Ultimately, I believe that a food company does not want to be held entirely responsible for its consumers. It is important for a consumer to trust your company, but in analyzing these examples, I've found what I believe to be several key lessons for companies in transitioning responsibility from the corporation to the consumer.
1. Give consumers options and resources.
Taco Bell did a wonderful job at this objective. By providing an alternative, low-fat menu, along with exercise tips and outside links, the consumer cannot paint the company as entirely self-serving.
2. Educate your consumers.
The Corn Refiners Association campaign for high fructose corn syrup was all about education and encouraged consumers to dispel the myths and gossip, instead discovering the true facts about their product. By not talking down to their consumer, but instead, empowering them and giving them access to information, as a consumer, I feel like many of the association's cards were on the table, and I am more willing to trust them.
3. Don't tell them what to do.
In the case of San Francisco mandating "Meatless Mondays," mandating a specific form of health is a sure way to stir up controversy. If there had been some kind of incentive to participate, I believe that would have been a better option; however, by only using negative reinforcement, a person's liberty (or at least confidence ordering a burger) is taken away.
Ultimately, responsibility comes down to the individual. You can either jump off the bridge along with your friends and endure the consequences, or instead, take what information food companies have provided us, do a little research if needed, and make a personal decision for yourself.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Taco Bell...healthy?
Long-known for their chalupas and gorditas, Taco Bell is jumping on the healthy-living bandwagon as well, hoping to earn some consumer goodwill. The company is attempting this feat through a branded diet and partnership with an online training company and coach.
On the heels of Subway's widely-successful "Subway Diet," endorsed by Jared, Taco Bell has started its own a brand-specific diet. However, instead of sandwiches piled high with veggies, you can now allegedly lose weight with the help of a drive-thru Mexican restaurant. Enter Taco Bell's "Drive-Thru Diet." Filled with items off the restaurant's 7-item "Fresco" menu, the Drive-Thru diet uses Christine as a spokesperson, a woman who lost 54 pounds eating items solely off this Fresco menu.
Also, Taco Bell has attempted to become more responsible for their offerings with the "Balanced Lifestyle" section of their website. This area has links to Coach John Calipari's website, as well as a link to eFit4Me.com. By connecting their brand to others known for physical fitness, Taco Bell is providing options for their customers, taking responsibility for them. However, once they have provided those options, they give the responsibility right back to the customer.
It was Taco Bell's corporate responsibility to provide healthy options and the opportunity for their customers to make healthy choices. However, because they have done so with the Fresco menu and physical fitness promotions, it is now up to the consumer to make the healthy choice.
On the heels of Subway's widely-successful "Subway Diet," endorsed by Jared, Taco Bell has started its own a brand-specific diet. However, instead of sandwiches piled high with veggies, you can now allegedly lose weight with the help of a drive-thru Mexican restaurant. Enter Taco Bell's "Drive-Thru Diet." Filled with items off the restaurant's 7-item "Fresco" menu, the Drive-Thru diet uses Christine as a spokesperson, a woman who lost 54 pounds eating items solely off this Fresco menu.
Also, Taco Bell has attempted to become more responsible for their offerings with the "Balanced Lifestyle" section of their website. This area has links to Coach John Calipari's website, as well as a link to eFit4Me.com. By connecting their brand to others known for physical fitness, Taco Bell is providing options for their customers, taking responsibility for them. However, once they have provided those options, they give the responsibility right back to the customer.
It was Taco Bell's corporate responsibility to provide healthy options and the opportunity for their customers to make healthy choices. However, because they have done so with the Fresco menu and physical fitness promotions, it is now up to the consumer to make the healthy choice.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Sugar Cereals
Marketing to kids is a sticky ethical issue. Cereal companies especially receive many complaints, as their boxes are covered in games and many use cartoon characters as spokespeople. Both Post and General Mills use similar strategies in marketing their cereals.
