PR Advertising or Social Media Campaign - Dissertation Example

Critical analysis of a PR advertising or social media campaign: Starbucks "In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, the traditional once-a-day press conference featuring talking heads with a bunch of fancy titles has to be revamped and supplemented with Twitter posts, YouTube videos and the like. The public needs to be engaged in conversations and debate about issues of public health, they dont need to be lectured to." - Picard, 2010 Introduction: There is a growing trend to use social media as a part of marketing campaigns by organisations. Mass media has been widely used by organisations to change, influence or alter consumer behaviour as well as to improve ones public image in the minds of the consumers. The use of social messages in advertising and marketing through social media campaigns, is likely to ensure greater public attention and create a buzz in the market thus drawing attention to the products /services marketed by the said firm. The salience of the issue not only attracts audience but also improves the brand /product recall, builds awareness of the issue and influence changes in the consumer behaviour, thus ultimately drawing favourable responses to the product or brand in the process. Companies have now begun to realise the sheer scope and outreach of social media and the Internet in general as a highly effective communication platform. Thus using the various social media platforms to launch their social media campaigns has become integral for them since it enables the organisations to leverage their marketing practices in the most cost-effective way possible. The effective use of social media to market the products or services could prove to be highly profitable resulting in the delivery of measurable business results. However, if not executed effectively, it may lead to disastrous results. Starbucks is a case in point. This report aims to discuss the recently launched and highly controversial social media campaign – Race Together, launched by Starbucks. The Starbucks’ “Race Together” Campaign: Critical Analysis Starbucks, the Seattle based multinational coffee giant launched one of its most ambitious social media campaigns, “Race Together” in association with USA Today, on March 18, 2015. The key aim of this campaign was to get its customers and the world around them, talking about a highly sensitive issue in American history – Race. The company took out full-page newspaper advertisements and encouraged open discussions about race on open forums (USA Today, 2015). The objective was simple - to encourage open discussions about a topic (Race) that is rarely discussed in a corporate setting, let alone in coffee shops. CEO Howard Schultz aimed to change that. Inspired by the recent spate of racially charged incidents that gripped America, yet again, Starbucks initiated a full-fledged campaign to tackle the issue head on. The company encouraged its employees and partners to share their experiences and ideas and to take inspiration from the same to develop ideas to address the challenges faced by the country with regard to race related issues. Context: The issue of race in the U.S., as elsewhere around the globe, is highly critical one since it evokes images and discussions about the years of oppression faced by the native Americans and then the African American community, in the form of slavery, blatant racial discrimination, lack of legal and socio-economic equality and inequitable access to resources to name a few. The fact that white privilege continues to exist despite proper and adequate laws in place to prevent the same, and racial discrimination continues to affect almost all critical aspects of the everyday lives of the minority communities including education and employment. The recent spate of killings and deaths of African American citizens and the race riots that followed as a result is indicative of the gravity of the issue in the country and the need for a proper platform to bring it into public discussions to raise awareness and seek solutions to resolve the same. The introduction of the Race Together campaign, although well intended did not take into consideration the fact that people, especially those from the racially diverse communities, may not find it suitable or appropriate to discuss such serious issues, that affect their everyday lives, to be discussed in a light-hearted casual setting as a coffee shop. The setting dilutes the gravity of the issue and the basic purpose behind the campaign is not conveyed in the manner in which it is intended. Strategic Advertising / PR decision: The key target audience of this campaign include all the customers of Starbucks and the public at large. It invited the customers, regardless of their race, to engage in discussions about race and participate in it by sharing their own personal experiences and expectations. The objective was to initiate discussions about race and acknowledge that racial discrimination exists by getting more and more people involved and share their experiences. Race matters in America and Starbucks wanted to do something about it though community engagement and constructive dialogues with the communities. The Race Together campaign is based on communication theory and the type of model used is participatory approach to communication whereby the information being communicated is reinforced to the target audience in a bid to cause structural and social change. The Rockefeller process describes the communication theory used to communicate and influence social change as "a process of public and private dialog through which people themselves define who they are, what they need and how to get what they need in order to improve their lives" (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009: p. 2). Initiating and ensuring effective communication with the