Dear CMO: The back story to this post is that I originally wrote a piece chiding SABMiller for sponsoring the somewhat distasteful Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, a local event catering to a sub-segment of the gay population that leans, shall we say, to the extreme.
My criticism is warranted purely on marketing grounds for two reasons, regardless of one’s predilections: first, it likely offends the middle 95% of Miller’s US customer base, and second, it exposes the public at large and children specifically to public obscenity. If you don’t believe me, follow the links (just don’t do it at work). So I am confident that a solid majority of reasonable people might find the company’s actions to be poorly thought out. But this isn’t my point.
I’m not a journalist. My blog posts are op ed pieces …. they are my opinions, reflections of current events on my experience, and the lessons I’d apply to them. I seldom research my posts, because the act of research alone pushes me towards a journalistic approach; in other words, if I don’t know the subject matter, I shouldn’t be writing about it. I had to pull on the SABMiller thread a little to get more context, and what I found was worth sharing.
We’ve talked quite a bit at Note to CMO about authenticity …. connecting core brand attributes with reality. We’ve also promoted, wherever possible, the connection of brands with social responsibility …. enlightened self-interest, delivered through cause-related promotion. SABMiller, the South African parent of Miller Brewing Company, has labeled HIV/AIDS a top corporate priority. Many of their primary markets in Africa have been devastated by AIDS, as we all know.
So it makes tremendous sense that a company like SABMiller would choose to grapple with this issue with its scarce financial resources and time, and their efforts should be lauded and not casually criticized. SABMiller’s activities in this area represent a purely authentic alignment of corporate goals, the wants and needs of the market, the natural setting and use of the product itself, and corporate philanthropy.
Which brings us to San Francisco. In attempting to follow the bouncing ball from South Africa to the Bay Area, one must wonder how SABMiller’s priorities were first disseminated and then executed throughout the organization. I can only come to the conclusion that someone, somewhere, didn’t fully comprehend the spirit of the message and that another person didn’t ask enough questions prior to signing off.
The path probably began at step one — combating HIV/AIDS – to a logical interpretation of this strategy for the US market …. a focus on the gay market …. to a further, seemingly related option — the Folsom Street Festival, replete with public displays of leather and bondage for all.
Each step, unfortunately, takes one further away from the spirit of the intent. They are now the subject of ridicule, have offended the conservative part of their market who live everywhere from just to the left of Manhattan to the right hand corner of Los Angeles, and have opened themselves up to what could be a highly amusing competitive onslaught on every football game in America for months to come. It never should have come to this.
* * *
Key Takeaways:
> Connecting priorities with actions is important enough to elevate to the highest levels of an organization. As we recently saw with Jet Blue and Yearly Kos, not doing your homework on the exact nature of an event, a market or a likely outcome can cost you dearly. This seems to be a recurrent theme with SABMiller, after stumbling into an illegal immigration sponsorship problem earlier.
> Remember that when one aligns a brand with a cause, the effect can be polarizing. I found this when trying to align a technology brand with environmental activism many years ago: 40% of my market loved it and 40% hated it. We’d all rather work on more solid ground.
> Do a “potential problem analysis” where one tells the worst case scenario …. before the event …. allowing us to stop the unwanted future from happening. Call it the Journeyman school of pre-emptive market planning.
> We live in an age of social media. The internet. Bloggers. Nothing is “local” anymore. You can’t hide. What you do in San Francisco will be quickly read in Milwaukee in a matter of hours.
* * *
I hope and trust SABMiller does a full and complete post mortem on this decision and retools their thinking so that they can tell their very authentic story in a positive and generative light. Brands like SABMiller and Jet Blue need to think through the implications of not just what they do, but how they choose to do it. Without this degree of judgment, the best laid plans with the noblest of intentions are crowded out by photos of adults being spanked in public.
Which is an image I didn’t really need to see.
Regards.
Tags: AIDS, event marketing, Folsom Street Fair, HIV AIDS, Marketing, Marketing Strategy, Note to CMO, SABMiller, Stephen Denny
Two things:
1. I live in Vancouver BC where we have had a successful gay pride parade for a number of years that has raised funding for anti HIV campaigns and awareness groups. If you don’t want to see the parade, don’t go.
2. This is a great example of how sponsoring such a controversial event will lead to people talking about it. any publicity still creates brand awareness even if it is not 100% of your target market.
Good Job to SABMiller for stepping up and trying something different.
A question first: besides sponsoring the event (banners everywhere) did Miller provide an information booth on its cause-related programs?
