KFC reminds moms that it's their job to cook. On #MothersDay

The idea is pretty cute: Kentucky Fried Chicken publishes a romance novella starring Colonel Sanders as a mysterious Victorian sailor.

Give Mom her true heart’s desire this Mother’s Day—a family meal and a romance novel featuring Colonel Sanders. pic.twitter.com/WHJNL9kRqn

— KFC (@kfc) May 4, 2017

It's funny stuff by Wieden + Kennedy. But there's a problem here, and it has to do with what "moms" are expected to do when it's not Mother's Day.

Let's hear it directly from the mouth of George Felix, director of advertising for KFC U.S.:

"...this Mother's Day, the bucket of chicken I get for my wife will come with a side of steamy romance novella. Dinner is taken care of and she'll have the time to escape her busy schedule."

Dinner's taken care of? That's great! Mom gets the night off from cooking for her family. Because that's what moms are expected to do, right?

I get that advertising isn't supposed to push social progress, but rather sell stuff. And KFC has been selling fried chicken as a "break for mom" since the beginning.



You get the idea.

Nonetheless, the dusty old ideas about family division of labour seem to work for the KFC brand, who claim a 40% jump in sales on Mother's Day.

Moral of the story? More men and children need to learn how to cook.

Is KFC celebrating foster care, or exploiting it?

As brands struggle to stay relevant in the social era, we are seeing an increasing move into ads that address deeply emotional issues.

Here's he latest:

In KFC UK's case, it's the touching story of a boy in foster care growing up in a supportive environment (which includes being welcomed with a big bucket of fried chicken).

It's pretty intense, and it brought a tear to this cynical aging adman's eye. But it also raises some questions.

Parent Dish has reviewed some of the negative feedback on social media, and summarizes:

Those who dislike the ad have argued that the trauma a child experiences in an abusive and/or neglectful birth family, compounded by the anxiety of being taken into care, cannot be mended by a bucket of chicken, however finger-lickin' good it might be. They believe that KFC are suggesting their chicken fixes these things.

It also points to a change.org petition that accuses the ad of "it glorifies the care system with little to no thought having been given to the real children entering the care system who are traumatized and have been torn away from their families and everything they know."

Those words seem eerily familiar to me, as several years ago I worked on a foster care campaign for the Children's Aid Societies of Eastern Ontario and we ended up attracting the attention of people who object to the way state intervention on child abuse is conducted.

Back to KFC: Yes, they are exploiting a deeply emotional story that is very personal to many people to sell fried chicken. Just as Coca-Cola and McDonald's have done for generations.

One thing KFC did, to its credit, is to consult with longtime children's advocate Barnardo's to ensure the subject was approached with sensitivity.

Barnardo's spokesperson Gerry Tissier stated, "Barnardo's saw the KFC ad before it was aired. We recognise that it cannot fully convey the difficulties which children and young people face when moving into a new family. However, we believe it shows that foster and adoptive parents can and do make a real positive difference to a child's life. If it persuades more people to come forwards for a child who needs a family, that will only be a good thing."

That's a good point. Charities are turning more and more to private sector brands for sponsorship. The charity gets program, production, and media money, as well as exposure. The brand gets to bond with its audiences over a warmed heart or a good cry.

I found an interesting quote about the the changing nature of emotional marketing, from Leisha Roche, senior director of marketing for grocery brands at Kraft Canada. She talked about how the media environment is awash in personal stories and heartfelt appeals: “You’re not competing with other brands anymore. You’re competing with people,” she said.

The KFC ad made me feel like I had something in my eye. Which is good. I just never want to forget that I'm watching a fast food ad.

Man decides to make the Double Down a permanent part of his body

Via Wikipedia

I imagine the mass of grease known as the Double Down would stay with most people for a couple of hours, tops. That clearly wasn't enough for one young man, who wanted the relationship to be more permanent:

In the book Radical Marketing, Sam Hill and Glenn Rifkin talk about brands that are so loved, their evangelists literally brand themselves with tattoos of their favourite logos and products.

I guess KFC's Double Down has achieved that:



From Grub Street:

For the sake of a new ad, KFC apparently convinced a bearded individual — he escapes with his anonymity intact — to visit Tattoo Salvation in Louisville for a calf tattoo along the lines of that Norwegian guy's McDonald's receipt. Artist Adam Potts realizes that "with it being chicken, bacon, cheese, and the sauce," this particular design poses a problem: "There's a lot of browns and yellows in it." Still, he inks a bunless beauty, even adding in a very Ed Hardy-ized Colonel Sanders.

The video was featured on #HowDoYouKFC, a portion of the KFC corporate site set aside for "community."

Hey, tattoos are a very personal decision. But the "a lot of browns and yellows" comment should have been a red flag. The chicken "buns" look like a pile of poop.

I was wondering if this was an example of a more regrettable ink idea.

After all, how would I feel today if I had had a McDLT tattooed on my arm, years ago?

Or...?

Via Nerdalicious

I guess 15 minutes of fame is worth it for some people.

PETA's modest promposal for KFC's "Chicken Corsage"

KFC's "Chicken Corsage" stunt for prom season was gross enough on its own, but now PETA is upping the ante:

Thanks, guys.

KFC is still assuming women's job is to cook for men and children

Pic via this blog

Some of you might be old enough to remember when Kentucky Fried Chicken was spelled out in full, and its food was positioned as an alternative to home cooking that would give women a break from their cooking duties at home.

Even when more and more women went to work, the ads continued to assume that it was a mother's duty to take care of dinner:



Personally, I thought those days were over. But apparently not in the chain's UK and Ireland operations:

Via Condescending Corporate Brand Page

Last Sunday was Mother's Day in Great Britain, also known as "Mothering Sunday":

Mother's Day, or Mothering Sunday, is now a day to honor mothers and other mother figures, such as grandmothers, stepmothers and mother-in-laws. Many people make a special effort to visit their mother. They take cards and gifts to her and may treat her to brunch, lunch or high tea in a cafe, restaurant or hotel. People who cannot visit their mother usually send gifts or cards to her. 

An important part of Mothering Sunday is giving cards and gifts. Common Mother's Day gifts are cakes, flowers, chocolates, jewelry, and luxurious clothing. Some people do not give a physical gift, but choose to treat their mother or grandmother to a special meal, beauty treatment or fun outing.

Or a bucket of grease. 

Should we expect global brands to respect universal human rights?

Following the scorn heaped upon IKEA for deleting all adult women from the Saudi version of its catalogue, I think it's time to start talking about how we hold global brands accountable for how they operate in places without basic human rights.

This week, I noticed a picture going around that claimed to be from the door of a Pizza Hut in Jeddah:

Digging a little deeper, I found a 2007 blog post with more documentation of major brands giving in to sexist Saudi social and religious policy:

In this case, the policy of sex segregation is because women must expose their faces to eat, so no unmarried and unrelated man can be allowed to see them.

At McDonald's, the segregation is has created the "need" for restaurants to build parallel and non-communicating sections for (male) "singles" and "families".

Admittedly, this was five years ago. But has anything changed?

From 2009:

An American businesswoman was carted off to jail by religious police in Saudi Arabia for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks in Riyadh, the Times of London reported.
The woman, who spent a day behind bars, was strip-searched and forced to sign a false confession before being released, the newspaper said. The Times declined to publish her name at her request. 

The 37-year-old businesswoman works for a finance company in Riyadh. Her problem began when her office lost electricity. She and her male colleagues then went to a nearby Starbucks to use the coffee shop's Internet connection. 

She sat with a male colleague in the Starbucks' family area, the only place women are allowed to sit with men.  

"Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked 'Why are you here together?' I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin," she told the Times. 

Following her arrest and interrogation, the woman was hauled before a judge.
"He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell.' I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless," she told the Times. 

The newspaper said the woman had received a visit from officials at the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia. A U.S. official told The Times that it was being treated as "an internal Saudi matter" and refused to comment on her case.

And this year:

Western companies on Saudi land must comply with Saudi religious regulations. Fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other US firms, for instance, maintain sex-segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The facilities in the women's section are usually lower in quality.

I will just flat out say it: I don't think brands that want to do business in a world that respects the equality and dignity of women should be doing business in places where women have no basic rights. Full stop.

Recently, I refused to work on a project for a North American educational institution (NDA prevents me from naming names) that wanted to recruit teachers for a Saudi school. They would happily accept applications from anyone, but in reality only wanted white males. Fuck that.

Everyone — EVERYONE — deserves the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, and cannot be denied them simply because of what's between their legs. Whether that is a major right such as education and voting, or more mundane things like being able to drive or buy junk food, the continued denial of this equality is an affront to anyone who believes women are free individuals.

IKEA, when they were called out by the media in their base of Sweden, issued this statement:

We should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA Group values. We are now reviewing our routines to safeguard a correct content presentation from a values point-of-view in the different versions of the IKEA Catalogue worldwide.

You may not like where I'm going with this post. After all, don't universal human rights guarantee freedom of religion? Isn't it the Saudis' business how they run their society?

Personally, I have no problem saying that the way women are treated in Saudia Arabia, and many other countries is wrong. I don't care whether the reason given is religion, tradition, or just fear of women's liberation. Human beings deserve better.

I cannot change Saudi Arabia. But I can let western brands know that we're watching them. If expansion into wealthy but oppressive countries is more important to them than respect for women's rights, then that belief should be seen as part of their global brand.

If you want a Starbucks coffee, go ahead and order one. What you have in your hand is a beverage that stands for sex segregation and arrest of women who dare order one without their husband or brother present. If you have a Big Mac attack, remember that somewhere a single woman has had to hire a taxi driver to take her through the drive-through to get one, because to walk into the restaurant would put her at risk of being beaten and arrested by so-called morality police. Same with your Pizza Hut hot dog stuffed greasewheel, or your Double Down.

When you support a brand, you are making its values part of your own. That's the way branding and identity work. Would you like fries with that misogyny?

What does "premium" junk food really mean?

Burger King's "premium".

Last week, I saw an interesting post on Burger Business, a fast food industry blog about how the word "premium" has become a popular adjective for burger chains:

According to data compiled for BurgerBusiness.com by Mintel, its use on menus has doubled since 2007 (and this is even before Burger King’s new items), and not just at quick-service restaurants. In an economy where consumers are looking for top value without necessarily paying more for it, “premium” connotes high quality or high price without committing to being either. “Premium” sounds upscale, special, with a sophistication that “deluxe” lacks.

McDonald's "premium" line (from their online menu)

But what exactly does "premium" mean, in the realm of junk food?

The Oxford American English Dictionary defines the adjective as "relating to or denoting a commodity or product of superior quality and therefore a higher price."

Wendy's

The problem, of course, is that "premium" is not part of the USDA's grading standard. It's an entirely relative term. If the fast food chains are being honest, it could imply that the meat is better than what they were giving you before.

But this is marketing. What they really want to imply is "better than the other guy's."

KFC Canada: "The premium chicken breast is marinated in our hot & spicy seasoning
 for full flavor, then double breaded by hand for extra crunch."

It's total bullshit, of course. The word is absolutely meaningless in any real sense of food quality. But as a marketing term, it works. Hard.

From another Burger Business post:

Speaking at last week’s 2012 Protein Innovation Summit hosted by Meatingplace magazine, Technomic Executive Vice President Darren Tristano presented data on consumer attitudes to beef quality (not just burgers). According to Technomic’s 2011 Center of the Plate Beef & Pork Consumer Trend Report, 28% of diners say the amorphous descriptor “premium” would make them more willing to pay up to 5% more for beef at a restaurant or supermarket. Another 11% say that seeing that word would make them willing to pay more than 5% more. 

Technomic’s findings come as many of the growing “better burger” chains strive to set themselves apart by promoting the high quality of the beef they use. Elevation Burger, for example, touts its use of “100% organic, grass-fed, free-range beef.” The Cheeburger Cheeburger chain adopted all-natural, additive-free Angus beef. Farm Burger in the Atlanta area proudly serves grass-fed beef free of antibiotics and hormones. These terms signal quality, certainly, but consumers like “premium” even better.

There's even a chart:

Source: Technomic Center of the Plate Beef & Pork Consumer Trend Report

Note that the three descriptors below "premium" are specific and falsifiable. But people are much more likely to pay "slightly more" (and almost as likely to pay ("significantly more") for an adjective that costs the fast food chains absolutely nothing.

Here's how those same consumers describe their expectations of what "premium" beef implies:

Note that the top two responses have nothing to do with the way the meat was raised or processed, but only the cut and breed. Specifics about hormones and antibiotics don't even make the chart.

If the chains were to move towards hormone- and antibiotic-free meats, they'd greatly increase their costs. If you were them, after attending this "Protein Innovation Summit," which way would you go? (Burger business recommends "premium, 100% Angus sirloin."

Carl's Junior franchisee site

Which leads me to the conclusion that the problems with the industrial meat system will be with us until consumers are better educated.

Wendy's dabbles in the fine art of "Insulinwashing"

Making corporate social responsibility partnership decisions can't really be that hard:

1) Does this partnership enhance my brand?
2) Is this issue of interest to my customers?
3) Am I sure this won't backfire, by drawing attention to a negative aspect of one of our products?

Somebody at Wendy's never got past #2 when they greenlit this gem (via The Consumerist)

Don't feel bad. You're in famous company:

Read about it here.

Read about it here.

Colonel Sanders as a zombie chicken #FdAdFriday

There's some sort of poetic justice in this. And I'm sure I'll figure out what it is just as soon as a stop throwing up.

Via Buzzlol

Colonel Sanders ad can be seen from space

So very wrong, even wronger than the Double-Down, is that this KFC ad has been sitting in the ground near Rachel, Nevada, for five years. You can see it for yourself here.

When the aliens come and ask to be taken to our leader, they'll be pretty disappointed that he's been dead since 1980. The invasion won't last long, though, because once they develop a taste for the dirty bird they'll be completely helpless.

Beautiful ad for the Dirty Bird

Acart French Copywriter Vincent send me this video from Ogilvy Johannesburg, for KFC:



Damn you for making me cry, Vincent! It's my ninth wedding anniversary today (putting me somewhere in the middle of that transition) and my son has a little girl best friend those kids made me think of.

Gorgeous work! I just wish it weren't for gross old fried chicken, that's all.

Drink a megajug of Pepsi, fight juvenile diabetes

Copyranter warns that this was found on Reddit, so no guarantees that it's real:

It says "Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation"...

Although it wouldn't be the first time that KFC has engaged in ironic CSR...

What's next? Anti-diabetes poutine?

KFC has provoked cries of hypocrisy over its latest corporate social responsibility campaign, Buckets for the Cure.



The basic deal is that 50¢ from every special pink bucket will go to support Susan G. Komen for the Cure, an important charity in the fight against breast cancer. With a minimum $1,000,000 donation, and over $2,800,000 raised so far, this represents the single largest donation Komen will ever have received.

That's the good news. The campaign Facebook page gives the lunchbag letdown that corporately, KFC operators have already made a 50¢ donation for every pink bucket they bought, and that your purchases of pink chicken buckets make no difference. (Even though you are encouraged to donate directly.)

More disturbing is the menu at the top of the page:



That's right. The Double Down. Perhaps the greasiest breakthrough in fast food innovation since gravy pizza. But I've already blogged about that. Just in case you're wondering about how it's being marketed:



This rant, though, is more about pinkwashing. Borrowed from the popular term "greenwashing", which describes a misleading environmental stewardship campaign, pinkwashing is the health version. Specifically for breast cancer.

How pinkwashed is this campaign?

From the Komen site:

Many studies have linked body weight to breast cancer risk. However, weight affects risk for pre and postmenopausal women differently. Before menopause, being overweight appears to decrease a woman's risk of getting breast cancer. After menopause, however, being overweight increases the risk by 30 to 60 percent. This relationship can be explained mainly by the fact that fat tissue contains an enzyme called aromatase. This enzyme converts hormones called androgens (made mostly in the adrenal glands) to estrogens, and this extra estrogen can increase breast cancer risk. Learn more about estrogen and breast cancer risk.

Yoiks! Perhaps that chicken should come with an age restriction.

But cynicism aside, I realize how important a big contribution like this is in the fight against cancer. It's just unfortunate that it's coming in parallel with a move towards serving less and less healthy food. It has actually led to some pretty harsh criticism and satire aimed at Komen.

And speaking of health causes, our iheartmom.ca campaign for women's heart health is now in week 2. Please join Joannie Rochette and the University of Ottawa Heart Institute to raise money and awareness to fight heart disease — the #1 killer of women in North America.

Double Down at the Dirty Bird

No, it is not consumer-driven fast food mashup like the Mcgangbang. Nor an obscure sport-eating food from the This Is Why You're Fat photoblog — like Ottawa's own gravy pizza.

This is an actual meal marketed by Kentucky Fried Chicken:

[via AdFreak]

Note that I called the chain by its old name, as opposed to the euphemistic "KFC". That was on purpose.

Years ago, the Colonel's troops got on the healthier food bandwagon and started offering grilled chicken and other low-fat options. Their corporate site still claims, "We believe eating sensibly, combined with appropriate exercise, is the best solution for a healthy lifestyle."

[via AVClub]

Made of two slabs of boneless fried chicken, bacon, double cheese and mayo-based sauce, the Double Down has 540 calories, 32 grams of fat, and 1380 milligrams of sodium.

So, an "appropriate exercise" to work the Double Down into anything resembling a healthy lifestyle would be to Running for an hour at about 8.4 km per hour (burning 531 of those 540 calories) or if you actually want to lose weight, biking for an hour at about 25 kph (590 calories). Of course, this assumes you didn't get a combo with a pop and fries...

Oh, and Health Canada recommends that adults do not exceed 2,300 mg of sodium per day. Per day.

While McDonald's keeps toying with portion control in an attempt to appeal to more health-conscious family consumers, Kentucky Fried Chicken has obviously decided their future lies more with young adult males. To this big-eating, big-drinking, burn-it-off-somehow generation the Double Down will provide a tempting alternative to heart-busting treats like the Burger King Quad Stacker and the Wendy's Baconator.

[via wikimedia]

Don't get me wrong. I love a good "bad" meal as much as the next guy. But this idea of competitive junk food eating being embraced by more and more international brands in their everyday menu items kind of turns my stomach.