target audience is one of the key goals of a corporate strategy since it helps them to inform, debate and motivate them towards the intended goals in the most effective manner possible. The key issues raised by this campaign include those of racial inequality and discrimination in the U.S. Although CEO Howard Schultz, acknowledged the fact that it is virtually impossible for Starbucks alone to provide a solution to an issue that carried four hundred years of history with it, the company still wanted to encourage dialog with the customers and the general public and help move the country forward on a positive note (Starbucks, 2015). However the decision sparked an outrage on the social media with criticisms about the campaign pouring in from all parts of the country targeting the company for the misguided campaign. A seemingly simple gesture by a corporate organisation to stimulate conversation about race catapulted into national controversy over-night. Critics have argued that CEOs of giant multinational corporations already have immense influence over the political system and political issues. Encouraging and /or supporting initiatives such as these that tend to highlight critical social issues, to such "unelected titans" is only likely to give them unprecedented power and hold over our everyday lives which in itself is a major threat to democracy (Chatterji & Toffel, 2015). The key reasons behind the strong criticisms could be attributed to several factors. One of them being the fact that the top management of the company is predominantly and overwhelmingly white, while the workers on the lower end of the hierarchy especially the baristas belonged to the minority communities (Brody, 2015). Secondly race is a very controversial issue and people do not usually like talking about it with their morning coffee. Also there is no distinct and identifiable brand association with the social cause being promoted and the product being marketed. Hence it is unusual to associate ones morning coffee with such weighty issue as race, which ultimately resulted in lack of fit between the product and the cause (Ember, 2015). This issue can be discussed and analysed based on two key theories. Brand associations and cause marketing. Brand association have been in existence for several decades now whereby corporate organizations use cleverly drafted marketing campaigns that are aimed to integrate social causes or help people connect with each other (Moutinho, Bigné, and Manrai, 2014: p. 269). Brands in this case act as a symbol of personal achievement and the use or association with the said product is intended to improve ones self-esteem and allow individuals to distinguish themselves from those around them. Brand associations when carried out effectively help the corporate organisations in expressing their individuality and at the same time help people to transition to a worthy cause, thus creating a strong association between the product and the consumers in the process. Pedigree’s campaign to encourage shelter dog adoption launched by the company in association with the Pedigree Foundation is one good example of an effective cause-brand association (Posavac, 2015). The campaign worked because of the relationship between the product and the social cause. The ‘Buckets for Cure campaign’ launched by KFC on the other hand met with scepticism and heavy criticism despite its good intentions and attempt to associate the brand with a social cause - that of raising awareness about breast cancer. The criticism was perhaps, expected considering the fact that the company was sending mixed messages by trying to market it’s heavy in sodium and fat content, menu to its customers (Kinsman, 2010). Similarly in case of Starbucks there was no appropriate fit between the brand, the product being marketed and the social cause, thus leading the public to shun the campaign instead of embrace it, as expected by the CEO. There is a significant rise in the trend of corporate social marketing (File & Prince, 1998) especially since the growth of the social media platforms and the ever-increasing presence of consumers online. The concept refers to the marketing initiatives launched by an organisation with an intention to associate its brand with a non-profit non-economic cause in order to build a positive brand image, increase brand recall and improve consumer perceptions about the company (Drumwright & Murphy, 2001). Such type of marketing campaigns is likely to help the companies improve their corporate image and build an emotional bond with their consumers (Meyer, 1999). The recent initiative by Starbucks could be seen as a desperate attempt to salvage its image in the minds of the consumers, especially given its spate of controversies in the past year. Starbucks was embroiled in the beetle extract controversy whereby the company was accused of using beetle juice its Frappuccino as food colouring (Kelly, 2012). In the same year the company was again caught up with tax-avoidance scandal which generated huge public outcry with some section of the consumers going as far as threatening to convert some of the company’s offices into crèches and refuges (Malik & Neville, 2012). Considering these chain of events it is understandable that the company would like to attempt to change its image and create a positive perception among the consumers with regard to the brand. Associating itself with a social cause, by keeping with the trend, seemed to be a plausible alternative. Social media campaigns are highly crucial in today’s age and time, where television commercials have lost its appeal and its effectiveness is on a steady decline (Jefkins, 2009: p. 157). Social media campaign that aim to indulge the public or the consumers in direct communication with the brand on its portals or by “hashtagging” / retweeting helps not only in stimulating a dialog about the social cause but helps