The Ethical Marketer:
2020 Superbowl Edition
(s1, e1)
|
|
Maureen Jann: Hey everybody. My name is Maureen Jann and I am the founder of Super Deluxe Marketing and I'm here with Erika Heald, content marketing expert and food blogger. And we're doing our very first episode of The Ethical Marketer. In this and the following episodes, we're going to be discussing seemingly shady marketing deals, influencer approaches, and strategies. And I know that we have a very specific approach to this for our very first episode, and the timing is ideal. So talk to us about that.
Erika Heald: So every year marketers choose to invest millions of dollars to be part of the ad world's biggest event, the Superbowl, right? Apparently. I personally not so much, but in the rush to do something that is memorable and that merits the huge ad spend that they're going to be placing. Too often, the brands can accidentally put themselves in the middle of an ethical mess. So cue how this fits in with our framework. So this week we're going to be talking about Bill Nye The Science Guy repping for soda stream and Mr. Peanut's tragic death and funeral. Maureen, I'm going to let you get started with talking about how and why Bill Nye The Science Guy is repping a Superbowl commercial for a company that is owned by Pepsi.
Maureen Jann: Okay. So I did a bunch of research on this because I was really curious, how bad is this aside from the cursory overview of like, huh, that's questionable. But I mean if you don't know who Bill Nye is, just a quick recap. He's known for combating anti-science thinking or anti-scientific thinking and he's concerned about scientific illiteracy. So this is his big top platform, right? He's also the CEO of the planetary society, which was started by Carl Sagan. He is a guy and he seems to walk the talk as a day to day, trying to infuse our society with more information and ensure that we are taking climate change seriously. But it seems like a really, really big project for him.
Maureen Jann: So last year, he actually repped for Persil, which is like a New Zealand based laundry detergent. And so the laundry detergent, of course they have a statement about, they don't include phosphates anymore and all the things. But detergent in and of itself with the bottles and all of the, it felt like the beginning of a very questionable series of choices we're making and so-
Erika Heald: A proverbial slippery slope.
Maureen Jann: Right. So it makes me beg the question with the Superbowl nonsense, is Nye in conflict with his long publicized views about science and climate change? Or is he just using this platform to help build awareness and get people excited about science or is he broke? That's my question, right? All three of these are valid or, no, the first one's not very valid. It's really has lots of questionable bits about ethics. Using his platform for good, smart, smart, and then being broke is legit. It to the best of us. I don't know.
Erika Heald: And it's interesting, I mean has he not actually given any interviews about why he's involved with some of this stuff? Is this just sort of been stuff he's done and he just continues along on his way. Not talking about why he's aligning with the brands.
Maureen Jann: I didn't find anything in my research about that question, the why behind it, not so much. I know that for that Soda Stream thing, the Soda Stream teaser ads he's been releasing for Pepsi Co and Soda Stream had been about Mars and so, but it actually doesn't give a ton of information about Mars. It's just Bill acting quirky and awkward and then drinking a fizzy drink. You're like, what is happening right now?
Maureen Jann: So I'm curious what this looks like and what this manifests as in the actual Superbowl ad itself. Is he going to be the star? Is he just prepping us for more science, geeky, cool stuff in relation? And how does he go about reconciling with the fact that, how does he connect those two things? It's really difficult to tell. And so my biggest thing right now is if you think about Pepsi Co as a whole, it's challenging to find a positive spin on why he would want to go with Pepsi Co because they generate a ton of garbage. The whole thing about obesity and soda is a big deal and it just makes me question how he is personally ethically reconciling that that issue.
Erika Heald: And I think that brings up a good point, which is, if you are a celebrity, if you are a person who has a big platform, especially one that caters to children, do you have an obligation to your fans to be transparent about your motivations? Certainly you're not legally required to do so. But from an ethic standpoint, I could see how it would definitely be in your best interest to have that 120 second explainer video that you put up on your YouTube channel saying, here's why I've partnered with them. This might seem unlikely, however blah, blah blah. And maybe for Soda Stream, maybe it's because this is a way that you can control how much of that soda syrup goes into your child's soda to wean them off of some of the other big soda products.
Erika Heald: I don't know. But Soda Stream itself, this isn't their first time being in the Superbowl. They actually have had a reputation of being very edgy and talking a lot of crap about big soda brands. But then of course they were bought by Pepsi Co. So it's going to be fascinating to see what they ended up doing.
