Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

The Impossible 'to Stomach' Whopper

2/22/2020

27 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Green bumps, black specks, white fuzz.  You saw the telltale signs when a piece of once fresh fruit or an edible vegetable fell to the back of a refrigerator drawer where it laid low for a few months.  It took a deep breath and all the courage you could muster to pick up the nauseating produce and pitch it into the trash.  So, why would one of the world’s leading fast food restaurants want consumers to see its most iconic menu item in a similarly sickening state?
 
Few food companies have the mettle to play with such fire, but one known for flame-broiling and often flagrant marketing does:  Burger King.  The fast food icon recently launched a “global, integrated advertising campaign showing its iconic Whopper® sandwich covered in mold.”
 
A video from the company begins with the staging of a very attractive Whopper.  Then, against a music bed of “What a difference a day makes,” filming turns to a rapid time lapse and the burger ages abhorrently before our eyes.
 
First, the lettuce starts to wither.  Then the bun sags and mayonnaise melts.  Before we can look away, white fuzz flows over the beef patty and a green/blue ‘foam’ appears, making a cross-section closeup look like a storm at sea.  Thankfully, the camera pans out, but only to show a bun enveloped in mold with some black substance oozing from the burger’s epicenter.
 
The visual agony eventually ends as a text overlay briefly appears: “The Whopper DAY 34.”  The grotesque burger vanishes into an all-black screen that frames the tagline “THE BEAUTY OF NO ARTIFICIAL PRESERVATIVES,” followed by an all-white Burger King logo.
 

Picture

Most organizations agonize over advertisements, trying to ensure that their products are presented in the most positive light.  Those in food industries seem especially attuned to their ads’ optical appeal, and for good reason: Studies have found that visual stimuli such as color, evenness, and shape “exert cognitive top-down influences that can and sometimes do alter assessments of taste and flavor.”  In other words, there is truth to the old adage: ‘We eat with our eyes.’

So, why would Burger King flame-broil conventional wisdom by plating a burger that could make the Geico racoons retch?
 
The main reason stems from the spot’s tagline, “The beauty of no artificial preservatives.”  The company wants consumers to realize that it has made a clean-break from past practice and it no longer uses nonorganic life-extenders, at least not in “most European countries and select markets in the United States.”  Furthermore, according to Christopher Finazzo, Burger King’s Americas President:
 
“The Burger King® brand is currently rolling out the Whopper® sandwich with no preservatives, colors, or flavors from artificial sources in the U.S. The product is already available in more than 400 restaurants in the country and will reach all restaurants throughout the year.”
 
Unfortunately, in terms of touting “real food,” Burger is painfully late to the game.  Chipotle, Panera, and a crowd of fast-casual restaurants have been making that claim for a few decades.  Even many processed food manufacturers, like General Mills, have kept better pace with consumer desires for healthier food.  The company has already removed artificial ingredients from most of its cereals.
 
So, maybe Burger King needed to do something shocking to grab the attention of a populace likely to overlook or be unimpressed by what is an increasingly common change.  The promotion certainly has gained the company free media exposure and gotten marketers like me talking about it.
 
A similar tact also must have worked, at least somewhat, when the firm unearthed its Halloween-inspired “Nightmare King” in the fall of 2018.  Although it never seemed that the green-bun burger was a big seller, it did grab headlines and likely helped keep the restaurant top-of-mind among those who frequent fast food.
 

Picture

It’s also possible that the Moldy Whopper promo resonates with Gen Zs and Millennials, who are used to unconventional advertising and who demand transparency from the brands they buy.  These age cohorts might uniquely appreciate the combination of candor and irreverence.
 
Still, the avant-garde ad campaign takes an extraordinary and nearly unprecedented risk by essentially forgoing the Maslow-level-one appeal of appetizing food.  Maybe having “no artificial preservatives” hits a higher tier of the hierarchy, such as safety or self-esteem, but according to the theory, people’s desires will never ascend to those upper levels if their hunger is unsatisfied.
 
