« The Direct Marketing Voice Links 3-30-2009 | Home | The Direct Marketing Voice Links 3-31-2009 »
Innovative Marketing Tactic or Ridiculous Attempt for Attention?
By Cynthia Fedor | March 30, 2009
I recently came across an article describing Kentucky Fried Chicken’s latest buzz-marketing effort. The company has put a call out to five of the United States’ major cities asking them to allow the fast-food fried chicken chain to “re-fresh” their streets. What does this mean exactly? According to Kenneth Hein’s article in Brandweek, the chicken chain will fill up the city’s potholes in the name of helping the community. Of course, a non-permanent street chalk will top the newly covered potholes with the phrase “Re-freshed by KFC.”
As noted in the article…
Giving back has become a trend for marketers, including Starbucks, Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes and others that have centered their message around helping the community.
But to me, this attempt seems a little too opportunistic and self serving. Where is the long-term benefit for KFC and for the community? And, is the connection of potholes to chicken meaningful in anyway? What are the positive and negative implications of purposefully making this type of connection?
My opinion of this buzz-marketing attempt and the frame that it’s all in the name of community is not favorable for KFC. As Robert Weissman, director of Commercial Alert, stated in the article:
There is an aggressiveness towards moving into new dimensions of public spaces. This would be another example of this unfortunate incursion of advertising messaging into [consumers' lives]… KFC should fix their menu first.
What do you think? Is this an innovative marketing tactic or a ridiculous attempt for attention?
March 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I guess in a world where everyone is screaming for attention even filling hole is the road is better than nothing.
Look, it has done something already the name KFC has been spinning the web since the discussion started.
Putting ads on the road surface would not be allowed in the UK. I do not know the US rules on this. I can see it holding some brand awareness and if I were on the way home it might make me consider the KFC drive in.
A point aside there was a trend in the UK of floor adverts in Super markets. The trend did not last, may be it did not have the desired sales benefits. Or may be the floor cleaning machines ripped them up and they did not last long enough to provide the sales.
May these road ads will go the sames way as the street cleaner passes by.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:40 am
This is interesting, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I see a couple of things going on here. First is the trend that you pointed to of companies using community service as marketing. So many companies are looking for ways to cut through the clutter of messages.
Tying this into the KFC situation, I don’t think that they’re trying to connect chicken to potholes in any way. Rather, they are looking to get their name (message?) onto a space that no one else has yet.
Yes, it’s still a form of interruption marketing but it’s also tied back to the self-interest of the community because they are getting roads fixed.
Where I do see the danger, is that because a corporate entity is now funding public works, they need to have a very clear line around what KFC gets and for how long.
My biggest concern would be that the corporation would have too much claim on the public space because of their contribution.
It’s going to be interesting to see how marketing in this space plays out.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 am
Cynthia, you comment…
“Giving back has become a trend for marketers, including Starbucks, Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes and others that have centered their message around helping the community.”
I need to pull Starbucks out of this example… Starbucks was founded on being a good neighbor, being contributors to their neighborhood. “Supporting the communities they serve” was part of Starbucks original premise.
(Whether or not Starbucks is still doing a good job being locally relevant can be debated).
But the difference – and the point you’re making – is intention.
Does KFC really care? Or is this just a gimmick to get their name out there.
If I was in charge of the clean up the streets campaign with KFC I would NOT chalk mark the potholes.
At most, I would dress the workers in a KFC branded work suit and have the key messages live inside the store, online, and on the take-away packaging.
Chalk marking the street repairs screams “whoo hoo look at our stunt, aren’t we great!?” Just doing it and letting people learn about it states “we care about our neighborhood.”
Finally, the “fix their menu” comment is true. KFC needs to have their own house in order before they try to clean up mine!
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Paul,
I agree with you 100 percent. That is the point I was making. To me, KFC is trying to capitalize on a superficial attempt at helping a community. The impression that they leave on the neighborhoods where they fix the potholes is not a long-lasting one. In fact, this stunt has the potential to negatively impact the brand. So, as these types of ideas – ideas that can possibly intrude on people’s daily lives and into their safe haven of home – may seem exciting and fresh to some marketers, they need to look at ALL the implications of such actions.
By the way, the quote mentioning Starbucks is not my own. That example was provided by Kenneth Hein, the author of the article I was referencing.
Thanks for your comments and collaboration!
Cynthia