First, the Post Pebbles line of cereals includes Fruity Pebbles and Cocoa Pebbles, which have been around for decades, but has just grown to include Cupcake Pebbles and Marshmallow Pebbles. (source) With cupcakes featuring sprinkles and marshmallows, they are still counting on kids to have a sweet tooth.
The Flintstones characters are the cartoons used to sell this line of cereal, and kids can play an interactive game online, called Bedrock Dance Academy.
General Mills uses a similar strategy, with Trix the Rabbit, Lucky the Elf and Chef Wendall. The company also operates a very popular arcade game website for children, Millsberry.com.
When these companies market to kids, they are selling fun. But, if you look at the nutrition facts of the cereals (Pebbles nutrition), they are essentially selling sugar. And because most children do not understand the essentials of good nutrition, they are a prime target. They have no base nutrition knowledge, so really, they can have very little consumer responsibility.
However, this is where the the parent argument comes in. A parent should have the nutrition education to decide whether or not to purchase a sugar cereal for their child. But, if you've ever been down a grocery store aisle as a kid, it is definitely the most fun aisle. The colors, the characters...it's the best part of the entire trip. Imagine being the parent who has to put the Kashi cereal in the cart while your 7-year old is staring at Fred and Wilma Flintstone, eyes wide, or God-forbid, throwing a tantrum.
In conclusion, in the case of sugar cereals, responsibility does lie with the consumer, but many times that consumer is at the mercy of an embarrassing and tiring grocery store tantrum, and that sugar cereal makes it down the check-out conveyor belt.
First, the Post Pebbles line of cereals includes Fruity Pebbles and Cocoa Pebbles, which have been around for decades, but has just grown to include Cupcake Pebbles and Marshmallow Pebbles. (source) With cupcakes featuring sprinkles and marshmallows, they are still counting on kids to have a sweet tooth.
The Flintstones characters are the cartoons used to sell this line of cereal, and kids can play an interactive game online, called Bedrock Dance Academy.
General Mills uses a similar strategy, with Trix the Rabbit, Lucky the Elf and Chef Wendall. The company also operates a very popular arcade game website for children, Millsberry.com. 
When these companies market to kids, they are selling fun. But, if you look at the nutrition facts of the cereals (Pebbles nutrition), they are essentially selling sugar. And because most children do not understand the essentials of good nutrition, they are a prime target. They have no base nutrition knowledge, so really, they can have very little consumer responsibility.However, this is where the the parent argument comes in. A parent should have the nutrition education to decide whether or not to purchase a sugar cereal for their child. But, if you've ever been down a grocery store aisle as a kid, it is definitely the most fun aisle. The colors, the characters...it's the best part of the entire trip. Imagine being the parent who has to put the Kashi cereal in the cart while your 7-year old is staring at Fred and Wilma Flintstone, eyes wide, or God-forbid, throwing a tantrum.
In conclusion, in the case of sugar cereals, responsibility does lie with the consumer, but many times that consumer is at the mercy of an embarrassing and tiring grocery store tantrum, and that sugar cereal makes it down the check-out conveyor belt.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Meatless Monday
A movement called "Meat Free Monday" was begun in 2003, and has recently taken off due to the endorsement of Sir Paul McCartney.
(source)
This movement encourages people to enjoy a single day per week without meat, which will help the environment, as the meat industry is responsible for more than 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emission. Also, many chefs and nutrition experts have jumped on board as well, since the average American consumers 8 oz. of meat per day, 45% more than recommended by the USDA. (source)
Recently, San Francisco has declared Mondays meat-free, with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urging citizens to forgo meat once per week. Based on these studies performed by Meat Free Monday, this could have a positive impact for both citizen health and the environment.
However, if I were living in San Francisco, I know I wouldn't want my government telling me what I should or should not eat. Yes, I would love to receive information on being healthier, but I'd like to order a burger (extra lean, even) on a Monday and not receive dirty looks from my fellow diners because I'm being "unhealthy" or "hurting the environment." Consumer responsibility should trump corporate or government responsibility on an issue so broad as meat consumption.