Burger King apparently is banking on viewers remembering the pristine burger that appears at the beginning of the ad for a few seconds, rather than the progressively repulsive Whopper that fills the other forty-five seconds.  “Negativity bias,” however, upends that hope:  Our brains are “simply built with a greater sensitivity to unpleasant news.”  Said another way, there are some things we simply can’t ‘unsee’ and a mold-covered Whopper is probably one of them.
 
Although few organizations are so daring as to cast their products in a negative light, many do fall into the same general AIDA-defying trap:  In an all-out effort to grab attention and retain interest, they sacrifice desire and action.  As evidence, recall all the commercials you can from the last Super Bowl, then try to remember the companies responsible for each of them.
 
Like many other restaurants, Burger King is in an existential battle with all kinds of new competitors, especially those in the fast-casual space.  It’s great that the fast food icon has taken steps to make some of its menu items more user-friendly, but those health benefits will never accrue to people who are put off by what they see in the company’s stomach-turning promotion.  The new burger may be better for you, but etching the image of a moldy Whopper onto people's minds must be “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
27 Comments

Should the FCC Have Thrown a Flag?

2/7/2020

10 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

The latest Super Bowl was another big game mired in controversy.  This time the debate wasn’t whether a fourth-quarter play was a penalty, but whether the halftime show was pornography.  Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have thrown a flag for ‘illegal use of the hips’ or ‘unnecessary raunchiness’?  As armchair apologists argue, mindful marketers aim to analyze the action from each angle, hoping to make ‘the right call.’
 
Rocking hips, pulsing pelvises, and legs wrapped around a stripper pole sound like a scene from a gentleman’s club, but they were just part of the Super Bowl LIV halftime show featuring superstar entertainers Shakira and Jennifer Lopez.
 
Whether one enjoyed the performances or not, most agree that the show was a production spectacle, complete with elaborate scenery, extravagant costumes, moving stages, dozens of talented dancers, and amazing fireworks.  The production level was fitting for the biggest television viewing event of the year,  which this time drew an astounding 102.1 million U.S. viewers, making it the “11th most-watched TV show ever.”
 
With so many people watching the same thing, it’s not surprising that the show spawned differences of opinion.  Some, like former Florida governor and U.S. presidential candidate Jeb Bush loved it; he tweeted, “Best Super Bowl halftime show ever.”
 
Many ordinary citizens have also sung its praises, including 2.3 million people who liked the YouTube video.  Some of those fans have said:
  • “One of the most amazing shows ever.”—Lucy B.
  • “Loved both”--manel manel
  • “whos watched this more than 10 times? i know i aint the only guy”—Maxwel Rajcic
  • “I love JLo but i can't get over that Shakira performance. Damn.”—Annitah Lesley
  • “One of the best Super Bowl halftime show ever”—grace khuvung
 
However, a smaller but still substantial number (134K YouTube viewers) didn’t think the show was ‘so hot’; actually, they thought it was too hot.  Some tweeted:
  • “I saw way more of J-Lo than I ever wanted to. There was a moment there that actually made me blink my eyes. Everybody in the room was blinking their eyes.”— @TheAnnoyedMan
  • “When your crotch shot reveals your panty liner than you’ve definitely crossed a line”—@meredithdicken1
  • “I’d settle for a halftime that is somewhere between Karen Carpenter and a pelvic exam.”—@Bookwormdearlor
  • “My 13 year girl old said ‘man, that was TRASHY.’”—@FilthyMcN
  • “My 9 year old asked, ‘Is this what sexy is?’”—@kdonohuenj
  • “It was inappropriate for the venue. They can't sell it as a family entertainment and then present something that millions of people had to quickly turn off AFTER their little people got an eyeful of soft porn.”—@Plainsspeak
 
Maybe detractors are being over-sensitive or narrow-minded, not giving enough consideration to factors such as:
  • The empowerment of women:  The halftime show showcased two women’s exceptional voices and dance skills, physical strength and stamina, as well as their abilities to command one of the world’s largest stages.  Furthermore, both women are over 40 years of age.
  • The celebration of Latin culture:  The show served up large portions of energy and excitement, along with vibrant sounds and colors, for which Latin culture is known.
 
