I recently became aware of two interesting and potentially offensive products. One was pulled off the market while the other is still being offered (since the company behind it sees nothing wrong with it).
The first product is the “Lil’ Monkey” doll produced exclusively for Costco stores. Brass Key Keepsakes, the doll’s producer, says they did not consider the doll to be racially offensive. As Wake Forest University business professor Derrick Boone notes, this is more a question of insensitivity than racially-charged intent.
I’m sure Brass Key is telling the truth – at least, I can’t imagine they would WANT to step in the PR mess this type of controversy brings with it. Granted, individual perspectives span the spectrum and it would be nearly impossible to foresee every possible reaction to a new product. At the same time, this particular situation makes you wonder what conversation took place and why the question “is this offensive?” did not get asked. Even though Brass Key planned to produce a set of three diverse dolls, the name alone seems questionable. At least the corporate reaction was swift: buyers for Costco immediately removed the product from stores. Brass Key and Costco recognized the problem and decided that was not the message they wanted to send the public.
The second product is the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles Michael Vick jersey for dogs. One of my Facebook friends made me aware of this issue and my initial reaction was, “this must be a (sick) joke!” It seems absolutely ludicrous the NFL shop would offer this type of merchandise. According to the NBC Sports article, the NFL stands behind the product, arguing fans can purchase a customized jersey for every player. They go on to mention how Vick is now working with humane societies and helping increase awareness/education on the issue. There is a list of restricted words and phrases so fans can’t order jerseys with expletives; the NFL recently added, “Bad Newz,” the name of Vick’s operation.
The capitalist in me says the market will determine the success of this product. If the public finds it offensive, they will not buy the product and thus it will not make money. They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity. But is this the type of public scrutiny the NFL wants? Shouldn’t they aim to protect their brand by not endorsing a product that raises so much controversy? Or, because the NFL cleared Vick to play, is this simply a matter of treating everyone equally? What about Michael Vick’s personal brand? Is this a way for him to begin building a good reputation or will there be a backlash creating the opposite effect?
As we say at Strategic Insights, a brand is a promise. You better make sure your brand is making the promise you intend!
By Marie Duncan, Account Executive
Strategic Insights
Subscribe to RSS »
Subscribe to Email »
wevegotideas
Chris Griffin
Josh Gibbs
Bill Cokas
Jenn Soloway
You have to wonder:
1. Of all the nicknames for babies, was that the ONLY one to receive unanimous approval (from the clearly homogenous executive team)?
2. Of all the products currently NOT on the market, why were dog jerseys chosen? Were there no other voids to fill? Was the Michael Jackson Sleep Mask deemed “too safe?”
At least you let me know where my moral compass currently points. I would adamantly refuse to advertise either of those. Gimme a good ol’ ED remedy anytime.