Why McDonald's couldn't accept Burger King's peace offering #McWhopper

I wrote early yesterday about Burger King's brilliant PR coup for Peace One Day: A challenge to arch(es) rival McDonald's to build a combination of their two classic burgers as a symbol for peace.

The ploy worked, not just because it picked up endless press, but because the response from McDonald's was cold and patronizing.

But while the wording of the response was a PR failure, there are several reasons that McDonald's basically had to turn BK down.


1. When you're #1, you don't acknowledge competition

McDonald's has been faltering lately, but they still own the category of fast food burgers. By making this proposal to the Golden Arches, Burger King was putting the two brands of equal footing. This would be unacceptable to the traditional top dog brand strategy, which is to not acknowledge the competition. There might be some exceptions, but in general McDonald's expresses its #1 status by pretending it has no competitors, just as Coke doesn't talk about Pepsi. It's up to the competitors to take down the kind of the hill.


2. The McWhopper makes one seem better than the other.

Watch this video from the campaign microsite:

Note the subtleties. BK didn't call the Big Mac/Whopper blend the "Big Whopper." That's because the very name Whopper is a reminder that the burger, introduced in 1957 (10 years before the Big Mac) is about "bigger."

Now look at the proposed burger:

The Big Mac upper half is dwarfed by the Whopper bottom half. This is a shot at the Big Mac brand.

Now, look at how the ingredients are described:

By using only one of the "two all beef patties" and 2/3 of the 3-layer bun, they almost yell out Wendy's old line of "Where's The Beef?" The Whopper ingredients, however, focus on fresh toppings and "flame grilled" patty.


3. Even the packaging is skewed

Who gets the most real estate on the box?

4. There's already been a "McWhopper" 

Thirty years ago, McDonald's genuinely tried to imitate the Whopper with the utter failure of the McDLT.

I was only 15 at the time, but I distinctly recall referring to the obvious imitation as a "McWhopper." Maybe it was just me, but even the proposed mashup burger brought back memories of that disaster.


So, to accept this challenge as stated, McDonald's would have to first acknowledge Burger King as an equal rival, then deal with the various slights that BK made against their signature brand.

The stunt, which according to AdFreak was a collaborative effort between Y&R in New Zealand, Code & Theory, Alison Brod Public Relations, The David Agency, Rock Orange, Turner Duckworth and Horizon, was pure brilliance. It was also designed to "fail" in getting McDonald's onboard. However, I'm not sure that the agencies and the BK fold could have anticipated how poorly MCDonald's would fumble the response.

Regardless, it was a huge success in building up Burger King's cool, as well as making Peace One Day a topic of conversation.

Burger King wants to make love, not war, with McDonald's #PeaceDay

This is awesome, and not just as a marketing coup.

Burger King today placed this full-page ad in the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, offering to collaborate with McDonald's on a "McWhopper" for Peace One Day.

Burger Business quotes Fernando Machado, Burger King SVP for Global Brand Management: “We’re being completely transparent with our approach because we want them to take this seriously,” Machado says. “It would be amazing if McDonald’s agrees to do this. Let’s make history and generate a lot of noise around Peace Day. If they say no, we’ll hopefully have, at the very least, raised much-needed financial support and consciousness for the great cause that is Peace One Day. And both are well worth the effort.”

McDonald's, however, did not take the burger bait:

I'm not surprised, but I'm still a little disappointed. It was a fun and clever ploy, however McDonald's countered coldly with a holier-than-thou attitude. In the end, though, I now know about Peace One Day. And yesterday, I did not. The bigger question is, what am I going to do about it?

Ogilvy apologizes for Malala mattress ad

On Monday, I blogged about this really distasteful "borrowed interest" of Pakistani teen activist Malala Yousafzai's near-fatal shooting and recovery to sell mattresses in India.

A couple of days later, the whole campaign disappeared from Ads Of The World. But it was too late. The PR damage to Ogilvy, India, was apparently already done.

