Trust Me, Your Ad is Definitely Offensive to Customers

When readying marketing campaigns geared at attracting new customers, brands are perpetually advised that "sex sells" and that "no publicity is bad publicity." Yet if they truly followed this roadmap, one which is best employed by fading actresses hoping to remain relevant on the pages of Us Weekly and TMZ.com, they would find themselves driving away customers—the very opposite of brand marketing.

Typically, however, the dilemma has been fairly manageable. Advertisers have never been exempt from a need to refrain from "pissing off the wrong people" and should never have been as married to the "no publicity is bad publicity" montage as celebrities like Lindsay Lohan and Heidi Montag, but as long as the creative was on-brand, appealing to the target audience and privately-defensible to the select few who were outraged, most could avoid mass outrage over their campaigns (or at least count on loyal users and media allies to portray the outrage as minor).

Thanks to social media, the buffer between "controversial" and "offensive" is rapidly shrinking. With blogs, message boards and networks like Facebook and Twitter providing ample avenue for the disgruntled to get their messages out and recruit supporters, the ability for companies to brush aside complaints and "outrage" as the voice of an impossible-to-please minority or the musings of an embittered journalist is becoming a thing of the past.

True, the actual group of "offended" customers may still constitute a tiny statistical minority. But with social networks becoming pipe bombs (thanks, CM Punk) for individuals against big business, the numerical breakdown will not matter. All that will matter is that customers will be exposed to concerns about a company’s branding, forcing the brand to defend itself in the same public forums.

And that is the real source of today’s advertising dilemma. Phone and email reps can’t privately tell a few complainers what they "want to hear." A brand can’t have its PR reps deliver an ambiguous, generic "we respect all customers and don’t meant to offend" through traditional media and expect all will be forgotten. Its response, good or bad, will be subject to intense, public scrutiny from those who have committed to touting their cause on the web. If the level of sincerity and action does not please this group of vocal detractors, the onslaught of criticism will continue, further hindering the brand’s ability to keep discussion on message.

The result? More than ever, companies often have no choice but to accept their ads as "offensive," even if common sense—or just a hint of argumentative discourse—proves otherwise. Instead of proactively using logic to determine whether a campaign is defensible in its own right, marketers have to retroactively think about the response that will best stop brand-bashing and off-message discussion in their tracks. Too often, that simply means letting bygones be bygones and admitting "the mistake."

Consider Chapstick’s recent struggle with its "Where Do Lost Chapsticks Go?" The creative, which features a woman , from behind, scrambling through her couch in search of a lost chapstick, dipped the company in an unhealthy amount of hot water. Alleging sexism, critics felt the ad focused too firmly on the model’s butt, rather than on the actual product, thus contributing to the media’s exploitation of the female body.

The bulk of the outcry started at the ReelGirl blog, and once allegations came through that Chapstick was deleting comments off its Facebook, a Facebook account, "Butt Seriously, Chapstick" was setup to provide an alternative means of expressing outrage. By most metrics, neither was a huge traffic generator—as of press time, the Facebook group only has 137 "Likes." Most people can get more engagement on their "I lost my cell phone" Facebook pages.

Yet the visibility was still more than it would have been if a few disgruntled customers saw complaining to customer service as their only option, and so the media had no problem embracing the outcry as the sign of a major, global movement. Many such reports, notably including one from Forbes, treated the ad’s "offensive" nature as unequivocal fact. The analysis, from a contributor deemed a "branding expert," went off on a rant about the irrefutable sexism in the ad (a particular travesty given Chapstick’s long link to empowered female athletes), cracking, "Now that Chapstick is owned by Pfizer, I’m envisioning the Viagra advertising team – a few young ad men unfamiliar with the history of the Chapstick brand – creating this off-brand ad."

One, of course, cannot ignore the fact that the publications, themselves, have to protect their brands in the face of customer outcry. Suppose, for instance, Forbes cited logic in defense of the ad:

• The woman is fully-clothed; she isn’t wearing a bikini or even a miniskirt, and no thong is hanging out the back.
• Though her butt is on display, it is not "posed" the way a model would when promoting a flattering pair of jeans or the way Kim Kardashian would any time she hits a red carpet.
• The portrayal of the woman digging through her couch adheres clearly to a relatable experience with the brand—tiny Chapstick "sticks" do often get lost. Why is that message being ignored?
• Aren’t those calling this ad "offensive" being just as sexist in assuming that males are so crass and sexually-charged that they would be aroused by a photo from the back of a fully-clothed woman?

It, then, would have been "joining" the culprit (Chapstick) in displaying insensitivities towards the offended females. In order to make sure it does not get labeled, "the enemy," it is easier to side with the vocal group, especially when the vocal group is one that, historically, has been victimized by the media.

There, ladies and gentleman, is the evidence—in today’s social-savvy, broadcast-any-thought-that-pops-into-your-head-world, outcry from a small minority can turn into fact. And while Chapstick probably wanted to cite some of its defenders, who brought up a host of reasons (like the aforementioned) about why the ad is not offensive, sexist or insensitive to its history as a female-friendly brand, once the ad gained its reputation as offensive to women, Chapstick had to distance itself from the creative.

And, so, Chapstick ultimately pulled the ad and apologized.

Perhaps timed strategically to play off the Chapstick hype, a string of articles released in late October discuss the ongoing role of misogyny in promotional campaigns. Though not repudiated in the same vein as the Chapstick promo, the campaign for Dr. Pepper Ten, the brand’s soda lined aimed at men, has also been victimized by social media cries of sexism. This is an ad that playfully boasts its pro-dude message—it calls the soda "not for women"—and offense over the issue prevails.

That is not to say social media is ruining advertising, nor is a system of checks-and-balances a bad thing. Over the summer, controversy arose over a Fluid Salon ad that seemingly exploited domestic violence to promote its brand. With the slogan "look good in all you do," the ad features a well-dressed woman sporting a flashy hairstyle AND a black eye as a man, behind her, prepares to put a diamond necklace around her waist. Fluid Salon would only say it went for an ad that would "push the limits," but it seems reasonable enough to worry that the ad might be trivializing domestic violence as a bump on the road to looking stylish with nice hair, nice clothes and nice jewelry.

But it does change the nature of creative branding. Creative types have always been praised for pushing the limit, but in today’s world, that "push" has to be more like a faint poke. Ads aren’t always meant to please everyone, but now, if even a few people are displeased, marketers can find their campaigns reduced from fun, buzzworthy creative showcases to PR-unfriendly, controversy-laced accusations.

And, disgruntled customers, do not forget one other reality: even social complainers have a finite amount of credibility capital. If every slightly-controversial ad is condemned as offensive, then sooner or later, many customers will stop listening when a truly offensive campaign rears its head.

Do you focus on social media and social customer service? Social media is a key topic—and a key case study theme—at the 7^thCall Center Summit!