Social Media's Power: Motrin Angers Online Users

There are certain groups of people advertisers want to particularly avoid angering. One such group is mothers who are pregnant or have recent newborns. It is especially essential if these mothers are your target audience. A recent advertisement for Motrin, a pain relief medicine, seems to have taken an entirely wrong approach towards selling their product. The ad portrays a cartoon depicting the words orated by the voice over to tell a story about mothers who wear their babies in slings. But the ad goes about this message of back pain caused by the slings entirely wrong. The online ad has received such harsh feedback recently (this ad has been online since Sept. 30th though), that the entire Motrin website was eventually closed down for hours to be later revealed with an apology on the homepage where the video used to be. A few ways the predominantly negative publicity about this Motrin ad was spread online were from blog posts, YouTube video responses, and probably most importantly Twitter. Twitter is a social networking site that allows users to constantly update their statuses for friends to read and interact with. This site had a profound impact by instantly spreading the word about Motrin's ad to other users. Motrin quickly became one of the most searched topics on the entire Twitter site and the medicine's mistake was gaining interest on the blogosphere as writers were updating posts according to developments with the response to the ad. This is a grand example of what advertisers try to avoid when releasing new campaigns and these types of negative feedback are usually gained early on in testing the ads before release. It seems that a simple lack of care by Motrin and/or their advertising agency to put out this controversial ad without testing it for feedback. This lesson however, will prove as a prime example of why it is necessary to not only properly test ads before release but also how to closely monitor the follow-up and reactions given off by the target audience. If Motrin had kept a closer eye on the initial feedback the ad was producing, this story, which has been picked up by just about every advertising blog I could find, would have blown over as a small mistake. Instead, the company has been forced to take on a large public relations effort to control any damage that was done to their image. The task at hand is not yet over for Motrin despite having taken a few of the necessary steps since the video's release, but I have explored the blogosphere to read a few posts and comment on them with my own insight on the story. The first post I commented on is from Shankman.com by Peter Shankman, on his post "The REAL problem with the Motrin ads..." And the other blog I wrote a comment on, was the What'sNextBlog.com by B.L. Olchman in a post titled "Social Media Storm Spreads as Motrin Ad Angers Moms."

"The REAL problem with Motrin ads..."
Comment:
Peter, thank you for writing an informative and useful post to your expanding blog. This story has recently gained ample attention across the Internet, most importantly on Twitter and blog sites. I enjoyed reading your stance on the situation and also your tips in aiding others to not make the same mistake were very relevant and practical. You were wise in your writing to maintain an inoffensive stance on the situation while providing your own input into the story. Much of your opinion is backed by current trends and is also reflective of some of my own points. I agree with your argument about "Mommy-Bloggers" and that they truly are influential, not only due to their frequency of posting, but also due to the community aspect they feel and relate to online. Also your idea about using a mother in a position of power is a great point as this seems like an act of utter disregard by the company or agency to acknowledge a now-common technique practiced in marketing, gaining constant insight from the audience themselves. Could this just have been a campaign by Motrin that came about with all "gut feeling" and no substantial evidence to support it? It sure seems that way judging from the negativity that has sparked all of this. But then again, how could a company under a division of Johnson & Johnson make such a large mistake with their target audience?
AdAge's story on the topic does bring about a topic worthy of noting, that the online ad has been out for a few weeks now and it has not been controversial until now. Perhaps this is because some powerful social networkers have recently picked up the problematic story to spread to others. It already seems that issues like this arise all of the time, stemming from the fact that those with influence, like widely read bloggers, are able to dictate what their readers see or hear. It is interesting to ponder how many ads could potentially fall victim the same way as this Motrin ad if they were all to be discussed so widely. Thank you for this insightful and educational post and I look forward to reading more of your scholarly advice in the future.

"Social Media Storm Spreads as Motrin Ad Angers Moms"
Comment:
Thank you for your timely and intuitive post on this developing story. I appreciate your consistent updates to keep your readers informed as the issue at hand progresses. I applaud you on your assessment of the story and the feedback you then provide of how to handle the situation from the brand's side. Your advice to Motrin of what they should do is practical and useful and seems like the most logical steps that the brand should take in order to repair any damage that was done. I particularly enjoyed your fourth tip to "Spend money creating a socially responsible program that helps real mothers with a real issue - preferably one they vote on." This appears to be the best step that Motrin can take to move on from this while still acknowledging the fact they made a mistake in a way that spins the issue from negative to positive in one fell swoop. I believe this is a practice other brands have used in the past to advance from prior mistakes similar to this one.
I was amused by your remarks about brands and their use of marketing efforts on the weekends as, just like you said, the Internet is a 24/7 thing that most brands often do not keep track fully of. Things happen instantly online and I agree that brands should keep a never-ending watch to how their brand is perceived and written about online. With the future of branding at stake, does this vivid example of what not to do set a standard for other Internet efforts? This surely seems like a widespread point of learning for other brands but with the consistent pace and ever evolving form of the Internet, will brands ever be safe to make a mistake again? The room for mistakes is constantly narrowing down until we may see the loss of any risk-taking efforts.
Your blog posts are continually of the highest caliber and I am glad you covered this topic with such detail and opinion. Thank you for your post and I look forward to gaining some feedback from you on this subject matter.