in bringing the attention back to the brand. However, in case of Starbucks the misplaced concept and lack of fit brought into question the company’s motives behind the campaign resulting in heavy criticisms all over, including the press and the public. The campaign was ultimately pulled off on March 22, 2015. CEO Schultz wrote about the initiative: "While there has been criticism of the initiative — and I know this hasn’t been easy for any of you — let me assure you that we didn’t expect universal praise. The heart of Race Together has always been about humanity: the promise of the American Dream should be available to every person in this country, not just a select few. We leaned in because we believed that starting this dialogue is what matters most." (Morrison, 2015). Contrary to the objective of the CEO of Starbucks whose ambitious campaign was intended to initiate a dialog and engage the consumers in conversation, the employees at the Starbucks outlets shared that the consumers were indifferent to the initiative. The employees shared that although no one complained about the campaign it failed to generate the desired response and the consumers seemed to be only interested in taking their orders as usual without giving a second thought to the campaign in progress. There was no feedback at all despite serving hundreds of cups of coffee, according to an experience shared by one of the baristas. Another employee in D.C., sharing her experience stated that during the week long campaign she managed to talk to only two customers who seemed to be unaware of it but when informed they declined any conversation related to race and carried on with their business (Harlan & Contrera, 2015). Einstein (2012) suggests that the "marriage of corporation and cause" is a recent phenomenon. Although it is also identified as Cause related marketing or corporate social responsibility in the past, the concept of cause related marketing is a recent social innovation (p. 29). Cause related marketing goes beyond philanthropy as in the case of corporate social responsibility where the entire concept is based on giving back to the community. This concept entails more than giving back to the community or engaging in social causes such as the environmental related concepts - go green, or planting trees. Promotional campaigns such as those that are directly related to social causes such as Hunger, Unemployment, Poverty and in this case race, indicate greater public engagement on the part of the entirely for profit organisations since they carry with them the promise of bringing about a social change (Einstein, 2012: p. 31). This has been further substantiated by the recent announcements made by the the CEO of Yum Brands Inc., Greg Creed the owner of prominent multinational chains including KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut who suggested that it has become highly crucial for food chains to evolve from their existing structures and participate in social causes that matter to the public. In the absence of such association of for-profit corporations to prominent social causes, companies might be in danger of being perceived as impersonal and industrial. Hence in order to show that we care it is highly crucial to engage in social causes and create a positive social impact (Choi, 2015). The ‘Race Together’ campaign originated from the recent state of the American society which was gripped in racial tensions following the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, both belonging to minority communities, by the police flaring up racial tensions and rioting in the community in retaliation. The state of the American society calls for a decent dialog between among the public with regard to a highly sensitive and hotly debated issue of race. However the debates, which were mostly, confined to discussions within closed domains mostly involving policy makers and rarely the public themselves, now transcended the corporate boardrooms with the initiative launched by CEO Howard Schultz (Ember, 2015). Commenting on the Starbuckss social media campaign controversy, Gwen Ifill, co-anchor of the popular television news program PBS News Hour described the entire campaign as flawed and argued: "A conversation about race cannot be a fleeting one. It certainly cannot be an under-caffeinated one" (Dean & Brat, 2015). Another critic, Jia Tolentino at Jezebel commented that the campaigns failure to generate the required buzz and interest among the public could be attributed to the fact that the company failed to understand the manner in which we talk about race. "First ordering coffee from a chain store is an act that necessarily takes place under conditions - quick, perfunctory, corporate polite - that are exactly oppositional to the conditions necessary to talk about race" (Brody, 2015). New York Daily news criticised the move by stating that "buying coffee is quite possibly the stupidest time and place to try to have a conversation about something as serious, important and complex as racism. If you actually cared, youd treat the topic with the respect it deserves" (Brody, 2015). The use of controversial and sensitive social issues for cause marketing is not a new phenomenon. Many companies have successfully managed to pull off their campaigns despite engaging in a topic as controversial and sensitive as ‘female beauty’. The case of Dove ‘Real Beauty’ campaign is a successful study that proves the manner in which an effectively designed campaign could not only help improve the brand image but also stimulate social discussions and encourage change in the society. Everything about the campaign was right including the conception of the idea and the manner in which it was executed, making it one of the most successful cause marketing campaigns of the decade. It was the first campaign that went viral attracting hordes of visitors on the companys