Has anyone read about the big dust up with Rachel Ray and a recent ad for Dunkin' Donuts? Seems said celebrity chef was wearing a scarf in the ad that shows her enjoying a DD iced coffee against the backdrop of some pink flowering trees. So, what's the problem? Believe it or not, the problem is the scarf! Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin claimed on TV that it looked suspiciously like a kaffiyeh, a traditional Arab scarf. Once the story hit the media, including multiple political blogs, Dunkin Donuts decided to pull the ad.
The marketing implications of this go beyond the initial story. While the blogs I've read have generally panned the Malkin's criticism of the scarf -- "Is this idiocy or what?" writes Jacob Hornberger in his Media with Conscience blog -- they're reserving even more ire for Dunkin Donuts. "Dunkin Donuts should never have caved" says blogger Charles Cronn. "Even more disquieting (than the controversy) is the fact that Dunkin' Donuts quickly yanked the ad," writes the LA Times' Monica Corcoran (156 responses so far) -- BTW, love the title of her blog post: Rachel Ray is a fashion terrorist. And MarketWatch blogger Jon Friedman (82 responses so far) says it "underscores the potential perils of employing celebrity endorsers. Dunkin' Donuts was eager to capitalize on the legitimacy of Ray, a celebrity chef, in its ads. But in a way, her fame worked against the interests of the food company. Celebrities can make consumers pay closer attention to products because ordinary people want to identify with them. But when the celebrities run into criticism, the company that hired them can pay a price by getting unwanted publicity."
It seems like Dunkin Donuts can't win the PR war here, even though their only offense is a poor wardrobe choice. Don't pull the ad, have Michelle Malkin and her supporters continue to rail. Pull the ad and have people criticize you for "caving to the right's fear of clothing accessories." So far I haven't found any response from the company beyond their initial statement that they didn't want a "misperception" to detract from their promotion of the product.
Here's what people in our business are saying. What does anyone else think?
The marketing implications of this go beyond the initial story. While the blogs I've read have generally panned the Malkin's criticism of the scarf -- "Is this idiocy or what?" writes Jacob Hornberger in his Media with Conscience blog -- they're reserving even more ire for Dunkin Donuts. "Dunkin Donuts should never have caved" says blogger Charles Cronn. "Even more disquieting (than the controversy) is the fact that Dunkin' Donuts quickly yanked the ad," writes the LA Times' Monica Corcoran (156 responses so far) -- BTW, love the title of her blog post: Rachel Ray is a fashion terrorist. And MarketWatch blogger Jon Friedman (82 responses so far) says it "underscores the potential perils of employing celebrity endorsers. Dunkin' Donuts was eager to capitalize on the legitimacy of Ray, a celebrity chef, in its ads. But in a way, her fame worked against the interests of the food company. Celebrities can make consumers pay closer attention to products because ordinary people want to identify with them. But when the celebrities run into criticism, the company that hired them can pay a price by getting unwanted publicity."
It seems like Dunkin Donuts can't win the PR war here, even though their only offense is a poor wardrobe choice. Don't pull the ad, have Michelle Malkin and her supporters continue to rail. Pull the ad and have people criticize you for "caving to the right's fear of clothing accessories." So far I haven't found any response from the company beyond their initial statement that they didn't want a "misperception" to detract from their promotion of the product.
Here's what people in our business are saying. What does anyone else think?