Just now, on Twitter:

We would like to apologize to Malala Yousafzai and her family. Our official statement can be found here. http://t.co/DgGPz6gK33
— Ogilvy & Mather (@Ogilvy) May 15, 2014

Here's the statement:

The recent Kurl-On ads from our India office are contrary to the beliefs and professional standards of Ogilvy & Mather and our clients. 

We deeply regret this incident and want to personally apologize to Malala Yousafzai and her family. We are investigating how our standards were compromised in this case and will take whatever corrective action is necessary. In addition, we have launched a thorough review of our approval and oversight processes across our global network to help ensure that our standards are never compromised again.

It's just one more example of how global brands (including ad agency ones) are exposed to risk when regional partners do something that contravenes the sensibilities of the internet. More strategic and creative oversight is clearly needed.

Australian burger joint unapologetic about gross "assburger" ad.

Remember the least appetizing burger ad of 2013? The Australian burger chain, Goodtime Burgers, showed a burger patty and fixings wedged in a model's "buns." No, really.

According to Mumbrella, after the ad was ruled "degrading" by Australia's Advertising Standards Authority, Goodtime Burgers issued this sexist non-apology:

Via Mumbrella

Text reads:

To those who may have been offended by our sensory arousing advertising experience in the last issue of THE BEAST, please accept this formal apology. Our point was not to disturb, but to simply introduce the erotic combination of our moist & juicy burger patties and our soft and smooth buns to the beautiful people of Bondi. We guarantee you will remember this burger the next morning. Our food is sexy, stimulating, juicy and made-to-order. So, if for some reason our last ad left you thinking beyond the burger and onto the onto the buns, sadly you have missed the mark. The point of our ad was to entice your senses, tastebuds to be exact!Yes, we are about the beach.Yes, we are about the buns.Yes, we are about having fun.And Yes, we are about great food at great prices.However, to cram all that information into one advert would be cheap, crass and in your face. We are sorry for many things, but there is one thing for certain, we are not sorry for having a GoodTime :)

The "apology" ad generated more complaints to the ASA, but they ruled “that the text in conjunction with the image gives a humorous content which in the Board’s view did not amount to an image which is exploitative and degrading.”

Looks pretty obnoxious to me. But then again, so does a good percentage of the advertising out there that hides behind "it's all in good fun" cynical appropriation of women's sexuality.

Gap makes love out of hate

Via HuffPo

A Gap ad, featuring American actor and jewelry designer Waris Ahluwalia, was recently defaced by some racist in the NYC subway:

Via Arsalan Iftikhar (Twitter)

Gap actually responded quite well to the notification. First, they asked to know where the defaced ad was spotted (presumably to have it fixed without delay). Then they made their support of the Sikh community even more visible, placing the ad their feature image on both Twitter and Facebook.

The response has been phenomenal. A grassroots "Thank You, Gap" campaign has sprung up on Facebook and Twitter. Mr. Ahluwalia himself posted this pic on his own account:

Love wins, this time, on the social media battlefield.

Is this ad really controversial?

AdFreak's Roo Ciambriello quips, "Political statement? Plea for tolerance? Maybe in part, but this recently posted Los Angeles billboard featuring a U.S. soldier and a Muslim woman embracing is mostly just an ad for a sleep aid."

That's how I feel, too. The brand wanted to show "couples that you normally don't see in advertising,"t their spokesperson explained, and that diversity follows through in the Snorestop web site:

The funny thing about this, for me, is that it's hard to find concrete examples of this "controversy".

CBC Los Angeles quotes the company spokesperson saying "“People feel that we are trying to misuse the image of military servicemen" but the only person the article interviewed about it was ambivalent.  World Bulletin ran the headline, "LA billboard ad to stay despite offending Muslims" without any specific examples, stating "...the image of a Muslim woman embracing a US soldier in such a way may be upsetting for the Muslim community in LA." An article in 10 News San Diego mentions negative Facebook messages. I can't seem to find any on their page. Nor on Twitter.

As a matter of fact, the "controversy" seems to be entirely a manufactured one, with media accepting whatever the brand says about public reaction to its campaign. An Instagram post of the billboard by stephanianne, who claims to be one of the people behind the campaign, reads "if we can keep this couple together, with their religious and social obstacles, we can keep anyone together."