Recently, San Francisco has declared Mondays meat-free, with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urging citizens to forgo meat once per week. Based on these studies performed by Meat Free Monday, this could have a positive impact for both citizen health and the environment.
However, if I were living in San Francisco, I know I wouldn't want my government telling me what I should or should not eat. Yes, I would love to receive information on being healthier, but I'd like to order a burger (extra lean, even) on a Monday and not receive dirty looks from my fellow diners because I'm being "unhealthy" or "hurting the environment." Consumer responsibility should trump corporate or government responsibility on an issue so broad as meat consumption.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Alex Bogusky, Consumer Advocate
Alex Bogusky, recently retired from CP+B, had everyone wondering what his next step was. He's brilliant...he can't be finished! Well, Bogusky has recently come out of hiding and stepped into his next role...consumer advocate. This is the man behind the Domino's and Burger King brands, hawkers of massive pizzas and burgers. However, he has since changed his tune, saying:
"Our expectations as consumers, in what we deserve for the dollar we hand over, are way too low. All our dollars — both tax dollars and consumption dollars — should never go to waste. But today, our consumption dollars often blindly pay for products and services that appear to be cheap, but come with hidden costs." (source)
Bogusky's new endeavor is FearLess, a group consultancy and design shop he has begun with several other colleagues. The group's statement puts prime responsibility on the corporation, rather than the consumer, but recognizes that advocating for your customer can have great results for your business. After all, when your customer feels like you are fighting for them, you earn their trust.
"Smart companies are realizing that being an advocate for your customer in your category is good for the brand and good for business. And the companies that are founded on this idea and/or are transforming themselves are also enjoying great business results. We help big companies and titans of industry uncover the consumer advocate hiding inside the layers of corporate BS. In fact, there is nothing we enjoy more." (source)
"Our expectations as consumers, in what we deserve for the dollar we hand over, are way too low. All our dollars — both tax dollars and consumption dollars — should never go to waste. But today, our consumption dollars often blindly pay for products and services that appear to be cheap, but come with hidden costs." (source)
Bogusky's new endeavor is FearLess, a group consultancy and design shop he has begun with several other colleagues. The group's statement puts prime responsibility on the corporation, rather than the consumer, but recognizes that advocating for your customer can have great results for your business. After all, when your customer feels like you are fighting for them, you earn their trust.
"Smart companies are realizing that being an advocate for your customer in your category is good for the brand and good for business. And the companies that are founded on this idea and/or are transforming themselves are also enjoying great business results. We help big companies and titans of industry uncover the consumer advocate hiding inside the layers of corporate BS. In fact, there is nothing we enjoy more." (source)
Friday, October 22, 2010
A Sweet Surprise, pt. 2
Diving further into the Corn Refiners Association's campaign, it has now come to light that the group is petitioning the FDA to officially change the name "high fructose corn syrup" to the much easier on the ears "corn syrup." The group believes that once people are able to easily understand the ingredient when they first hear the name, sales (which have still been low) will increase. This was the case with both "canola oil" and "dried plums," which had been "low euric acid rapeseed oil" (which just sounds scary) and the ever connotative "prunes."
This would be a very smart marketing move on their part, because HFCS is gaining a negative reputation similar to trans-fats, with companies shedding the ingredient as quickly as they can, so starting fresh with a new name could be well worth it. However, as Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Northwestern University says, "The public is skeptical, so the move will be met with criticism." (source)
The group should be careful, however, that it does not seem as if they are trying to deceivingly parade out an old ingredient under a new name, without adequate explanation. If this name change is approved by the FDA, the Corn Refiners Association should put together an entire campaign to announce the name change, and make it a major event. The campaign should focus on education--that the new name better reflects what the ingredient actually is, because it has the same nutritional quality as sugar. Also, the phrase "corn sugar" better reflects the natural quality of the ingredient, whereas HFCS has a more chemical-sounding name.
