marketers acknowledge the ‘mistake’, beg forgiveness and run a counter campaign.
Etc…
The aim of all marketers is to get you talking about their brand. Once you do this, then they’ll adjust the campaign accordingly.
Ivan
Beijing, China
If you were not an American woman but a British one, would your take be different?
It’s easy to criticize but if you were a Burger King employee watching this, would you give your notice?
Well, I’ve never been a British woman, so it’s impossible to say how I would feel (though it’d be great to have a cool accent).
If I were a BK employee? I doubt I would quit over it. This particular campaign doesn’t necessarily offend me personally, per se, I just think that it’s incredulous that BK could not have predicted fallout from something like this. Although as others have mentioned in the comments here, that could have been exactly their motive.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but exactly what is this campaign supposed to communicate re Burger King’s brand? That we’re fun fast food in that intensely moronic way that appeals to really stupid teen-age boys? That we can get creepier than the “creepy King” approach we’ve been taking for the last several years. I don’t think the marketeers behind any of BK’s recent work have one idea how to sell burgers and fries, so we end up with crap like this.
Yes, the creepy King has run its course and I’d be happy to see no more of him. Maybe that’s the issue – they’re not sure what they’re selling. If you look across BK’s recent campaigns, it’s tough to pull a consistent message out of them. Are they selling quality food? Better taste/portions/price than competitors? The BK experience? Interesting food choices? Who knows.
Amy – This post has been sitting in my reader for a couple of days because I’ve been trying to come up with an appropriate response. I would agree with your general point that targeting a specific audience in social media is difficult because of the ease with which people share content.
However, if I’m “targeting” moms, for example, and moms don’t have a problem with my content but some other demographic does, should I care? Frankly, the answer in my view is no. Could those folks eventually become customers? Sure, but I think we’re then assuming that consumers remember every “advertisement” that they see and I don’t think that’s at all true.
One other point…just because folks within the fishbowl were offended by what BK, or Pepsi has done doesn’t mean consumers in general were troubled by it.
Again, I think your point about the difficulties in targeting is right, but that doesn’t mean it can’t/shouldn’t be done.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Chuck. Regarding Moms and content, I think the degree to which you should care if your non-target audience has a problem with your content has a lot to do with how out there/edgy/potentially offensive that content is. If the risk of alienating several customer groups or potential segments is greater than the reward of juicing sales/awareness/etc. among your target audience, then it’s probably not worth it.
A benefit of the fishbowl is that, even if not entirely representative of an entire consumer population, it often bubbles up issues and can serve as an early warning system. Sure, sometimes the fish blow things out of proportion and overreact, but other times their kvetching gains momentum and crosses over into general consumer distaste for a brand. Again, it comes back to how easy it is now to share information and opinions about brands and campaigns. A few “offended” people can quickly create a groundswell – sometimes merited, sometimes not.
My larger point in this post, which you reiterated in your comment, was simply that the idea of creating a targeted campaign that only that target audience will see and interact with is not possible anymore. So brands need to think longer and harder about the risks associated with edgy or borderline distasteful campaigns.