My first thought was, why would anyone assume the husband does not also follow Islam?
There are thousands of Americans serving in the military who are practicing Muslims. 

The News 10 article identifies the couple as "veteran Jamie Sutton and his wife Aleah, who is Muslim" with no reference to Mr. Sutton's religious views. (Because in America, I guess being Christian is the default faith.) But who cares, really?

I'd love to believe that Snorestop really is committed to treating all couples as, well, just couples. But the lengths they have gone to, to make sure their campaign gets PR for being "controversial",  shows that they are just part of the problem.

Barilla Pasta: If the gays don’t like it they can eat another brand

Totally not gay. Via jazarah.net

The Independent reports that Barilla Chairman Guido Barilla told Italy’s La Zanzara radio show last night:

“I would never do an advert with a homosexual family…if the gays don’t like it they can go and eat another brand. For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the fundamental values of the company.”

Via accademialigustica.it

According to Italy's Gazzetta Del Sud, calls for a boycott of the world's largest pasta brand are spreading through Italy under the hashtag #boicottabarilla — now trending on Twitter.

People are also developing visuals to share:

"Love is for the brave. Everything else is Barilla pasta."
(It's a play on Barbara Alberti's "Love is for the brave, everything else is torque")

The translated hashtag #boycottbarilla has since made the jump to global social media.

The back-pedalling has already begun. In an official statement from the company, Mr. Barilla issued this non-apology: “I’m sorry if my comments on La Zanzara have created misunderstanding or polemic, or if I’ve offended anyone. In the interview I only wanted to underline the central role of the woman in the family." They have also posted a statement on Facebook: "Barilla in its advertising has always chosen to represent the family because this is the symbol of hospitality and affection for everyone." (As if that doesn't just make things worse — same-sex partners don't make families?)

If the Barilla brand is going to take a hit over this, however, it's going to take more than that to make things right. Aurelio Mancuso, president of gay-rights group Equality Italia, told the Italian press,  "We accept his invitation to not eat his pasta."

Alessandro Zan, an MP with the left-wing SEL party, got a better one in:

"I've already changed pasta brands. Barilla is terrible quality."

Dio mio!

@Swiffer channels Rosie the Riveter to sell mops

The original poster, produced in 1943 by J. Howard Miller in 1943 for Westinghouse Electric as morale-booster for women workers, has since become an iconic image for female empowerment.

That is, until 70 years later, when Rosie was hijacked to sell cleaning supplies to women as part of the expectation that they're responsible for housework:

This image, which for the moment I can only find as a partial, was spotted and shared by Instagrammer  Heather Beschizza (@hbeschizza), later picked up by Boing Boing and Buzzfeed.

My favourite comment in the ensuing cascading PR fail is from Dan Savage:

Good luck with the spin, Swiffer.

This isn't the first time Rosie has been sent back to the kitchen:

Via Popular Feminism and Infotainment, May 2011

UPDATE:

McDonald's Canada continues its "myth-busting" marketing

This strategy has been in play for some time, with McDonald's Canada pushing social media audiences to its "Our Food. Your Questions." campaign site.

This teaser video about the chicken content of McNuggets addresses a nagging perception about the ingredients. I recall reading the nutritional information on McNuggets back in the '80s, and realizing that it was basically congealed chicken soup (including mechanically separated meat and chicken stock). However, Huffington Post was forced to post a correction to a story about the popular fast food back in 2010, with the correction that McDonald's USA has been using only "white meat" since 2003.

What this newest volley in the McDonald's PR campaign is battling, is this popular meme image of questionable origin:

Purportedly a picture of mechanically-separated chicken slurry fated for your 6-piece McNugget meal, it has also erroneously been labelled as the "pink slime" cow-part filler that goes into commercial ground beef.

If you actually go to the McDonald's Canada site, here is their answer to the McNugget question:

They refer the users to third-party "Mom Bloggers" who have been taken on a junket to a Cargill chicken processing plant to observe and report on the process. (My favourite part of this post is the squeamish subtitle "From Alive Chicken to Not-Alive Chicken".)

