Butting in on the Burger King-SpongeBob ad campaign debate

In case you missed it, Burger King and SpongeBob have stirred up a little controversy over their latest co-branded TV commercial promoting the 99-cent Kids Meals (and square butts, apparently.) Before I tell you what I think, I'll get you up to speed on what everyone else thinks:

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is issuing a "Spongebob and Sexualization Don't Mix" campaign to remove the ads. "It’s bad enough when companies use a beloved media character like SpongeBob to promote junk food to children, but it’s utterly reprehensible when that character simultaneously promotes objectified, sexualized images of women,” said CCFC director Dr. Susan Linn, a psychologist at the Judge Baker Children's Center.

According to the Washington Post, Burger King and Nickelodeon have issued the following statements:

"The 99-cent BK Kids Meal is a value-based offer aimed at adults and requires an adult BK Value Meal purchase. This value offering enables the entire family to enjoy an affordable quality meal. As with all Burger King adult advertising campaigns, the SpongeBob commercial
featuring Sir Mix-A-Lot's famous song airs only during shows targeting adult audiences, and with the King and a popular '90s rapper as the headliners, is meant to appeal to the adults who take their families to Burger King restaurants for good food and entertainment. This commercial is intended to show that even adults can have fun, laugh and be silly with entertainment genres -- such as rap and pop culture icons -- that have become part of everyday life. We also developed a second, completely different SpongeBob advertising campaign for kids, which is currently airing on kid-targeted programming."

Nickelodeon issued a similar statement:

"The Burger King ad is intended to be an adult-targeted and humorous take on the SpongeBob character's iconic "square" pants set to a famous pop song from the '90s. It is running on adult-targeted networks. This year marks SpongeBob SquarePants' landmark 10th anniversary, and with a monthly adult viewership of 45 million people above the age of 18, the intention was to offer a funny and playful take on the character for that audience."

Okay... so what do we have here? An adult targeted ad that is promoting what, exactly-- kids meals? Square butts? A really old (albeit catchy) Sir Mix A Lot song? As a feminist I kind of get the CCFC's point about the "objectified, sexualized" images of women, but fail to see how the butt shaking damages kids in any way, at least no more than say, Madagascar's "I like to Move it Move It." And then we have the canned BK/Nickelodeon response about the adult targeting. Which would make sense if... they weren't using the kid-targeted Kids Meal and the popular kids brand SpongeBob as the major themes of the ad. Never mind that the ad ran on "adult air time." It's all over YouTube now. And then there's the question of the big/square butts... which is supposed to make us want to... eat burgers? Or watch more SpongeBob?

Even if you can for a minute, set aside all of the ifs, ands and/or but(t)s --I still fail to see how this campaign promotes either brand.

The Best of Both Worlds: Predicting yet another Hannah Montana success story

With the Hannah Montana movie opening tomorrow, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: it's going to be a huge box office success. How do I know this? Everything about the marketing and branding machine behind all things Hannah and Miley have been carefully orchestrated to optimal effect. Cute, wholesome teenage girl that doesn't remotely remind us of Britney, Paris or Lindsay? Check. Story line with a moderately appealing plot? Check. Perfectly timed movie release around Easter and spring break? Check.

This week's LA Times article, "Miley Cyrus Blaze of Modesty" further points out that the "ultra Disneyfied" fashions reflect the shift toward more parent-friendly tween fashions. And according to Common Sense Media, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping families manage kids media, the movie "is upbeat and perfectly G rated ... yet another marketing tool in Hannah's merchandise-rich world. The sexuality is completely innocent -- flirting, slow dancing, conversations about relationships, and three really short kisses -- and there's no language, drinking, or smoking. Expect frequent physical comedy (pratfalls, getting hit with a ball, bitten by an animal, etc.) and one scene in which Hannah and Tyra Banks fight over a pair of shoes."

So there you have it. What's not to love? Disney figured out a long time ago that the success of their brands depends not only on the popularity with kids but just as importantly with their parents. It's a winning combination. And that, I must say, is the best of both worlds.

Exploring Dora the uproar

What's the big deal about Dora growing up? She's still "sweet, wholesome and adventurous, a perfect role model..." according to Mattel and Nickelodeon execs. She's just now, well, older. And therein lies the problem.

This new "tween" Dora, which is really just an interactive doll with a USB port and some new online adventures, has really hit a negative nerve among its core target audience, according to a recent AP article. And in my opinion, justifiably so. Remember "new" Coke? Tropicana? Allowing Dora to grow up is not just a brand extension, it's a major change in brand strategy.

I'm amazed that with all of the marketing and strategy muscle behind Mattel and Nickelodeon, they failed to recognize this basic premise.