Monkey See, Monkey No Longer Do: PETA Tries to Remove Apes from Ads

A growing trend in advertising has been the comical use of our primate relatives. They act just like use and provide some easy laughs. But now they may no longer show their opposable thumbs in TV commercials again. This past week PETA released a statement saying they are partnering with the Ad Council to remove the use of great apes in ads. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has long been an advocate for proper treatment of great apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, but their involvement in this issue has yet to impact the advertising world until now. This overlap has arisen due to the recently increasing use of these animals in television and print campaigns (see photo to right). There has been speculation of illegal practices and inhumane conditions that these primates are put through in order to create these ads, yet no direct charges have been made in recent times. The Ad Council, based in New York "is the leading producer of public service announcements (PSAs) since 1942," issued their statement supporting PETA from president and CEO, Peggy Conlon. She addressed their lack of use of any great ape in their 66 year history and that there is a need to outlaw the use of these animals as they "endure abuse as part of their behind-the-scenes training." However, with all of this, I feel the issue at hand should not be dealt with by removing great apes from the advertisements themselves, but instead PETA should be advocating for stricter practices in the treatment of the animals during their time being raised for acting and while working on the ads. To ask for a prompt and entire removal of chimpanzees and orangutans from commercials seems a little extreme, thus PETA and the Ad Council should steer their efforts towards gaining more humane treatment of these acting primates.

This recent story has allowed many blogs online to take a humorous spin at the issue, while others simply state the ridiculousness of it all. PETA provides their description of the use of these primates in the news release and on their blog, The PETA Files, to portray the trainers of the monkeys as the problem and the use of their acting in ads as the original source causing this problem. Yet others who pick up the issue would rather point out what no longer will be seen in advertising instead of focusing on any positive outcome of their removal. Bloggers would rather scheme up the funny "what if" situations that could occur if all other agencies abide by this proposal. AdFreak entertains the thought that we should be glad PETA stopped these primates before they could become "intelligent enough to unionize one day and bring commercial production grinding to a halt" or even they may possess the "desire to subjugate humankind in a post-apocalyptic world" (see Planet of the Apes reference). From the mouth of a credible news source, even AdAge adds a spin to this issue by saying "this is one more step toward a chimp-free Super Bowl" and throws in its own reference to a previously famous commercial starring a monkey.

Meanwhile, AdRants.com takes off with the story to send a witty message about the life of the now out of work great ape that had appeared in the award-winning Cadbury commercial (photo below left). Yet, this point goes barely beyond its screen-limited comedic tone because that great ape was obviously fake. But who knows what could come about, what if more great ads like this will never be taken beyond the drawing board because of this proposed limitation, why should the use of primates be wiped out entirely? There is still the chance to use people in costume ape suits or to show animated monkeys, but where is the fun in seeing that. The point has always been to see an animal that is so closely related to own human DNA that the actions are comparable enough for us to picture ourselves as them (perfect example was from CareerBuilder.com's Super Bowl TV spots showing chimps as your bosses). Having a live animal reenact our mundane lifestyle is often refreshing and warming. So far the agreement between PETA and the Ad Council has only limited influence on the advertising industry's broad reach, but with enough pressure this issue may soon be recognized by all major agencies and lead to the elimination of primates from commercials. What's next...the Aflac Duck? The Geico Gecko? The Coca-Cola Polar Bears? This problem is relevant but only within a certain extent of live animal usage and in the future we may see this set a standard that the industry will not be able to keep up with as a potential spark that causes exponential downward use of any live animals in commercials.