Here is their description of the making of McNuggets:

The white breast meat, along with chicken stock and a natural proportion of skin from the breast is placed into a huge blender. I didn’t realize that there is skin in the nugget mixture but this helps to hold the shape. The meat is then mixed and chilled using CO2. McNuggets are formed, not ground. There are 4 shapes that are pressed out with a rolling cookie cutter: boot, bow-tie, ball and bell. The reason they are all standard in shape and size is to ensure consistency in all McDonald’s restaurants. This guarantees both food safety (standard cooking times in restaurants) and portion control. 

Once the fun shapes pop out, they are coated in batter, dusted with flour and then given a final coat of tempura batter. Who knew? From here they are par-fried and placed directly into the freezer. A thin mist of water is sprayed onto them, as tempura is susceptible to dehydration. They are then inspected and packaged to be sent off to the restaurants.

"Blender"? 

Here are the actual McNuggets ingredients, according the the corporate site:

White Meat Chicken McNuggets®: Chicken breast, water, modified corn starch, salt, seasoning [yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavour (vegetable source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, and rosemary] natural extractives of rosemary. Breaded with: water, wheat flour, yellow corn flour, modified corn starch, spices, salt, baking powder, dextrose, wheat starch, corn starch, modified hydrogenated soybean oil. Cooked in 100% vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ, citric acid and dimethylpolysiloxane). CONTAINS WHEAT

Now, let's see how honest McDonald's is being:

"Simple Ingredients"? Hmmm...

While the strategist in me can admire the theory and complexity of this grand social media strategy for McDonald's Canada, I think it really fails on true transparency.

Can dimethylpolysiloxane and TBHQ (tert-Butylhydroquinone) be considered "seasonings"?

Dimethylpolysiloxane is a type of silicone, "the most widely used silicon-based organic polymer, and is particularly known for its unusual rheological (or flow) properties. PDMS is optically clear, and, in general, inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable. It is also called dimethicone and is one of several types of silicone oil (polymerized siloxane). Its applications range from contact lenses and medical devices to elastomers; it is also present in shampoos (as dimethicone makes hair shiny and slippery), food (antifoaming agent), caulking, lubricating oils, and heat-resistant tiles." (Wikipedia)

TBHQ, added here as a cooking oil preservative, is "used industrially as a stabilizer to inhibit autopolymerization of organic peroxides. It is also used as a corrosion inhibitor in biodiesel. In perfumery, it is used as a fixative to lower the evaporation rate and improve stability. It is also added to varnishes, lacquers, resins, and oil field additives." (Wikipedia) It is, however, considered safe for human consumption in limited quantities.

Plus, there's all that hydrogenated oil.

I don't want to come off as a food alarmist. Industrial chemicals are just like any other substances we consume, even natural ones. They can have positive, negative, or negligible effects on our bodies. In short, I didn't come here to say "OMG, McNuggets use the same chemical as breast implants!!!"

Rather, I'm here to say that McDonald's is, ironically, building a lot of very obvious spin into a campaign that is supposed to be about giving honest answers to consumer questions. As unfair as the pink slime, chicken head and tumour rumours are to McDonald's current products, they could have done so by telling their whole story up front, rather than making people dig for the whole truth.

David Bowie gets his new video banned by YouTube

Apparently, getting people to censor your work for offending religious sensibilities isn't just a young man's (or woman's) game. At the ripe old age of 66, David Bowie has managed another PR coup by having the latest video release from The Next Day get pulled by YouTube for an apparent violation of its Terms of Service.

Fortunately, Bowie's main video hub is on Vevo:



Sky News reports that the video, directed by Floria Sigismondi and featuring Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard, was yanked yesterday—the very day it was released.

Sky's description is as good as any:

It depicts Cotillard - the French actress who won an Oscar for her role in La Vie En Rose - as a dancing girl who bleeds from stigmata marks on her palms, while Bowie plays a Jesus-like figure in robes fronting his band in a seedy basement bar. 

Oldman plays a priest who dances with Cotillard. As she sinks to the floor bleeding from her hands, Oldman turns to Bowie - dressed in what appear to be sackcloth robes - shouting: "You see this? This is your doing - you call yourself a prophet?" 

Cotillard's wounds spray blood all over a topless, veiled woman before she rises again dressed in black with tears on her cheeks and bathed in light.
The video also includes a monk being flogged.

However, it has returned to YouTube with an age restriction and Vevo branding.

So far, the video "ban" has been covered by Sky, Yahoo!, The Independent, CBC, The Atlantic, etc., etc.

Most coverage assumes that the religious imagery is the cause of the ban. But I hope not. Showing priests, nuns, bishops and saints as grotesque parodies or sinners is an artistic tradition going back to the middle ages. And Bowie has been a "Leper Messiah" since 1972. You can't say there's not art to this.

YouTube apparently hasn't commented on the issue, but I'll bet it was one of two things:

1) They got so many user complaints that the video was "abuse" that they automatically took it down until it could be reviewed, and/or
2) It was the mostly-exposed breasts being sprayed with stigmata blood (which might explain the age restriction)

(They have since commented. Via Pitchfork:  Billboard reports that a YouTube spokesperson told them, "With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.") 

Nonetheless, this is just the latest in what has been one of the most impressive publicity campaigns for a comeback album that I have ever seen. First, David Bowie managed to record the entire album entirely in secret, releasing the first single as a video on the stroke of midnight on his 66th birthday. This generated massive interest for the album, which was not due to come out for two months. He then pre-released his second video single, a song of a very different genre, which seemingly paid homage to an internet meme that he and Tilda Swinton are the same person. The album cover caused gasps in the design world for being just a re-hash of the "Heroes" cover with a white square over the face. And the artist has avoided giving interviews, instead leaving the press access to his band, his producer, and even his wife's Twitter feed.

As a result, his official Facebook page says The Next Day is David Bowie's most popular album since Let's Dance.

And David Bowie is the most interesting and relavant he has been since the Seventies.


Bonus: Flavorwire attempts to deconstruct all the religious imagery

Police give Grab-N-Go bikini coffee stands free advertising by charging baristas with unlawful stripping

Via Buzzfeed

Having scantily clad women serve drive through coffee in the middle of winter is apparently a thing in the State of Washington. Grab-N-Go is one of these things, offering "entertainment with surprisingly superb tasting espresso".

Last Wednesday, Grab-N-Go made the local news in Everett, Washington, for the arrest of three baristas for "exhibition and exposure". According to police, the women (one of whom is only 16) were offering customers even more exposed views of their bodies for cash.

This isn't the first time women at the coffee stand chain have been accused of crossing the line between exploiting their sexuality to sell coffee and actual sex work. In 2009, five different baristas were charged with stripping, allowing customers to touch them, and "whip cream shows".

In a bizarre case, the owner of the chain, Bill Wheeler, went missing in Las Vegas a few months later. His family fought over the business and his son, Bill D. Wheeler Jr., eventually took over.

Like his father before him, Bill Jr. denies any wrongdoing. He told local media that he enforces strict policies for his six baristas, including no drug use, no flashing, and no personal visitors at the stands.

"They have to be dressed a certain way," he said. "Their crotch has to be covered up. They can't expose their areolas." 

On his company Facebook page, however, he was a little more defiant:

We feel this incident is a publicity stunt by the Everett PD for unjustifiable reasons. 

Our policy and procedures strictly state any employee engaging in lewd or inappropriate behavior will be terminated. We also have a zero tolerance policy for drug's as well. 

As always when it comes to any government agency question everything. 
We also thank all of our customers for there support and the Everett policy [police?] department for the free press in yet another waste of our tax payers money.

Free press, indeed. The article went international within a couple of days. Do a Google News search for "Grab-N-Go" and you'll get a bunch of mainstream media hits with headlines like "Busty Baristas Busted" with lots and lots of pictures.

It's a sleazy business operator's dream. Nobody can resist a story about sex, especially when young women are involved. (Yes, I know I am part of the problem here, no matter what I think my intentions are.)

But you have to wonder how much the owner of the business is responsible for the actions of the employees, policy or not, when he promotes his business like this:

Via Facebook

And sells merch like this:

Via Grab-N-Go

Sleazy or not, the Grab-N-Go owner may have a point about the timing of the arrests being a bit of a conspiracy. According to the Seattle Times, the 2009 arrests came on the same day as a public hearing was scheduled on a proposed update to Everett's lewd-conduct ordinance "which would declare drive-up windows a public place, making it illegal for someone to expose their breasts and genitals." While it's understandable that citizens don't want to accidentally see live sex shows at public coffee stands, the obsessive American War On Breasts seems to be complicating the issue.

Via Facebook

The current Everett Municipal Code actually mentions drive-through windows specifically. I'm exerpting it at length because it's kind of interesting.


A.    A “lewd act” is:

1.    An exposure of one’s genitals, anus, or any portion of the areola or nipple of the female breast; or

2.    The touching, caressing or fondling of the genitals or female breasts; or

3.    Masturbation; or

4.    Sexual conduct.

B.    “Public place” means an area generally visible to public view, and includes streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots, automobiles (whether moving or not), and buildings open to the general public, including those which serve food or drink or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them, and businesses contained in structures which can serve customers who remain in their vehicles, by means of a drive-up window.

C.    “Sexual conduct” means sexual intercourse or any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party, whether such persons are the same or opposite sex.

D.    For purposes of this chapter, any activity is obscene:

1.    Which the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, when considered as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; and

2.    Which explicitly depicts or describes patently offensive representations or descriptions of:

a.    Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; or

b.    Masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals or genital area; or

c.    Violent or destructive sexual acts including but not limited to human or animal mutilation, dismemberment, rape or torture; and

3.    Which, when considered as a whole, and in the context in which it is used, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. For purposes of this chapter, an activity is dramatic if the activity is of, relating to, devoted to, or concerned specifically or professionally with current drama or the contemporary theater.

10.24.020 Lewd conduct.
A.    A person is guilty of lewd conduct if he or she intentionally performs any lewd act in a public place or under circumstances where such act is likely to be observed by any member of the public. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not lewd conduct.


I'm no lawyer, but I'm assuming the parts I bolded are why the baristas are being charged under "Soliciting for a lewd act": Every person who solicits another to engage in a lewd act in a public place shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 

If I had a business like this, I suppose I'd feel targeted too. (Not to mention feeling like I really needed a shower.)

But then again, considering the target market, you just can't buy this kind of publicity:

Subway location in France offers "straights only" Valentine's deal

Opposing Views reports:

A branch of the Subway chain in Angers, France was forced to close recently after a Valentine’s Day special was offered to heterosexual couples only. 

The store’s owner put up a poster advertising a meal deal for couples that included a footlong Subway sandwich, a drink and a dessert each for 14 Euros. Bracketed next to the word “couples” were the letters “H/F,” indicating a couple was defined as a man and woman only. 

Also on the poster was an asterisk that read: “Discrimination (?) No, the marriage for all law has advanced, but has yet to be ratified by the Senate. Until then, I’ll use my freedom of expression.”

The special offer was apparently made by a rogue franchisee, and spent Subway France spinning on Twitter and Facebook.

On Saturday, when the news had gone global, they even posted in English on their Facebook page:

As we stated in response to many posts yesterday: The SUBWAY ® brand is strongly committed to maintain the values ​​of diversity and inclusiveness in its restaurants around the world and does not endorse in any discrimination of any kind . , we apologize to all the people being offended by individual initiative to promote Valentine's Day a restaurant in Angers, France. All SUBWAY ® restaurants are owned by franchisees and are managed independently. We work with the owner of the restaurant in order to strengthen our values ​​and company policy.

The French National Assembly recently approved a law that would legalize same-sex marriage and give the same rights to all married couples to adopt children. Although the legislation has met with organized protest, a recent poll indicated that 63% of French citizens support equal marriage.

But not, apparently, that one rogue sandwich artist who caused his brand a massive embarrassment.

