Brilliant Marketing or What? A Lesson in What Doesn't Go Together
Posted by John Grafton on Tue, Nov 15, 2011 @ 09:00 AM
So, what doesn’t naturally go together? I know the first things that come to mind are oil and water, Kim Kardashian and her current (or former) husband, Justin Beiber and paternity suits, but how about a biggie – drinking and driving?
Most of us are familiar with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the non-profit organization that seeks to stop drunk driving, prevent underage drinking and overall, push for stricter alcohol laws. Since 1980, MADD has done a good job lobbying for laws that would include mandatory jail sentences for DUI arrests, maintaining the minimum legal drinking age at 21 years and mandating alcohol breath-testing ignition interlock devices for everyone convicted of DUI.
While no one can denigrate the group’s intentions, they have come under criticism over the years due to funding issues. In 2001, WORTH magazine listed MADD as one of its “10 Worst charities” and in 2009, MADD took in over $41 million but used half of it to pay organization salaries. Even the founder of the group, Candy Lightner left the group in 1985 when she felt that MADD had become more of a neo-prohibitionist bureaucracy than a group devoted to decreasing drunk driving.
In all fairness, MADD deserves credit for raising awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, but indications are that the group tends to ‘use’ the statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System to help bolster their case that lowering the drinking age will lead to increased traffic deaths. This is despite studies that were conducted in Australia and the U.K. where the legal drinking age is 18 and they have higher per capita alcohol consumption rates but significantly lower rates of drunk driving deaths. So, that debate continues.
But what I want to talk about is a brilliant PR ‘fail’ that a New Jersey chapter of MADD pulled off recently with the help of the Newark Bears independent baseball team - a benefit where the money is raised for MADD by conducting a beer pong tournament to raise funds!
For those unfamiliar with what ‘beer pong’ is, ask any college student but it basically involves a little skill with a lot of drinking. Isn’t that like awarding winners with cigarettes at a Cancer Society meeting? Or auctioning off a fur coat at a PETA function? But wait – it gets better!
The money raised would be used as a donation in the name of the teams’ pitching coach who was involved in a drunk driving crash that killed a Florida woman. Maybe the only one that showed any sense was the pitching coach who refused to attend the event.
Fortunately for MADD, they didn’t make this a nationwide campaign and cause an even bigger disaster, but it does point out that in all organizations, someone needs to be in charge of ‘image’, which could become besmirched, as the New Jersey chapter of MADD did. Usually my answer to most PR ‘brilliant’ ideas involves conducting meaningful and practical research beforehand, but this time, I don’t think research was even needed. Just common sense!
If brand research had been conducted, I think the general findings would have shown that using a drinking competition to raise money for a group dedicated to ending drunk driving seems to be diametrically opposed to the group's charter. In other words, this is not what the public would have expected from MADD. Although their intentions were good, the means they used to reach their end should have been more thoroughly researched - or just given a 'reality check' - and then they would have picked a less controversial money-raising event, such as a raffle for a TV.
Are there any other marketing mismatches you’ve seen lately?