Just because parents indicated that they wanted "a way to keep Dora in their children's lives and have their daughters move on to a toy that was age appropriate" does not mean that the core property (especially one that has been so successful to date) needs a makeover. It just signals an opportunity for a brand extension. Why couldn't they just create a new character, say, with a similar strategy as Diego? Hey, now there's a novel idea.

The older Dora doesn't even look like the Dora we know and love... and that's probably the saddest part. Once they launch this toy in the fall, there's no going back. I wish they'd just give her a new name. She could be a long-lost cousin, older friend, new stepsister. Anything.

Jean-Pierre Dube, professor of marketing at the University of Chicago's graduate school of business nails it on the head: "A lot of people think of Dora as something for their small kids. And part of the reason people like Dora is because it teaches their kids to be inquisitive and curious in an educational way, because no one wants their kids to grow up fast...people really cherish and value what Dora represents, and if you start trying to license that out or extend that brand, this is a really risky thing to do," he says.

Look Mom, candy mints that sure pack a nicotine punch!

Question: Are the cigarette makers really, truly targeting kids? Answer: of course they are.

This is such a tired topic, so I'm a tad surprised that I'm choosing to comment on it. Yet it has such a fun new little twist...

In case you haven't heard, Orbs Dissolvable Tobacco is being test marketed in Portland, Columbus and Indianapolis by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. These little pellets look like mints (and taste like...I don't know what but my guess is that they don't taste like crushed up cigarettes). Reynolds is also planning to test the Orbs in a chewable stick and a strip form later this spring.

The critics are already upset, understandably so:

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says "They are likely to appeal to children because they are flavored and packaged like candy, are easy to conceal even in a classroom and carry the Camel brand that is already so popular with underage smokers."

And the American Cancer Society says "it's a very dangerous product for children, who tend to become addicted more quickly."

R.J. Reynolds-- of course-- says the product is meant for adults and has warning labels on the package and can only be sold to adults 18 and older.

So here is my question: Is there anything about this product that isn't designed with kids in mind? Let's see... the candy-like flavor? The youthful colors and packaging? The cute camel silhouette? The highly addictive nature of the product? The fact that it's technically "off limits?"

Sara Troy Machir, spokeswoman of Star Scientific, a small tobacco company that sells two dissolvable products, Ariva and Stonewall is quoted in USA Today as saying "Teens like risk-taking behavior and a tablet, unlike a cigarette, won't lure them."

Wow. Did she really say that?

So really, it's a win-win for the tobacco companies. Continue the cradle-to-grave strategy (literally) by continuing to market to kids with not one, but multiple product offerings. Kids who don't initially go for the all-American appeal of the bright packaging and sweet candy-like taste of product number 1 might like the "risk taking" appeal and stench of the old standby product number 2.

The lure of cheap online advertising, the new economy... and you

Do you want the good news first, or the bad news? It all depends on which side of the advertising coin you fall on...

Oh, all right, I'll give you the good news first: online advertising is becoming cheaper than ever. According to a recent Business Week article, Ad networks (the ones that buy space on lots of little sites as opposed to a few large ones) are transforming the industry in such a way that many big, traditional advertisers are choosing to shift their budgets.

"Several industry sources estimate that, out of the $8 billion advertisers spent on display ads last year, 70% went directly to Web sites and 30% to ad networks. This year, based on spending shifts in the past month or so, they project the mix could move to 50-50."

What does this mean? First, advertising is a lot less expensive (as low as $2 per 1,000 views as opposed to $40 per CPM) and second, your ads can be viewed by a whole host of target audiences and sub-targets that you might not ordinarily reach.

The bad news? If you're a content provider, times are tough. The whole industry is changing and it would be very difficult, if not impossible for a media outlet to survive on a diet of advertising dollars alone. But I bet you knew that already. Aside from the major kids entertainment players who still churn out original content on a regular basis (i.e. Disney, Nickelodeon, PBSKids, KOL, Discovery) nearly everyone else has shifted to a virtual world, gaming, retail or software-based business model.

The other bad news? If you are advertising to kids or their parents, your ads could show up on sites that --shall we say --aren't exactly in line with your brand. And you might not even know about it.

My advice? It all depends on your brand. What are you advertising? Who are you trying to reach? If kids are your primary target, you might be better off spending your precious ad dollars somewhere else (even if the CPM is higher) for no other reason than to preserve your brand's integrity. However, if the parent audience is the one you seek, go for it. Moms and Dads surf the net constantly, they've completely taken over Facebook, and the Mommy blogging community is growing about as fast as these ad networks are growing rich.