In conclusion on high fructose corn syrup, the TV campaign they have been running about myths and hearsay about the ingredient has been effective, because it highlights consumer choice. In future campaigns, especially if the name changes to "corn sugar," the association should continue to education the consumer and encourage them to find out more on their own, as this encourages trust.
This would be a very smart marketing move on their part, because HFCS is gaining a negative reputation similar to trans-fats, with companies shedding the ingredient as quickly as they can, so starting fresh with a new name could be well worth it. However, as Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Northwestern University says, "The public is skeptical, so the move will be met with criticism." (source)
The group should be careful, however, that it does not seem as if they are trying to deceivingly parade out an old ingredient under a new name, without adequate explanation. If this name change is approved by the FDA, the Corn Refiners Association should put together an entire campaign to announce the name change, and make it a major event. The campaign should focus on education--that the new name better reflects what the ingredient actually is, because it has the same nutritional quality as sugar. Also, the phrase "corn sugar" better reflects the natural quality of the ingredient, whereas HFCS has a more chemical-sounding name.
In conclusion on high fructose corn syrup, the TV campaign they have been running about myths and hearsay about the ingredient has been effective, because it highlights consumer choice. In future campaigns, especially if the name changes to "corn sugar," the association should continue to education the consumer and encourage them to find out more on their own, as this encourages trust.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
A Sweet Surprise
On the heels of backlash against High Fructose Corn Syrup, especially from the diabetes community, the Corn Refiners Association put out a campaign addressing the relative safety of high fructose corn syrup, touting that it is natural, just like sugar and safe in moderation.
(source)
(source)
This "Sweet Surprise" campaign highlights the fact that people have heard all the talk about high fructose corn syrup, but many don't even know why it is supposedly bad to consume. By giving facts about the sweetener and prompting consumers to visit the association's website, they are encouraging consumers to "get the facts" and take their food choices into their own hands, rather than relying on outside hearsay or gossip.
(source)
(source)
This "Sweet Surprise" campaign highlights the fact that people have heard all the talk about high fructose corn syrup, but many don't even know why it is supposedly bad to consume. By giving facts about the sweetener and prompting consumers to visit the association's website, they are encouraging consumers to "get the facts" and take their food choices into their own hands, rather than relying on outside hearsay or gossip.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Access to Information
If you want to know the calorie count of a food item, where do you go? Do you trek down to your local library and pick up a nutrition book? Are you on a first-name basis with your local nutritionist or dietitian? Probably not. In most cases (9 our of 10 polled), people nowadays search online. With most restaurants providing nutrition data online, as well as independent nutrition sites, it is not difficult to find how much sodium or fat is in your lunch.
So, since companies are not hiding this information from consumers, can it really be their fault? They are following the consumer's right to be informed. A restaurant has educated us on if their product is healthy or not...it is now our informed decision on whether or not we choose it.
So, since companies are not hiding this information from consumers, can it really be their fault? They are following the consumer's right to be informed. A restaurant has educated us on if their product is healthy or not...it is now our informed decision on whether or not we choose it.
Monday, October 18, 2010
See What We're Made Of.
To follow-up the last post on McDonald's, I thought it'd be interesting to see how the company is currently portraying itself in relation to health. Their current web campaign is called "See What We're Made Of" and invites the site visitor to "come inside the kitchens" to see what makes their food delicious. This strategy connects with the current farm-to-table trend of understanding where your food comes from...although in a slightly less wholesome sense.
Once on the site, the visitor can watch videos of various food items being made, from a Caesar salad and vanilla latte to the infamous Big Mac.
Big Mac "What We're Made Of" Video
Once on the site, the visitor can watch videos of various food items being made, from a Caesar salad and vanilla latte to the infamous Big Mac.
Big Mac "What We're Made Of" VideoYou can also meet McDonald's suppliers, including 100 Circle Farms for potatoes for their fries, Lopez Foods for their hamburgers' beef, Gavina Gourmet Coffee for their coffee beans and Keystone Foods for the chicken in their nuggets.
Finally, the site features a section addressing the company's alleged "Quality Correspondents"...moms. These are mothers who are concerned about what their children are eating, and blogs show that these mothers are surprised by the options available at McDonald's, and they are in fact healthy.
The Verdict:
Effective.
McDonald's "See What We're Made Of" campaign is effective and strategic because it lets the consumer be involved in their food choice and really understand what they are eating. This connects back to the Consumer Bill of Rights and the right to be informed. The nutrition information is easily accessible on the site and the visitor is given a history and story for the menu items. This campaign strikes a wonderful balance between corporate and consumer responsibility.
Finally, the site features a section addressing the company's alleged "Quality Correspondents"...moms. These are mothers who are concerned about what their children are eating, and blogs show that these mothers are surprised by the options available at McDonald's, and they are in fact healthy.
The Verdict:
Effective.
McDonald's "See What We're Made Of" campaign is effective and strategic because it lets the consumer be involved in their food choice and really understand what they are eating. This connects back to the Consumer Bill of Rights and the right to be informed. The nutrition information is easily accessible on the site and the visitor is given a history and story for the menu items. This campaign strikes a wonderful balance between corporate and consumer responsibility.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Super Size Me
In 2004, a documentary was produced that forever changed the way many Americans see fast food. This documentary was Super Size Me. In this film, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock decided to eat nothing but items on the McDonald's menu, three times per day, for 30 days. And, if a McDonald's employee asked him if he'd like to Super Size it, well yes he would, thank you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Lkyb6SU5U
This shock-doc was, in fact, shocking. Spurlock gained 9.5 pounds just in the first week, 24.5 pounds total, and experienced heart palpitations and depression, among other ailments. Many viewers promptly renounced fast food, and McDonald's saw people up in arms seemingly overnight.
Managing the Fallout
For five weeks following the premiere, McDonald's execs stood quietly by, hoping that it would blow over, and only making statements in relation to Spurlock's alleged "overeating." However, when the film made its way to Australia, McDonald's Australia CEO Guy Russo decided to tackle the issue head-on. He launched a series of commercials in which he starred, and spoke with all the major newspapers, calling Spurlock "stupid" for the choices he made during the filming.
"We believe, and have always believed, that McDonald's can be eaten as part of a well-balanced diet. What Mr. Spurlock set out to do, which was to double his daily calorie intake, deliberately not exercise and over-eat, was totally irresponsible." - Guy Russo. (source)
To further try to dig McDonald's out of its massive PR hole, Russo began partnering more often with obesity summits and nutrition conferences. And, because Spurlock had specifically called out McDonald's for only offering seven sugar-free items on the menu, Russo partnered with Diabetes Week, launching the conference and speaking alongside nutritionists and dietitians.
Once McDonald's actually addressed the issue of Super Size Me, I believe that they did a good job. However, it should not have taken their PR team five entire weeks to adequately respond. By not tackling the issue head-on, it seemed like the company knew they had been called out, and were hiding.
March, K. (2004). The Awful Truth About Fast Foods. Medical Update, 29(8), 7. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Lkyb6SU5U
This shock-doc was, in fact, shocking. Spurlock gained 9.5 pounds just in the first week, 24.5 pounds total, and experienced heart palpitations and depression, among other ailments. Many viewers promptly renounced fast food, and McDonald's saw people up in arms seemingly overnight.
Managing the Fallout
For five weeks following the premiere, McDonald's execs stood quietly by, hoping that it would blow over, and only making statements in relation to Spurlock's alleged "overeating." However, when the film made its way to Australia, McDonald's Australia CEO Guy Russo decided to tackle the issue head-on. He launched a series of commercials in which he starred, and spoke with all the major newspapers, calling Spurlock "stupid" for the choices he made during the filming.
"We believe, and have always believed, that McDonald's can be eaten as part of a well-balanced diet. What Mr. Spurlock set out to do, which was to double his daily calorie intake, deliberately not exercise and over-eat, was totally irresponsible." - Guy Russo. (source)
To further try to dig McDonald's out of its massive PR hole, Russo began partnering more often with obesity summits and nutrition conferences. And, because Spurlock had specifically called out McDonald's for only offering seven sugar-free items on the menu, Russo partnered with Diabetes Week, launching the conference and speaking alongside nutritionists and dietitians.