Maureen Jann: Absolutely. And just for the record, as I was doing some research about Bill Nye's audience, that whole legacy of him being focused on children, it's actually about 50% of his entire career, but the other 50% is very geared towards adults. So I actually love the idea what a great action for him. Hey Bill, if you're listening, Erika's has got some great advice for you, you really need reconcile this for us because it feels a little ethically questionable. So I think that's really a great point.
Maureen Jann: This whole thing has been, it's a little confusing and I want better from Bill. I love him. He was the one who got me excited about astronomy, him and Carl Sagan. So I would love to see him be a little more transparent about his decision making process. Even if that's like, "Hey guys, I ran out of cash, I need some more." I mean even then legit, we've all been there and no judgment, but it would just be really helpful to understand his motivation. So I leave that to our listeners. Is he in conflict with his long publicized views on climate change and science? Is he using platform to get people excited or is he broke? You be the judge.
Erika Heald: I can't wait to hear what people have to say because it's definitely an interesting one.
Maureen Jann: Yeah.
Erika Heald: And so the other big ethical decision that we're seeing playing out in the media pre-Superbowl is around Mr. Peanut, the Planters spokesperson. And this was something that started with R.I.P Mr Peanut, the hashtag trending on Twitter and that's what started the breadcrumbs to the commercial that was leaked on January 22nd and as we know there aren't any leaks. This is all just part of the typical Superbowl playbook. But that commercial featured Mr. Peanut with Wesley Snipes and Matt Walsh, who, I have to admit, I had to look up who Matt Walsh was because I don't watch basketball. I just don't, and obviously I knew who Wesley Snipes was because Blade. So, apparently, there's a terrible crash of the nut mobile and Wesley and Matt actually are saved because Mr. Peanut sacrifices himself to save them.
Erika Heald: So fast forward to the very unfortunate helicopter crash this week where Kobe Bryant, his daughter and seven other passengers died. So in the light of that, the Planters peanut people stopped airing this commercial, recognizing that it's certainly that people are really upset about a very similar accident taking place that killed real people, not a fictional mascot of a peanut brand. So here's the deal. You would think that they might, oh, I don't know, not have a commercial running during the Superbowl that is going to be Mr. Peanut's funeral. You might think that they would also have changed that out for something, but they're allegedly going to go ahead with having Mr. Peanut's funeral in the middle of the Superbowl.
Erika Heald: Now crisis communications and crisis management as a brand is something everyone has to prepare for. And in this case, they did the right thing initially of putting a halt on the run up to the Superbowl ads, which certainly probably cost them some money or maybe they ran old ads that are not as effective or that are, something completely different. Who knows how exactly this went down. And I understand that you spend millions of dollars when you put together these Superbowl campaigns and put together these ads. But really? You're going to run a funeral for fictional mascot during a huge sporting event that's going to be watched by people who are understandably still upset about something that will have just happened a week prior. I just don't think it's a good idea. I think you really need to not create problems for yourself as a brand at least to me, this just feels like the wrong thing to do. Do you know what I mean?
Maureen Jann: Yeah. It just begs the question, what do you do in that spot, right? You are the brand, you have invested tons of money in this whole campaign. You've really worked hard to, I mean you've spent the money on the spot. So do you turn it around into an opportunity to address that specific thing? And say, "We just want to give our condolences to the families" and maybe that's the nut. Maybe that's how you approach it. I don't know. What are your thoughts?
Erika Heald: That's exactly what I was thinking is, if they don't have time to do a completely different spot that they can at least use this as an opportunity. Especially since there are lots of younger people who watch the Superbowl with their families to have a way to start a conversation between parents and kids about death. Because so often parents don't talk to their children about death. They say that Harold the hamster packed his bags and ran away or other kinds of things to avoid having to talk to children about death. And to me, this is the kind of thing that could be a really fantastic opportunity to start that kind of a conversation.
Erika Heald: But it at least without having seen the commercial, it seems like there's a real possibility that it's just going to be the wrong thing for marketers to do. That again, makes marketers appear to be very tone deaf and to just look like we charge forth with a strategy even when that strategy seems doomed to failure, which is not really, how the brush I would like to be painted with. But maybe this is why CMO tenure is down to 2004 levels again.
Maureen Jann: I'm just thinking about this and the beautiful thing about, if you were transparent and vulnerable as a brand and, I mean, death is already something you've brought up as part of your story for this particular campaign. So I don't think that's off-brand. I mean, as long as you don't go into whole like, don't die from a peanut allergy perspective, also a thing. But I feel like there's definitely an opportunity because you're opening that conversation and you're becoming vulnerable.