Those are valid arguments that we may not fully appreciate, depending on our own demographics.  On the other hand, one may wonder if those lauding the performance have considered issues like these:
  • Demographics:  Unlike most TV shows, an extremely wide swath of the population watches the Super Bowl—everyone from two-year-olds to 92-year-olds.  The lower end of that range should not be exposed to sexually explicit content, and many would argue that no one should see it without warning at 8:00 pm, on broadcast television.
  • Legality:  The halftime show may have violated the FCC’s mandate that “Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.”  It’s hard to imagine that the agency would have allowed the same sexual content, which included very revealing apparel and highly suggestive camera shots, as part of a 30-second Super Bowl commercial; yet, the FCC permitted 14 minutes of the ‘exposure’ as a Pepsi-sponsored mini-program.
  • Addiction:  If the halftime show represented ‘soft porn,’ as some have said, there’s a risk that the show encouraged pornography addiction for some viewers.  Lest one think that’s a wild claim, check out Google search results:  In the period from January 29, 2020 through February 4, 2020, at the exact time of the Super Bowl halftime show, there were extreme peaks in searches for terms such as: Hustlers (name of the film about strip clubs, staring Lopez), pole dance, stripper, and jlo hustlers dance.
Picture
  • Cultural relativism:  Virtually every culture, past and present, has had good things to offer, but not everything in a given culture is good (e.g., segregation, subjugation of women).  Latin dancing is known for its sensuality, which people may debate is good or bad, but for the situation at hand, the discussion should consider the prevailing culture and composition of Super Bowl viewers, as well as when, where, and with whom most watched the halftime show.
  • Empowerment or Objectification:  As implied above, my maleness limits my ability to appreciate the ways in which Shakira and J Lo’s performances may have made other viewers feel empowered.  However, as one who has studied oversexualization in advertising, I saw many signs of objectification of women, i.e., reducing their personhood to specific body parts (e.g., legs, bottoms) and ‘serving them up’ as objects for others’ sexual gratification.  For instance, in the YouTube video of the performance, there’s a camera shot at about 2:22 focused just on Shakira’s belly and hips, i.e., no head or feet, and another at 7:06 centered squarely on Lopez’s bottom, as she bent over, back to the camera.
 
Picture
 
In an article that includes several helpful illustrations, Ronnie Richie develops a seemingly useful distinction between sexual objectification and empowerment, the bottom-line being that a person is sexually empowered, not objectified, when she/he holds power versus the person looking at them.  That analysis likely works on one level, such as for superstar celebrities like Shakira and J Lo, but the reality is that oversexualized images in mass media often impact others within the same people group (e.g., women, children) with tragic consequences.
 
According to UNICEF, “The objectification and sexualization of girls in the media is linked to violence against women and girls worldwide.”  On a personal level, former Yale University student Veronica Lira Ortiz shared her unfortunate experience as a child in a Latin culture infused with machismo: “I was twelve years old, and a man on the street [in Mexico] was already verbally harassing me. He looked at me as if I were a juicy steak instead of an innocent child.  Shakira and J Lo may have held power in their Super Bowl situation, but many indirectly affected by their performances do not.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” but when the beholders number over 100 million, including millions of children and adults anticipating family-friendly entertainment, and when many others are indirectly affected by what’s shown, the creators and broadcasters of ‘said beauty’ should demonstrate better discretion.  So, the replay of the action suggests that the FCC should have flagged Fox, Pepsi, and others associated with the Super Bowl LIV halftime show for a broadcast communication violation, as well as for “Single-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
10 Comments
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly