Omaha Steaks: Should They Dump Trump?
I’ll admit it–an occasional viewing of Donald Trump’s The Celebrity Apprentice is a guilty pleasure. I guess I enjoy watching people make fools of themselves: performing silly tasks, arguing about perceived slights, petty machinations, the personification of ridiculousness that is Star Jones, etc.
However, it’s the bowing and scraping to “Mister” Trump that I find the most egregiously funny. I mean really–they’re kissing this ridiculous, gold-plated vulgarian’s um…ring? Sheesh. However, aside from my issues with whether the show’s in good taste, it’s “good television” if the ratings are to be believed. Good ratings mean a sure winner for advertising, right?
Well, maybe–but you have to wonder if the good folks at Omaha Steaks are regretting getting on the strange-haired, orange-skinned business tycoon’s bandwagon.
As Omaha Steaks honcho Todd Simon said:
“We don’t really know what to expect. At the very least we know it’s going to get our brand out there and it’s going to raise awareness of all the different gourmet items we sell.”
That said, I’m fairly sure they knew what they were getting into when they decided to make their product identifiable with that loveable kook Gary Busey–but Trump’s wildly careless political rantings? Doubtful.
As you may have heard, Trump is again dallying with running for CEO of America. (Or president. Whatever). In so doing, he’s appealing to a vocal minority by questioning President Obama’s citizenship, college grades and management skills. Well, that has set off a group who wants to take him down:
Remember back when Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist? He lost 100+ advertisers. Consumers have the power to do the same thing to Trump’s show, Celebrity Apprentice. If, in fact – as is suspected – all this birtherism is simply a ploy to get publicity for his show, I think it’s time that real Americans, those who are willing to state unequivocally that we accept President Obama as an equal American, show Trump that not only is the birtherism going to backfire in terms of his 2012 presidential bid, it’s going to backfire in terms of pumping up his show. Boycott his sponsors . . . and here’s who they are:
Enterprise Rental Car, Clorox, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Walt Disney. On February 25, 2011, the following sponsors were also announced for the upcoming season: Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, 7-Up, OnStar, Australian Gold, Camping World, ACN, Omaha Steaks, Farouk Hair Systems, www.kassatex.com, Hallmark Collectibles, Inc., Talbott Teas, and, of course, all things Trump. Dump ‘em. All of them. Today.
There’s even the ubiquitous Facebook page.
As a commentator on all things PR and a consumer of Omaha Steaks I wanted to see what their take was on this mess, so I called them. I got through to customer service and said I had a question about Trump. They put me through to a different representative. Very polite. I explained that I was concerned about the image of Omaha Steaks–she explained that there had been “other calls” and that they appreciated my call and would take all customer concerns into their consideration for future marketing.
I inferred that the deal with Trump had caused a lot of agita, and I really doubt they will ever align their brand with The Celebrity Apprentice again.
I’d love to know if they sold a lot more steaks due to their exposure on the show. I may be naive, but I’d wager the PR damage was probably not worth it. I wonder also if there wasn’t some sort of clause in their contract with the show that if politics or very embarrassing actions by people connected to the show would be grounds for some sort of refund? Wait. What am I saying? This show featured Gary Busey and Star Jones. The show is all about embarrassment.
The question is age old–do you travel with the freak show so you can sell more snake oil? Omaha Steaks will no doubt come out of this just fine; though I have to wonder if even their gourmet steaks will get the bad taste of Trump’s bad taste out of the consumer’s mouth.
Taco Bell Thinks Outside the Bun and Wins
Faithful readers may recall that recently we discussed the PR implications of the lawsuit against Taco Bell. The suit took the fast food giant to task for allegedly not meeting government standards for what constitutes “beef.”
Taco Bell fought back by thinking outside the bun a bit. They launched an ad campaign that said “thank you for suing us” so they could demonstrate the quality of their food. It worked–the suit was dropped and now they want an apology:
Beasley Allen, the law firm that filed suit on behalf of a California woman alleging the company’s food did not meet federal standards to be considered “beef,” has withdrawn the suit, Taco Bell and the Alabama firm said this week.
On Wednesday, the fast-food chain decided to trumpet that good news with full-page ads in 10 major U.S. newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, demanding an apology. The company pegged the ads at a total cost of between $3 million and $4 million.
“Would it kill you to say you’re sorry?” the ad in Wednesday’s Tribune exclaimed.
“Sure, they could have just asked us if our recipe uses real beef. Even easier, they could have gone to our Web site where the ingredients in every one of our products are listed for everyone to see,” the ad read. “But that’s not what they chose to do.
“As for the lawyers who brought this suit: You got it wrong, and you’re probably feeling pretty bad right about now. But you know what always helps? Saying to everyone, ‘I’m sorry.’ C’mon, you can do it!”
The strategy is similar to that employed by Taco Bell and company president Greg Creed after the suit was filed in January.
“Thank you for suing us,” read a similar ad in the Tribune and other newspapers at the time, structured as a letter from Creed as Taco Bell sought to counter the suit’s claim that its beef taco filling was less than 50 percent beef. The ad went on to explain that the filling is actually 88 percent beef and 12 percent other ingredients, which were disclosed in the ad.
Congrats to the Bell. They won and had their public victory lap. The question is, how long do they remind people that they are the victors in this suit? Doesn’t continued use of this legal win in advertising remind people that their food quality was in doubt?
Sure, they want to let the world know that they won the legal battle over food quality–but when does it cross the line and edge them back into questionable food quality territory? As the cliche goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
We recommend that Taco Bell end their public beef with the purveyors of this lawsuit and move on.
Applebee’s is in the PR Hotseat of the Week
Who/What is in the PR Hotseat of the Week? Applebee’s. Here’s why:
The company that owns the Applebee’s restaurant chain said Monday it was immediately retraining its workers nationwide after a server at a suburban Detroit location accidentally served alcohol to a toddler. The company, California-based DineEquity Inc, said it would also change the way it serves juice to youngsters to eliminate the chance of any mixups that could result in any more toddlers receiving mixed drinks.
On Friday, Taylor Dill-Reese went to an Applebee’s in Madison Heights, Michigan, where — among other things — she ordered her 15-month-old son Dominick an apple juice. What the little boy apparently got instead was a margarita. His mom told WDIV-TV that she only realized something was wrong when Dominick “kind of laid his head on the table and dozed off a little bit and woke up and got real happy.” The little boy reportedly began hailing strangers, too.
Applebee’s released a statement Monday saying it was relieved that Dominick was “not seriously injured as a result of accidentally receiving the wrong beverages” and apologizing to his family “for the stress and worry this caused them.”
via Applebee’s Alcohol Mistake Leads To Retraining For All Servers.
So, how would you handle this PR mess? Is the statement and initiatives to retrain servers enough? What’s your take?
Groupon’s Second Apology
Lesson learned?
Readers of my guest post on Brainzooming Tuesday may recall I joined the chorus of those who thought Groupon’s Super Bowl ads were a tremendous backfire. Without rehashing all the details today, I thought I’d mention that on Friday, Groupon issued a second apology on their blog.
Excerpt:
Five days have passed since the Super Bowl, and one thing is clear – our ads offended a lot of people. Tuesday I posted an explanation, but as many of you have pointed out, if an ad requires an explanation, that means it didn’t work.
[...]
We hate that we offended people, and we’re very sorry that we did – it’s the last thing we wanted. We’ve listened to your feedback, and since we don’t see the point in continuing to anger people, we’re pulling the ads (a few may run again tomorrow – pulling ads immediately is sometimes impossible). We will run something less polarizing instead. We thought we were poking fun at ourselves, but clearly the execution was off and the joke didn’t come through. I personally take responsibility; although we worked with a professional ad agency, in the end, it was my decision to run the ads.
[...]
To those who were offended, I feel terrible that we made you feel bad. While we’ve always been a little quirky, we certainly aren’t trying to be the kind of company that builds its brand on creating controversy – we think the quality of our product is a much stronger message.