Maureen Jann: You have an opportunity to build trust with your audience rather than seeming tone deaf. And it just feels like it's a shame that they didn't take advantage of the opportunity. Right? So for instance, making mistakes is totally part of being a marketer and sometimes they're very public mistakes and sometimes they are terrible and they make you want to crawl under a desk. Actually have done that just for the record, actually crawled under a desk. But the other opportunities, for instance, have you ever sent out an email to your email database where you failed to put in a variable?
Erika Heald: I haven't, but I've certainly received those emails.
Maureen Jann: So I have a standard protocol of turning it around and saying, you are more than just the first name variable to me and sending out a new email, "Hey, sorry about that. But, hey, we'd still like to offer you this." And that second message that acknowledges the mistake and creates a vulnerable space and an invitation to converse has actually more often than not converted at higher rates for me. So I just feel like this whole concept can be transported over to this Mr. Peanut thing.
Erika Heald: I agree. And just my last take on it too, is it's also totally okay when you get in this situation to just pull the spot. Last year Jeff Bezos, he yanked a $20 million ad for Blue Origin, his space flight company after it was revealed, he was having an affair with Lauren Sanchez who had helped produce the commercial. And that was the right thing to do because that was a huge ethical mess and it was dealt with by killing the spot and eating the money and sometimes you have to do that.
Maureen Jann: when all else fails, pull it. Seems fair in life and marketing.
Erika Heald: Indeed.
Maureen Jann: Yeah. Well I am actually really enjoying talking about these topics and digging into them and learning a little bit more about them and I think that they're going to make me a better marketer the more we talk about them. I don't know if you're feeling the same way.
Erika Heald: Definitely. And I hope that if folks find some really juicy ethical marketing quandary that they'll feel free to send it our way. Probably Twitter's the best way to reach us.
Maureen Jann: And so your Twitter handle, do you mind giving that to everybody?
Erika Heald: Yeah. I'm @sferika, and that's Erika with a K, no C.
Maureen Jann: And I am @superdeluxemo. So if you have some topics we would both love to hear from you. We're always scouting and I think we're still working out on how often we're going to do this podcast. And if you like it, let us know too, because that's really helpful to us to figure out if we're going to do more.
Erika Heald: Excellent. And I'd say we will do them as often as we have a juicy topic to talk about. That's the key.
Maureen Jann: There you go. Yeah. Although, there feels like there is never a shortage in terrible choices.
Erika Heald: That's so true.
Maureen Jann: Okay, well thanks everybody for joining us for the first episode of The Ethical Marketer and we will send something out again soon.
Erika Heald: Bye everyone.
Maureen Jann: Bye.
Erika Heald: So every year marketers choose to invest millions of dollars to be part of the ad world's biggest event, the Superbowl, right? Apparently. I personally not so much, but in the rush to do something that is memorable and that merits the huge ad spend that they're going to be placing. Too often, the brands can accidentally put themselves in the middle of an ethical mess. So cue how this fits in with our framework. So this week we're going to be talking about Bill Nye The Science Guy repping for soda stream and Mr. Peanut's tragic death and funeral. Maureen, I'm going to let you get started with talking about how and why Bill Nye The Science Guy is repping a Superbowl commercial for a company that is owned by Pepsi.
Maureen Jann: Okay. So I did a bunch of research on this because I was really curious, how bad is this aside from the cursory overview of like, huh, that's questionable. But I mean if you don't know who Bill Nye is, just a quick recap. He's known for combating anti-science thinking or anti-scientific thinking and he's concerned about scientific illiteracy. So this is his big top platform, right? He's also the CEO of the planetary society, which was started by Carl Sagan. He is a guy and he seems to walk the talk as a day to day, trying to infuse our society with more information and ensure that we are taking climate change seriously. But it seems like a really, really big project for him.
Maureen Jann: So last year, he actually repped for Persil, which is like a New Zealand based laundry detergent. And so the laundry detergent, of course they have a statement about, they don't include phosphates anymore and all the things. But detergent in and of itself with the bottles and all of the, it felt like the beginning of a very questionable series of choices we're making and so-
Erika Heald: A proverbial slippery slope.
Maureen Jann: Right. So it makes me beg the question with the Superbowl nonsense, is Nye in conflict with his long publicized views about science and climate change? Or is he just using this platform to help build awareness and get people excited about science or is he broke? That's my question, right? All three of these are valid or, no, the first one's not very valid. It's really has lots of questionable bits about ethics. Using his platform for good, smart, smart, and then being broke is legit. It to the best of us. I don't know.
Erika Heald: And it's interesting, I mean has he not actually given any interviews about why he's involved with some of this stuff? Is this just sort of been stuff he's done and he just continues along on his way. Not talking about why he's aligning with the brands.