Women strip for Christmas toy donations, but one charity refuses to accept them

Via CBC

CBC reports that Ottawa "Gentlemen's Club" Barefax is letting its performers accept toy donations as payment for table dances.

It's hardly the first time this kind of charity drive has happened. The Admiral Theatre, in Chicago, has been doing it for years. But what was interesting about this story was the question of whether strippers are morally acceptable benefactors to kids.

The Debra Dynes Family House, which provides support to low-income families in Ottawa, pulled out of the program after being contacted by a reporter. The CBC article states that the Ottawa Salvation Army did not reply to questions about their involvement. (The Sally Ann runs the biggest local toy drive, Toy Mountain.)

But what is the real problem here? It might be the uncomfortable connection it makes between the sex industry and young children. Or perhaps its a distaste for the perceived exploitation of the stripping business. Or they might just be grossed out by the idea of the toys having been handled by naked women and the men who pay them to give informal gynaecology classes.

While the PR opportunity for the club is obvious, I think the individual dancers really do just want to help kids. Many of them, inevitably, are moms themselves. And offstage, they are just members of the community who want to feel the spirit of Christmas.

A Barefax dancer with the stage name Melina told the CBC, "When they asked me to do this I thought it was a really good idea because there’s a lot of children who have nothing. Just because it’s a strip club doesn’t mean that we’re mean people and we can’t do any good."

Here's the CBC TV report:

Hot Pockets and the Mayor of Newark, NJ, show how to win at social media

If you don't follow Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, on Twitter, you may want to start. In addition to being a Rhodes Scholar, the man absolutely rocks the medium of 140 characters or less.

For example, Time reports:

There’s barely been a disaster, natural or otherwise, that Booker hasn’t responded to personally, often via his very active Twitter account. After Hurricane Sandy struck, hundreds of Newark residents sent pleas for help to their mayor — and many of them got a speedy response.
...
Booker also used Twitter to get the home addresses of families in need, answer questions about local schools and even respond to his critics. According to the Gothamist, Booker averaged 100 tweets per day from Oct. 29 to Nov. 1.

The interaction above was one of many. But it was a weird one, using language (and a user name) that make the guilty white guy in me twitch, and sent by someone who was probably attempting to troll Mayor Booker for shits and giggles.

He actually Tweeted at the Mayor twice:

What does he do? He responds in an amusingly patronizing way, with teacher language of which child expert Barbara Coloroso would approve. It was a beautifully executed response. And that might have been that.

But it's rare that a consumer brand gets mentioned by a major public figure without that brand's owners hearing about it — either through online "listening" tools, or secondhand from fans.

Nestlé, owner of the Hot Pockets brand, saw the interaction and sent the Mayor this letter:

Which the Mayor then Tweeted:

And then he told Tyree Humes:

So, Hot Pockets get a Mayoral endorsement. The Mayor gets to look cool in front of everyone.

I'm not a huge fan of Nestlé as a brand, or of this kind of junk food, but professionally speaking I am now a huge fan of the anonymous person or people at the company who pulled this off.

And the Mayor? Buzzfeed followed the aftermath, and caught Mayor Booker slaying a political troll with kindness and humour:

Via Buzzfeed

And hopefully Tyree Humes is enjoying his 15 Minutes of Fame:

Remembrance Day is not a marketing angle

Today, November 11, is a day when we stop for a moment and remember all the men and women who gave their lives in combat for what they thought would be a better world.

I take this moment pretty seriously. Rather than getting swept up in the more sentimental trappings of the public observation, I simply try to imagine myself, my son, my wife, or other loved ones in the tranches. Killing. Suffering. Dying.

But everyone has their own way to remember, and that's fine. Unless you try to use the day to sell people something:

I'm actually a big fan of Mill St's beers. But I may have to reconsider that if they don't soon acknowledge that this was a tasteless move by their Ottawa Twitter person, apologize, and try to make it right.

Developing...

Update: 

(Ignore the timestamps, they're just from when I screencapped the Tweets)

Weak, but at least it's responsive.