I say well done on the apology and pulling the ads. Also, they say they have raised a significant amount of money for their charities.
Lesson learned? I’m sure. It’s time to move on.
Check Out Our Super Bowl PR Guest Post at Brainzooming
Have a look at our guest post about the PR issues surrounding Super Bowl Adverting over at Brainzooming.
Excerpt:
Irreverence is the coin of the realm among Super Bowl ads, but it can levy a hefty public relations tax on companies when ads misfire. As I followed the #BZBowl Twitter Chat I kept a weather eye out for ads that might enhance, build or damage a brand.
Dozens of ads flashed across the screen during the Super Bowl, but two companies stood out for the PR issues of their ads. One is GoDaddy, a perennial PR train wreck, the other Groupon, taking their first steps into the television advertising world.
Groupon and GoDaddy: Tune in Tomorrow
Tune in to Brainzooming tomorrow for our guest post about PR fallout from Super Bowl ads, specifically Groupon and GoDaddy.
Not Chicken Feed: Chick-fil-A Responds to PR Problem
Our last post took on the meat concoction controversy at Taco Bell.
Today, it’s a pluckin’ nightmare for the king of the chicken sandwich itself, Chick-Fil-A. I was interviewed by Ragan Communications for a piece about the “Eat mor Chikin” giant after a franchisee of the unapologetically religious company made “an in-kind contribution of food to a group that vocally opposes gay marriage in any form.”
*Read the article for all the deets. I think that their response in the form of a video from the big cheese of chicken on Facebook will be all you’ll hear from them about this. From the Ragan article:
Don’t expect that Chick-fil-A will respond further on this issue, Greenwood says.
“It’s not surprising when you consider that this company, as a matter of principle, leaves so much revenue on the table by being closed on Sundays,” he says. “They stick to their guns. I think they’re going to continue to play to their base, weather this storm and move on.”
What do you think? Is the response enough–or, like me, do you believe that this is all they will do regardless? The comments section awaits your finger-lickin’ good replies. Oh wait, that’s not Chik-fil-A…well, you get the idea.
*(Full disclosure: I worked at Chick-fil-A in high school, and despite the atrocious uniforms back then, they always treated their employees great. Good pay and a generally pleasant working environment–Sundays off was a huge perk. I wasn’t so in to the Sundays off strictly for religious purposes, but respected the policy and found it helpful so I could study and have a life. I liked the food and still eat there occasionally.)
How the News Media Can Frame an Issue
Click photo for source.
The long-awaited (yet largely ignored by the public as far as I can tell) Presidential Oil Spill Commission’s final report was issued last week, with a comprehensive examination of what happened before, during and after the fateful events on BP’s Deepwater Horizon platform. Certainly within the report there is plenty of fodder for Public Relations and crisis communications pros. One thing that struck me involves the way certain members of the media decided on a frame for their stories and stuck to it.
Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post picked out this nugget about CNN’s Anderson Cooper (emphasis mine):
From Chapter Five, page 139:
“Local resentment became a media theme and then a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even those who privately thought the federal government was doing the best it could under the circumstances could not say so publicly. Coast Guard responders watched Governor Jindal — and the TV cameras following him — return to what appeared to be the same spot of oiled marsh day after day to complain about the inadequacy of the federal response, even though only a small amount of marsh was then oiled. When the Coast Guard sought to clean up that piece of affected marsh, Governor Jindal refused to confirm its location. Journalists encouraged state and local officials and residents to display their anger at the federal response, and offered coverage when they did. Anderson Cooper reportedly asked a Parish President to bring an angry, unemployed offshore oil worker on his show. When the Parish President could not promise the worker would be ‘angry,’ both were disinvited.“
“This unattributed statement is completely false . . . [the claim] that it was journalists who were encouraging residents and state and local leaders to ‘display their anger at the federal response’ is offensive.”
Season’s Greetings & Best Wishes for the New Year
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