Maureen Jann: I didn't find anything in my research about that question, the why behind it, not so much. I know that for that Soda Stream thing, the Soda Stream teaser ads he's been releasing for Pepsi Co and Soda Stream had been about Mars and so, but it actually doesn't give a ton of information about Mars. It's just Bill acting quirky and awkward and then drinking a fizzy drink. You're like, what is happening right now?
Maureen Jann: So I'm curious what this looks like and what this manifests as in the actual Superbowl ad itself. Is he going to be the star? Is he just prepping us for more science, geeky, cool stuff in relation? And how does he go about reconciling with the fact that, how does he connect those two things? It's really difficult to tell. And so my biggest thing right now is if you think about Pepsi Co as a whole, it's challenging to find a positive spin on why he would want to go with Pepsi Co because they generate a ton of garbage. The whole thing about obesity and soda is a big deal and it just makes me question how he is personally ethically reconciling that that issue.
Erika Heald: And I think that brings up a good point, which is, if you are a celebrity, if you are a person who has a big platform, especially one that caters to children, do you have an obligation to your fans to be transparent about your motivations? Certainly you're not legally required to do so. But from an ethic standpoint, I could see how it would definitely be in your best interest to have that 120 second explainer video that you put up on your YouTube channel saying, here's why I've partnered with them. This might seem unlikely, however blah, blah blah. And maybe for Soda Stream, maybe it's because this is a way that you can control how much of that soda syrup goes into your child's soda to wean them off of some of the other big soda products.
Erika Heald: I don't know. But Soda Stream itself, this isn't their first time being in the Superbowl. They actually have had a reputation of being very edgy and talking a lot of crap about big soda brands. But then of course they were bought by Pepsi Co. So it's going to be fascinating to see what they ended up doing.
Maureen Jann: Absolutely. And just for the record, as I was doing some research about Bill Nye's audience, that whole legacy of him being focused on children, it's actually about 50% of his entire career, but the other 50% is very geared towards adults. So I actually love the idea what a great action for him. Hey Bill, if you're listening, Erika's has got some great advice for you, you really need reconcile this for us because it feels a little ethically questionable. So I think that's really a great point.
Maureen Jann: This whole thing has been, it's a little confusing and I want better from Bill. I love him. He was the one who got me excited about astronomy, him and Carl Sagan. So I would love to see him be a little more transparent about his decision making process. Even if that's like, "Hey guys, I ran out of cash, I need some more." I mean even then legit, we've all been there and no judgment, but it would just be really helpful to understand his motivation. So I leave that to our listeners. Is he in conflict with his long publicized views on climate change and science? Is he using platform to get people excited or is he broke? You be the judge.
Erika Heald: I can't wait to hear what people have to say because it's definitely an interesting one.
Maureen Jann: Yeah.
Erika Heald: And so the other big ethical decision that we're seeing playing out in the media pre-Superbowl is around Mr. Peanut, the Planters spokesperson. And this was something that started with R.I.P Mr Peanut, the hashtag trending on Twitter and that's what started the breadcrumbs to the commercial that was leaked on January 22nd and as we know there aren't any leaks. This is all just part of the typical Superbowl playbook. But that commercial featured Mr. Peanut with Wesley Snipes and Matt Walsh, who, I have to admit, I had to look up who Matt Walsh was because I don't watch basketball. I just don't, and obviously I knew who Wesley Snipes was because Blade. So, apparently, there's a terrible crash of the nut mobile and Wesley and Matt actually are saved because Mr. Peanut sacrifices himself to save them.
Erika Heald: So fast forward to the very unfortunate helicopter crash this week where Kobe Bryant, his daughter and seven other passengers died. So in the light of that, the Planters peanut people stopped airing this commercial, recognizing that it's certainly that people are really upset about a very similar accident taking place that killed real people, not a fictional mascot of a peanut brand. So here's the deal. You would think that they might, oh, I don't know, not have a commercial running during the Superbowl that is going to be Mr. Peanut's funeral. You might think that they would also have changed that out for something, but they're allegedly going to go ahead with having Mr. Peanut's funeral in the middle of the Superbowl.
Erika Heald: Now crisis communications and crisis management as a brand is something everyone has to prepare for. And in this case, they did the right thing initially of putting a halt on the run up to the Superbowl ads, which certainly probably cost them some money or maybe they ran old ads that are not as effective or that are, something completely different. Who knows how exactly this went down. And I understand that you spend millions of dollars when you put together these Superbowl campaigns and put together these ads. But really? You're going to run a funeral for fictional mascot during a huge sporting event that's going to be watched by people who are understandably still upset about something that will have just happened a week prior. I just don't think it's a good idea. I think you really need to not create problems for yourself as a brand at least to me, this just feels like the wrong thing to do. Do you know what I mean?