website. The response helped in informing the company about the positive feedback received with regard to the campaign and that it was on the right track. The company was successfully able to initiate dialog with its target consumers - women, and start conversation about beauty. The campaign managed to make issues important to women, relevant and brought the same into public discussion thus initiating change about the manner in which female beauty is and should be perceived (Bahadur, 2014). The key lessons learnt from the Starbucks ‘Race Together’ campaign is that it is highly imperative for the campaign managers to carefully evaluate the possible outcome of the outreach and design strategies accordingly. Also conducting a thorough front-end assessment of the campaign could prove to be extremely useful in ensuring successful accomplishment and execution of the same (Coffman, 2002). The case also indicates that the social media is a double edged sword and hence although it may contribute immensely to the company’s profitability and drawing attention to the marketing campaigns initiated by organisations through free publicity it also exposes them to the pitfalls of social media, by way of extreme negative criticism as observed in case of Starbucks. Thus if the company fails to back its campaign with alternative strategies to prevent negative criticism or turn it around to their advantage, the negative public backlash is likely to cause more damage than expected. Furthermore there is a clear difference between encouraging consumers to discuss on certain issues, let alone something as sensitive and emotional as race, online and face-to-face. That is mainly because, people usually tend to avoid such heavy discussions in company of complete strangers. Such discussions are meant to take place in a more serious settings, giving due respect to the issue that it deserves. The discussions also need to be encouraged at a leisurely pace rather than being forced to talk about it in a short time. It is understandable that the customers lining up for their coffee may not be comfortable discussing on an issue as critical as race, in a public setting since it is neither the time nor the place to hold discussions of such gravity. Needless to mention that the lack of proper thought put into the seemingly pure intent of the company, could be the key cause being public outrage. The move was perceived by the public as dishonest, and the key motive was largely doubted as a purely promotional attempt to gain public approval and support. Lastly, the fact that corporate organisations are increasingly taking part in associating their brands with social causes is a positive trend cannot be denied. However at the same time it must also be taken into consideration that choosing the right causes that fits the company’s brand image and the products being endorsed is of equal significance. The mismatch between the two is likely to result in disastrous result as witnessed in the case of the recent Starbucks social media campaign. Bibliography: Picard, A., (2010) What are the public health lessons of H1Ni? Preach less, engage more [Online] Available at: Bahadur, N., (2014). Dove Real Beauty Campaign Turns 10: How A Brand Tried To Change The Conversation About Female Beauty [Online] Available at: [Accessed:April 14, 2015] Brody, R., (2015). Views you can use: Race together? Not exactly [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 14, 2015] Choi, C., (2015). Starbucks joins the race debate as clashes in Ferguson and elsewhere escalate tension [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 14, 2015] Coffman, J., (2002). Public communication campaign evaluation: An environmental scan of challenges, criticisms, practice and opportunities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Publication. Dean, J., Brat, I., (2015). Starbucks ends key phase in Race Together Campaign [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 1, 2015] Drumwright, M., Murphy, P. E., (2001). Corporate societal marketing, in Handbook of Marketing and Society, Paul N. Bloom and Gregory T. Gundlach, eds Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, p. 162- 163. Ember, S., (2015). Starbucks initiative on race relations draws attacks online [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 14, 2015] Harlan, C., Contrera, J., (2015). Starbucks baristas: ‘Race together’ campaign never found its course [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 14, 2015] Jefkins, F., (2009). Advertising. Pearson Education, p. 157 Kelly, C., (2012). Starbucks and the great beetle extract controversy [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 13, 2015] Kinsman, K., (2010). Activists call foul on KFC bucket campaign [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 12, 2015] Malik, S., & Neville, S., (2012). Starbucks wakes up and smells the stench of tax avoidance controversy [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 13, 2015] Meyer, H., (1999). When the cause is just. Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 20 (Nov/Dec): p. 27 - 31. Morrison, K., (2015). What Went Wrong With the Starbucks #RaceTogether Campaign? [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 14, 2015] Moutinho, L., Bigné, E., and Manrai, A. K., (2014). The Routledge companion to the future of marketing. London: Routledge Publishing. Posavac, S. S., (2015). Cracking the code: Leveraging consumer psychology to drive profitability. London: Routledge Publishing. Starbucks (2015). Race together: Conversation has the power to change hearts and minds [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 9, 2015] Tufte, T., Mefalopulos, P., (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington, D.C.,: World Bank Publications. USA Today (2015). Starbucks, USA Today team to tackle racial issues [Online] Available at: [Accessed: April 9, 2015] Read More