Originally Posted on “Marketing” – Google News by unknown
The Gist
- Brand sensitivity. Effective campaigns require a deep understanding of cultural and social sensitivities.
- Quality integrity. Maintaining product quality should not be compromised for cost-saving measures.
- Legal awareness. Advertisements must align with industry regulations to avoid legal repercussions and damage to credibility.
Have you ever seen an ad that ridiculously missed the mark, alienating customers or causing a massive drop in sales?
Some of these gaffes are so bad that it’s hard to believe they’re real. But they are. And we can certainly learn a thing or two from them.
1. Fiat’s Anonymous Love Letters
Back in 1994, Italian carmaker Fiat decided to send out 50,000 anonymous love letters to young women in Spain.
The personally addressed letters on pink paper included gems like: “Yesterday we saw each other again. We met on the street, and I noticed how you glanced interestedly in my direction. I only need to be with you for a couple of minutes, and even if it doesn’t work out, I promise you won’t forget our little experience together.”
Fiat’s plan was to send a follow-up letter around six days later, revealing the “admirer” to be the new Fiat Cinquecento. Before that could happen, however, the women began to feel scared, imagining a stalker tracking their every move. Some locked themselves in their apartments, while others would only leave home in the presence of male company. Married women who received the letters also said the campaign caused jealousy issues in their relationships.
Ultimately, Fiat ended up getting sued, had to pay fines and followed up the ad campaign with apology letters.
The Lesson:
This is one of those campaigns that makes you scratch your head and wonder how it passed multiple levels of approval. "We thought is was a fun campaign aimed at the independent, modern working woman," a Fiat spokesman said at the time.
But did they consult any independent, modern working women for the campaign? Likely not, because Fiat would have quickly learned that anonymous letters from someone secretly watching you is creepy, not flattering or exciting. It signals a massive miss for Fiat in understanding its target audience.
Related Article: Apple’s ‘Crush’ Ad Controversy: Insights Into the Power of Public Opinion
2. Dove’s Real Beauty Campaign
In 2017, Dove released a three-second “Real Beauty” ad, where a black woman turns into a white woman after using the brand’s body lotion.
The ad sparked a ton of controversy online. Many called the spot racist, and it spurred hashtags like #DoneWithDove and #DoveMustFall. Others, however, argued the ad was not racist, and instead was an attempt to be diverse and show off different models.
Dove later pulled the ad from Facebook and released an apology on Twitter. “An image we recently posted on Facebook missed the mark in representing women of colour thoughtfully. We deeply regret the offence it caused,” the company wrote.
The Lesson:
“Dove has had numerous ads over the years that cannot be mistaken for anything other than racist,” said Mara Einstein, professor at Queens College, City University of New York.
“Similar to the ad where the Black woman turns white, there was a print ad that suggested that being Black was the ‘before’ and being white was the ‘after.’ Hard to interpret that any other way.”
To avoid making racist, misogynistic or simply juvenile advertising mistakes, explained Einstein, marketers have to take the time to vet their content. “This doesn’t have to be overly expensive or time consuming and it will save them from agita in the long run.”
As for demonstrating values, she added, it’s time for companies to stop with purpose and deal with impact. “If what you are doing isn’t helping the planet or your people — employees, customers, community — then take a seat.”
3. Lifelock’s CEO Gives Out His Social Security Number
Have you ever heard of LifeLock? You might have seen the commercial where the company’s CEO, Todd Davis, gives out his social security number on TV, claiming the company’s product is so air-tight that he has nothing to worry about.
You might remember that his social was splattered across many billboards.
If you think that seemed like a stupid idea at the time, you would have been right. Because Davis had his identity stolen at least 13 times since 2007.
One criminal in Georgia, for instance, used it to rack up more than $2,300 worth of phone calls. And debt collectors sought out another $3,700+ from people other than Davis using the number.
In 2008, credit bureau Experian sued LifeLock, accusing it of deception and fraud in its advertising campaign. And two years later, the FTC levied $100 million in fines against the identity theft prevention company for deceptive advertising and failure to secure consumers’ personal information.
The Lesson:
This should be a no brainer — the claims your company makes should line up with what you’re able to deliver. Overpromising can lead to significant credibility damage and legal troubles if the product doesn’t perform as advertised.
LifeLock’s campaign also ran afoul of legal standards, leading to lawsuits and hefty fines. It highlights the importance of having a good grasp of industry regulations and laws. Especially in cases like this, where the brand tried to stand out with a unique form of marketing, it’s important to work with legal teams to understand the boundaries of what can be promised and claimed in advertisements to avoid legal repercussions.
Related Article: Are Your Brand Marketing Strategies Outdated?
4. Bloomingdale’s Spike Your Best Friend’s Eggnog Ad
Out of touch marketers? Seems to be a trend.
Bloomingdales faced criticism when they released a campaign featuring a man and woman with the caption: “Spike your best friend’s eggnog when they’re not looking.”