Maureen Jann: Yeah. It just begs the question, what do you do in that spot, right? You are the brand, you have invested tons of money in this whole campaign. You've really worked hard to, I mean you've spent the money on the spot. So do you turn it around into an opportunity to address that specific thing? And say, "We just want to give our condolences to the families" and maybe that's the nut. Maybe that's how you approach it. I don't know. What are your thoughts?
Erika Heald: That's exactly what I was thinking is, if they don't have time to do a completely different spot that they can at least use this as an opportunity. Especially since there are lots of younger people who watch the Superbowl with their families to have a way to start a conversation between parents and kids about death. Because so often parents don't talk to their children about death. They say that Harold the hamster packed his bags and ran away or other kinds of things to avoid having to talk to children about death. And to me, this is the kind of thing that could be a really fantastic opportunity to start that kind of a conversation.
Erika Heald: But it at least without having seen the commercial, it seems like there's a real possibility that it's just going to be the wrong thing for marketers to do. That again, makes marketers appear to be very tone deaf and to just look like we charge forth with a strategy even when that strategy seems doomed to failure, which is not really, how the brush I would like to be painted with. But maybe this is why CMO tenure is down to 2004 levels again.
Maureen Jann: I'm just thinking about this and the beautiful thing about, if you were transparent and vulnerable as a brand and, I mean, death is already something you've brought up as part of your story for this particular campaign. So I don't think that's off-brand. I mean, as long as you don't go into whole like, don't die from a peanut allergy perspective, also a thing. But I feel like there's definitely an opportunity because you're opening that conversation and you're becoming vulnerable.
Maureen Jann: You have an opportunity to build trust with your audience rather than seeming tone deaf. And it just feels like it's a shame that they didn't take advantage of the opportunity. Right? So for instance, making mistakes is totally part of being a marketer and sometimes they're very public mistakes and sometimes they are terrible and they make you want to crawl under a desk. Actually have done that just for the record, actually crawled under a desk. But the other opportunities, for instance, have you ever sent out an email to your email database where you failed to put in a variable?
Erika Heald: I haven't, but I've certainly received those emails.
Maureen Jann: So I have a standard protocol of turning it around and saying, you are more than just the first name variable to me and sending out a new email, "Hey, sorry about that. But, hey, we'd still like to offer you this." And that second message that acknowledges the mistake and creates a vulnerable space and an invitation to converse has actually more often than not converted at higher rates for me. So I just feel like this whole concept can be transported over to this Mr. Peanut thing.
Erika Heald: I agree. And just my last take on it too, is it's also totally okay when you get in this situation to just pull the spot. Last year Jeff Bezos, he yanked a $20 million ad for Blue Origin, his space flight company after it was revealed, he was having an affair with Lauren Sanchez who had helped produce the commercial. And that was the right thing to do because that was a huge ethical mess and it was dealt with by killing the spot and eating the money and sometimes you have to do that.
Maureen Jann: when all else fails, pull it. Seems fair in life and marketing.
Erika Heald: Indeed.
Maureen Jann: Yeah. Well I am actually really enjoying talking about these topics and digging into them and learning a little bit more about them and I think that they're going to make me a better marketer the more we talk about them. I don't know if you're feeling the same way.
Erika Heald: Definitely. And I hope that if folks find some really juicy ethical marketing quandary that they'll feel free to send it our way. Probably Twitter's the best way to reach us.
Maureen Jann: And so your Twitter handle, do you mind giving that to everybody?
Erika Heald: Yeah. I'm @sferika, and that's Erika with a K, no C.
Maureen Jann: And I am @superdeluxemo. So if you have some topics we would both love to hear from you. We're always scouting and I think we're still working out on how often we're going to do this podcast. And if you like it, let us know too, because that's really helpful to us to figure out if we're going to do more.
Erika Heald: Excellent. And I'd say we will do them as often as we have a juicy topic to talk about. That's the key.
Maureen Jann: There you go. Yeah. Although, there feels like there is never a shortage in terrible choices.
Erika Heald: That's so true.
Maureen Jann: Okay, well thanks everybody for joining us for the first episode of The Ethical Marketer and we will send something out again soon.
Erika Heald: Bye everyone.
Maureen Jann: Bye.