Once McDonald's actually addressed the issue of Super Size Me, I believe that they did a good job. However, it should not have taken their PR team five entire weeks to adequately respond. By not tackling the issue head-on, it seemed like the company knew they had been called out, and were hiding.
March, K. (2004). The Awful Truth About Fast Foods. Medical Update, 29(8), 7. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Consumer Bill of Rights
Until the mid-20th century, there was little ethical regulation in the business world. If a product you purchased didn't work correctly or you felt you had been swayed by faulty advertising, you were kind of out of luck. However, in 1960, President John F. Kennedy put forth the following Consumer Bill of Rights:
- The Right to safety - to be protected against the marketing of products and services that are hazardous to health or to life.
- The Right to be informed - to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful, or grossly misleading information, advertising, labeling, or other practices, and to be given the facts needed to make informed choices.
- The Right to choose - to have available a variety of products and services at competitive prices.
- The Right to be heard - to be assured that consumer interests will receive full and sympathetic consideration in making government policy, both through the laws passed by legislatures and through regulations passed by administrative bodies.
- The Right to education - to have access to programs and information that help consumers make better marketplace decisions.
- The Right to redress - to work with established mechanisms to have problems corrected and to receive compensation for poor service or for products which do not function properly.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Jump.
Remember when you were a teenager and it seemed like your parents never let you do the cool thing? All your friends got to, but you? Noooo. (...or maybe it was just me. Hi, Dad!) I remember bringing these issues up to my parents and bolstering my argument with "But Jenny gets to go that party with all the seniors! But Amanda is going to be there!"
The typical response, the one that drove me crazy, was, "Well, if Jenny jumped off a bridge, would you?" Looking back, my parents were right. (Of course.) Even in the small choices--what you do on your Friday night, what you choose to purchase--you can't just blindly follow what everyone else is doing. You have to take in the options and make an educated decision on what is right for you.
This blog is about that educated decision and how it relates to companies who make considerably less than healthy products. For example, 32.3% of men and 35.5% of women in the United States are obese. Is this partly the fault of restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King, who churn out and promote preservative- and sodium-filled fare than can seemingly clog arteries upon mere glance? Or, does the responsibility lie with the consumer who purchases that Big Mac and fries, no matter how hard the restaurants' sell? Should they have looked past all the advertising and better weighed their options? That is what we are hoping to discover...whose fault it is if you do, indeed, jump off the bridge.
*Flegal, PhD, Katherine; Carroll, MSPH, Margaret; Ogden, PhD, Cynthia; Curtin, PhD, Lester R. “Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008.” Journal of the American Medical Association. January 13, 2010. Accessed September 28, 2010.
The typical response, the one that drove me crazy, was, "Well, if Jenny jumped off a bridge, would you?" Looking back, my parents were right. (Of course.) Even in the small choices--what you do on your Friday night, what you choose to purchase--you can't just blindly follow what everyone else is doing. You have to take in the options and make an educated decision on what is right for you.
This blog is about that educated decision and how it relates to companies who make considerably less than healthy products. For example, 32.3% of men and 35.5% of women in the United States are obese. Is this partly the fault of restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King, who churn out and promote preservative- and sodium-filled fare than can seemingly clog arteries upon mere glance? Or, does the responsibility lie with the consumer who purchases that Big Mac and fries, no matter how hard the restaurants' sell? Should they have looked past all the advertising and better weighed their options? That is what we are hoping to discover...whose fault it is if you do, indeed, jump off the bridge.
*Flegal, PhD, Katherine; Carroll, MSPH, Margaret; Ogden, PhD, Cynthia; Curtin, PhD, Lester R. “Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008.” Journal of the American Medical Association. January 13, 2010. Accessed September 28, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)