I’ve not followed this story so what I first want to understand is whether Miller has stated that this was a sponsorship based on their social responsibility pledge (since I’m thinking they sponsor a lot of festivals in general, not just for their cause).
this is heavy stuff and this is definitely hard to believe that they did it that way!
As a transgender person struggling to make a normal life for myself, I find this type of event extremely offensive. It does not help our cause at all. It only serves to point out the reasons why straight people should be offended by gay people. It is wrong to have this in public, plain and simple, and I can’t believe a company like Miller would sponsor such a travesty. Events like this send a very clear message that the gay community is a bunch of freaks, and we are not! I would pay good money to see some gay people getting out in public and acting like the normal, boring people that they really are.
First: Folsom St Fair is not a gay event. It is a leather event. Sure, there may be segments of it that are strongly identified as gay, but that’s not the point of the event. It is, to some extent, like Mardi Gras in New Orleans; there are sections of the fair that may be considered “obscene” but heterosexual families with children go to it. My whole house went.
Second: Miller brewing company was boycotted by homosexual groups in the 80s and early 90s. This market drinks a lot of beer. Miller has since sponsored gay events all across the country in an effort to boost its image with this segment.
Third: I have a feeling that the majority of Miller’s base doesn’t actually care.
Stephen,
I am conflicted by your post, which by the way is incredibly well-written. Its argument is logical and good points are made.
However, my wife and I lived for 10 years in what at the time was the 2nd largest Gay and Lesbian neighborhood west of the Mississippi River. I know of what you speak. But I was not offended by leather nor by implied S&M. Although not my cup of tea, everyone seemed to be having lots of fun, including well-known brand sponsors and locally elected officials.
Will SAB Miller suffer from its sponsorship of this SF event? I don’t know but I doubt it, as I agree with Chris: “I have a feeling that the majority of Miller’s base doesn’t actually care.”
Should SAM Miller continue its sponsorship. I think they should revisit their sponsorship guidelines, as you suggest, and do a potential problem analysis.
Thank you for your courage in writing a provocative post. We need more writers willing to take on the hard questions.
Sorry to join the conversation so late — thanks to all for the insights shared above.
Roland: ask Michael Jackson if ‘any publicity is good publicity.’
CK: if SABMiller did provide further cause education, it sure got lost in the leather. I mean shuffle. Whatever.
Anna: amen.
Jasmine: couldn’t agree more. As (I think, at least) Andrea might say, this is “pink” marketing at its absolute worst.
Chris: for full editorial disclosure, my whole family didn’t go to the event. The photos were enough to support other venues for the weekend. Whatever the intent of the event, groking the reality might present a bit of a brand quandry for SABMiller. Unless SABMiller feels that this is where they want their brand to be. Back to Roland’s point above, sponsoring a gay pride parade isn’t the same thing as sponsoring HIV/AIDS prevention and isn’t sponsoring this event.
Lewis: as always, thanks for your thoughts. I’d find it hard to believe if the marketing team at SABMiller looked at this and declared victory for the brand.
(Can’t believe Cam didn’t weigh in. Wierd, huh?)
Marketing to the gay market isn’t the issue: SABMiller has a great story to tell — and they’ve left the opportunity to tell it on the sidelines because of a very questionable sponsorship. The risk far, far outweighed the potential reward. That’s the problem.
this post is important because it helps us to aware in our environment as well as diseases etc. you guys are great keep it up.
By the way check this company MDFI. Their stock is set to increase because of their association with Apple iphone and Complete Care Medical. Find more about this company and stock http://www.growurmoney.com/medefile/
“(Can’t believe Cam didn’t weigh in. Wierd, huh?)”
Eerie.
I don’t know what Miller’s market looks like (other than I’m not in it), but other companies that have seemed to endorse this sort of thing have seen themselves boycotted by Christian organizations. So far, they have claimed credit for Ford’s problems, and Levi’s has had its troubles, too, but Disney is still doing alright.
IMO, companies should be who they are and not pander one way or the other. If they truly believe something is right, they should stand by it. If it isn’t something the vast majority of decent employees can be proud of as a whole, stay faaaaaaar away.
Sponsorship can come across to many as an endorsement, but something like this might not be a big deal to the beer crowd. To the car and jeans crowds, on the other hand…
Either way, I’m still not buying Miller. That’s just not my crowd.
Stephen, an incredibly cogent and intelligent argument. Thank you for being bold and sharing.
Sharing your own point of view will help or educate somebody. However, you can’t please anyone by your own opinion because in reality, we have our different thoughts. Still, you did a great job and hardwork on your article.
Stephen’s thought did a great impact specially on Miller consumers. Good job! for being such an observative person and engaging yourself to current events. Keep up. Great article.
Get a hair piece dude.