Now, this wasn’t the 1960s (though that still wouldn’t be a good excuse). This was 2015, when the conversation around date rape culture was in full swing. These were conversations people were having online, in schools, etc.
But apparently Bloomingdales didn’t get the memo.
The company later issued an apology, with one tweet saying, “We heard your feedback about our catalog copy, which was inappropriate and in poor taste. Bloomingdale’s sincerely apologizes.”
The Lesson:
“It’s crucial to thoroughly understand not just demographic data, but the societal and cultural contexts that might affect the reception of your campaign,” said Tenyse Williams, digital marketing adjunct instructor specialist at Columbia University, George Washington University and the University of Central Florida.
What could Bloomingdales have done better? Some steps Williams pointed to include:
- A pre-release review process that involved multiple layers of approval
- Sensitivity and implication training for the marketing team
- Real-time monitoring and feedback implementation once the campaign went live
“These steps are not just about crisis management but about proactive engagement and ethical reflection in the creation and launch of advertising campaigns,” explained Williams. “By integrating these practices brands like Bloomingdale’s can avoid major missteps and align more closely with both ethical standards and public sentiment.”
5. Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner Ad
A lot of headlines in 2017 featured the Black Lives Matters protests. People were talking about issues surrounding race, equality, police violence and more. For some reason, Pepsi decided it was the ideal time to release their Kendall Jenner ad.
In the commercial, the socialite walks out into the protest and immediately defuses tensions by handing a police officer a can of Pepsi.
Naturally, people were mad. Many accused the brand of trivializing the protests and downplaying the deaths caused by police.
“Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding,” the company wrote on Twitter. "Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are pulling the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this position.”
The Lesson:
Marketers should think about the context of their ads and how they will be seen by their intended audience, said Mindy Weinstein, founder and CEO of Market MindShift and author of “The Power of Scarcity.”
In the case of the Kendall Jenner ad, said Weinstein, Pepsi didn’t consider the seriousness of the social issue it used. Testing ads with a diverse group of people can help avoid marketing mistakes and will give insight into how the ads are being interpreted, she added.
“I’ve noticed that marketing campaigns that lack sensitivity to social issues, misjudge audience values, oversimplify complex matters, and fail to predict public reaction are the ones that become the biggest blunders,” Weinstein explained. “They fail to understand and respect the audience’s context, values, and current social climate. That is a recipe for a marketing disaster.”
Related Article: Bad Customer Service Exposed: 5 Stories to Learn From
6. The Schlitz Mistake
Up until 1977, the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company was America’s largest brewer. And its flagship beer, Schlitz, was coined as the “beer that made Milwaukee famous.”
So what happened?
For starters, the brand made a number of poor decisions — like using cheaper ingredients and attempting to shorten the beer’s brewing time with a process called accelerated batch fermentation.
The nail in the coffin, however, was a series of bizarre commercials titled “Drink Schlitz or I’ll Kill You.” The ads featured people like a fictional boxer or a lumberjack with a pet cougar. When an off-screen voice would ask if they’d like to try a beer other than Schlitz, they’d respond with odd comments like, “You want to take away my Schlitz? My gusto? …You’re gonna be down for the count so long, they’re gonna use a calculator.”
The ads were a huge failure, with the company pulling them off the air — and firing their ad men — 10 weeks after they first went live.
Sales dropped, with the company taking more than $1.4 million in losses in 1976 — the equivalent of $6.3 million in 2020. By 1981, Schlitz closed its Milwaukee brewery. The downfall became so infamous that it even earned a name: the “Schlitz mistake.”
The Lesson:
Schlitz made the fateful decision to change its brewing process and use cheaper ingredients, compromising the quality of the beer and alienating customers who expected a certain standard.
But the true lesson here is in understanding brand and audience alignment. The “Drink Schlitz or I’ll Kill You” campaign is a textbook example of a marketing message that missed the mark in terms of audience expectations and the brand’s heritage.
Schlitz’s attempt to use humor and hyperbole came off as aggressive and bizarre, rather than appealing. It’s a story of marketers forgetting to make campaigns resonate with audience’s values and perceptions, and keeping messaging consistent with the brand’s established image.
It’s also a case that calls for testing prior to the ad’s launch to gauge audience reactions. Had Schlitz tested their ads with focus groups or smaller markets, they might have discovered the negative reactions and adjusted their approach accordingly. Schlitz could still be a beer that we all drink and talk about today.
Beyond Marketing Blunders: Building a Lasting Legacy
The consequences of a poorly conceived ad campaign can extend far beyond at temporary drop in sales or a fleeting PR headache. These marketing missteps above point to a deeper, more systemic issue within the sphere of marketing — a frequent disconnect between how brands perceive themselves and the realities of public perception.
For marketers, the challenge is not just to avoid the next big blunder, but to actively contribute to a legacy of respect, integrity and genuine engagement with audiences. The question should not be: How can the next campaign avoid controversy? It should be: How will it reaffirm the brand’s place in the lives and values of consumers?