Debate on the Rise: Similar Bread Ads Stir Agencies

Yeast makes bread rise. Copying advertisements makes agencies' blood levels rise. A recent online debate has begun over an ad for Qatar Airlines, as it appears to be similarly styled like an ad created for Lurpak Danish Butter. It is not the brands here at war, instead their creators are the ones from which the words are flying over the blogosphere. World-renowned agency Wieden + Kennedy London (see photo below), have stumbled upon a YouTube video depicting a recent ad for Qatar Airlines that is surprisingly alike an ad they released in March 2007. W+K London managing director, Neil Christie, first acknowledged that another agency "copied" his work on his agency's blog this past week. He offered evidence of both videos with embedded YouTube clips and directly called out to those at the other agency, Batey Singapore, through some choicely aimed words. The normally scarce to truly participate advertising blog world has blown up with comments supporting both sides of the debate, with the most commented site being the W+K London blog. Other blogs which also report this story have received increases in knowledgeable comments, as even Neil Christie, himself, has been dropping lines in defense of his statements and following many of the arguments on this topic. I was able to comment on a two of these blogs and truly dive into the online warfare with my contributions. The first blog I commented on was BusinessWeek: Brand New Day, a blog written by Marketing Editor Burt Helm and Senior Correspondent David Kiley, my submission was on the post Wieden & Kennedy Cries “Ripoff”. Another blog I contributed to was a blog that is related to AdWeek and a personal favorite of mine, AdFreak, which is created by multiple writers (see photo below). Brian Morrissey, who is not the most frequent poster to this site, yet maintains his authority with his writings for AdWeek, generated this post, titled Wieden upset by half-baked Singapore spot. I have commented directly onto each of these respected blogs and have also posted my words here below.

"Wieden & Kennedy Cries 'Ripoff'"
Comment:
Thank you for your insightful post on this recent and still developing story. I am glad you covered this event, as it is a topic that deserves more attention than it is currently receiving. The controversy at hand stems from the fact that it seems creativity may soon reach its limit and the thresholds of originality may be stretched beyond any point of return. With this thinking, nothing is original. I feel that the two advertisements portray their own unique artistic expression and though overlap is present, the two ads remain apart. This is not to say that the opinion of Wieden + Kennedy London's Neil Christie should go by the wayside. The fact that he took the time to publicly defend what he felt was an injustice to his agency's creative work shows his dedication to his career as well as his drive to express a need for change in this industry practice. I understand it is not uncommon to use similar tactics as other campaigns yet with the lack of original content being created, Mr. Christie has the right to try to hold on to what may have been his to begin with. You say in your post "most times, it is the creative director's delusion" that his or her work has been "ripped off," yet I feel that without speaking out about such incidents, whether they be true or not, would only lead to worse offenses. Perhaps Mr. Christie is doing only what others are incapable of doing (and might I add he is going to some length to do so, by commenting on blogs to defend his words).

When watching the ads, it is hard not to instantly agree with the claims of copying or even going as far as plagiarizing, due to the similarity in visuals and scripts used. It is apparent why these ads are even being compared but you simply write off Mr. Christie as having a "preposterous claim." There may be little to no way of proving him right for his complaint against the alleged agency, Batey Singapore, but it would only seem appropriate for the agency to at least acknowledge his blog post and respond accordingly. The advertising industry would benefit from a peaceful resolution to this incident but it would make further progress if Batey did, by chance, acknowledge their reuse of Wieden + Kennedy London's material. What are your feelings on the shady practices that currently go on in the advertising world? It will be interesting to see what will result from this but for the meantime I appreciate your time and work on this blog and look forward to your response.

"Wieden upset by half-baked Singapore spot"
Comment:
I would like to thank you for reporting on this controversy, as it has been a topic of much discussion throughout the advertising blogosphere. There have been many comments preceding my own on your blog, yet I feel that this story is one worthy of more acknowledgment. The issue of copying creative efforts has rung loudly throughout the advertising industry with this incident and stands as a reminder of a problem that will see no end in the near future. With all of the copyrighting and other efforts to ban such copying practices, the responsibility then falls onto the individual to stand up for one's own work. This can cause great backlash to occur as is evident from Neil Christie's call out of the agency that he felt was "bloody copying his ad" and has since proceeded with follow-up comments. The mounting pressure to be innovative in this business causes strain for creatives, especially as the ability to be "original" seems to be nearly dead. Much of what creatives do is to draw from others for inspiration and sometimes instead of viewing others' ideas and moving forward, the inspiration acquired becomes drawn too directly from its original source.

You wrote in this post "these things always perplex me. Could the breadmaking have been presented differently, or is any breadmaking a no-no?" I like your point that often agencies can hold on too tightly to the work they created and all of the gray area that coincides. In this case, at least the products being advertised are entirely different, but then again I am sure that Mr. Christie was wondering why Batey Singapore chose to depict a similar breadmaking process instead of how to make any other food item the Qatar Airlines might offer?

You also say, "the grumbling over these...tribute ads is done sotto voce. But sometimes not." However I feel it could perhaps be a good thing that Mr. Christie spoke up for his work. It should be seen as progressive by the overall industry to do what most others do not. He has set an example to follow when others may otherwise feel too timid to speak out. This can even serve to quell fears in agencies worldwide that they will be chastised for publicly protecting their ads. I would be curious to hear what you feel about this incident in more depth; especially how you think the practices of mirroring others will be affected by this powerful agency voicing their opinion on it. Thank you for your continued work on this blog as it is a favorite of mine and I look forward to more from your side of this story.