Filed under: General Electric (GE), Marketing and advertising, CBS Corp ‘B’ (CBS)

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

At the start of the 20th century, two companies that would go on to dominate American industry were locked in a battle over which type of electrical current the country would embrace. The direct current (DC) champion in this War of the Currents was Thomas Edison and his company, General Electric (NYSE: GE), while Westinghouse, now part of CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS), pushed AC, alternating current, made commercially viable by Nikola Tesla.

To make his case that DC was safer than AC current, Edison conducted a number of public exhibitions in which he
“Westinghoused” — his term for electrocuted — cats, dogs, and cows using AC. He also had constructed the first electric chair for New York, which was used in 1890 to attempt the execution of William Kemmler. Unfortunately, those in charge underestimated the current needed, resulting in what was described as a horrifying display of cruelty, leaving Kemmler alive but badly injured.

Undisuaded, Edison continued his campaign of Westinghousing all sorts of mammals. Meanwhile, Coney Island’s Luna Park was puzzling over what to do with its elephant Topsy, who had killed three of her handlers in three years (one of whom had been trying to feed her a lit cigarette). When the ASPCA stepped in to protest plans to hang the animal, the owners struck on the idea of electrocuting Topsy. Edison made sure cameras were on hand to capture the tragic event on January 4, 1903 as 6,600 volts of AC dropped her in her tracks He released the film under the title Electrocuting an Elephant.

Times and sensibilities have changed since then, and many will look upon this as an act of wanton cruelty. Edison would soon lose his war, as the many advantages of AC current became obvious. I hope that Topsy’s death in some small way helped to thwart the ambitions of the heartless Edison.

See other examples of Ads Gone Bad.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Consumer experience, Marketing and advertising, Sears Holdings (SHLD)

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

One could question whether there could be an ad so controversial as to harm the fortunes of haute couture shops. Certainly, noted fashion home Dolce & Gabbana has tested that hypothesis with an ongoing series of sex-charged ads, one of which caused an Italian minister to accuse it of inciting gang rape.

That particular shot, in which a nubile young lady is pinned down by her wrists by a virile male under the interested gaze of several other men, was singled out for its intimation of violence toward women. Other ads by B&G have heavily homoerotic content, and one, a tableau of soldiers posed around a particularly attractive male with a bullet hole in his forehead, has even been thought by some to play on the naughty joys of necrophilia.

The question we pose here, though, isn’t just what ads brought public vilification, but how those ads damaged the bottom line of the companies for which they advertised. In Dolce & Gabanna’s case, the company has seemed to thrive on such controversy. In fact, the New York Times commented on the apparent inconsistency between these edgy ads and the increasingly romantic style of their offerings. The company, founded for $1,000 in 1982, racked up $1.4 billion in sales and $200 million in profits last year.

Given these figures, perhaps companies such as Sears (NASDAQ: SHLD) should consider some necrophilia advertising!

See other examples of Ads Gone Bad.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Consumer experience, Marketing and advertising, Chipotle Mexican Grill’A’ (CMG), Yum Brands (YUM)

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Restaurant giant Yum Brands (NYSE: YUM) owns and operates several popular fast food chains like Pizza Hut, KFC, A&W, and of course Taco Bell. The Taco Bell chain features lower quality, packaged ingredients, frozen meats, and poultry, and all at low prices. Fair enough, it’s a fast food joint and the food overall is okay-to-good — depending on one’s mood!

The Taco Bell dog featured in the advertising campaign that ended in 2000 was a Chihuahua, an almost rat-like creature. Cute? Yes. Annoying? Yes. I know because my family has a Chihuahua we call Gracie! The Hispanic community felt that the Chihuahua represented an ethnic stereotype. The dog was voiced-over with a Hispanic accent and the implication was very clear. Many Hispanics were especially annoyed because they do not consider Taco Bell’s food authentic “home cooking.”

Taco Bell’s bad publicity was the Chihuahua’s good fortune, however. After being canned by Taco Bell, it scored roles in Legally Blond 2, a Geico ad opposite the gekko, and a guest spot on Jay Leno’s show. Jay offered the dog a choice of a Taco Bell Chalupa and some KFC chicken. It chose the chicken.

Taco Bell has emphatically said that no disrespect is intended by the ads it ran from 1997 to 2000. Taco Bell was trying to establish the brand with a coy and funny theme. As I stated, not many Hispanics have found it to be cute, funny, or anything else — just annoying!

But while we’re on the subject of Mexican restaurants, I would like to contrast Taco Bell with one of my favorite companies (and stocks) — Chipotle Mexican Grill (NYSE: CMG). Offering a limited, but excellent menu, this restaurant features the freshest of ingredients and naturally raised beef and poultry. The customer spends about $8 per visit, almost $3 more than Taco Bell, and keeps coming back. I think it is a game changer for the fast-food industry. Check out my post, “The next McDonald’s is Chipotle Mexican Grill,” from June.

Plus, Chipotle advertises its products in a very simple, direct way. It advertises its food and doesn’t require a four legged animal to keep customers attention!

Georges Yared is the editor of GameOnInvesting, a free service devoted to helping investors spot game-changing stocks before they breakout.

See other examples of Ads Gone Bad.

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Marketing and advertising

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Was Rachael Ray wearing a keffiyeh, the ancient traditional Bedouin headdress that has lately become the symbol of Palestinian extremists, especially the Fatah? No, she wasn’t, but when Michelle Malkin wondered if Dunkin’ Donuts spokescheerleader Rachael Ray was promoting terrorism in an on the internet ad, Dunkin’ Donuts pulled it almost immediately.

Rachael Ray’s paisley scarf with a fringe, selected by her stylist, wasn’t anywhere close to a keffiyeh (and it turns out there are disagreements about whether the white-and-black color is a symbol of terrorism, or it’s the red-and-black; even Palestinians can’t agree). Honestly, I don’t think it looks great on her, but what do I know. For Dunkin’ Donuts to pull an ad based on the rantings of an ultra-conservative columnist? Far more worthy of boycott than being accused of having a spokeswoman who might wear a paisley scarf while drinking a Cool Latte. One liberal pundit states she’s sticking with Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) until the ad comes back. What do you think?

View Poll

Share This

Share This