Buyers Beware of Cheap, Unethical Promotion…. and lots
of balloons.
Snapshot of my weekend customer experience in Marquette being over-promising and underdelivered!
Earlier last week, I received a direct mail flyer from the Toyota dealership in Marquette. It caught my
attention because we’ve been in the market for a car for several months now. Riverside Toyota was
having a five day “event” and claimed that their used car manager was demanding to increase the
used car inventory so they were they were offering higher than normal prices on trade-ins. That
message was OK and alone is an effective one as a promotional concept.
But they didn’t stop there. They tried to further entice consumers with a sweepstakes
giveaway….that’s where things went downhill.
My direct mail flyer asked me to “scratch and win,” so I did, and — would you believe it — I actually
won! I called the confirmation phone number to verify that I was a winner and guess what? I really,
really was a true winner! The sweet southern voice on the other line assured me all I needed to do
was drive to the dealership and pick up my prize, which was going to be one of four great things:
Brand New Toyota Truck, iPad, $250 cash or $500 gift card to Wal-Mart. It was obvious she wasn’t
from the U.P. or anywhere close to here, so I informed her that we would be driving 200 miles
roundtrip to pick up our prize. She assured me the prize would be waiting there for me.
My husband and I have a combined 53 years of marketing experience; we’ve seen it all, done it all
and were leery of the entire promotion. But, we are in the market for a new car and after reading the
fine print and discussing the worst case scenario, Dave and I gave up our Saturday, packed our
three-year-old in the car and headed to Marquette on an exciting sweepstakes adventure.
When we arrived, there was lots of activity in the parking lot; more balloons than cars, large
promotional banners and salesman wearing oversized business suits. Upon opening the doors to the
busy showroom and being barraged with more balloons, we were greeted by “Kevin” who walked us
past 20 busy “winners” tables. WOW…this was exciting!
Then Kevin verified that I was also a winner …of a $5 Wal-Mart gift card.
Needless to say my husband “lectured” Kevin on this unethical promotion and we stormed out. As a
result, we are highly recommending to everyone we know not to shop at Riverside Toyota in
Marquette.
BUD’S BEST BACON CASE STUDY
The Nonuser Celebrity Endorser Topic: Deceptive Advertising Characters: Annie, Copywriter for Laird &
Laird Advertising Lance Willard, Well-known and popular Hollywood movie star Victor, President of Laird
& Laird Advertising Annie, copywriter for Laird & Laird (L&L) Advertising, has just been assigned the
Bud’s Best (BB) bacon account. She is tickled pink, because she knows that Bud’s Best has just signed a
one-year contract to use Lance Willard as a celebrity endorser. Lance is a well known, well loved, young,
handsome, and vibrant Hollywood movie star who specializes in action drama roles. Victor, President of
L&L, tells Annie that she will be writing commercials using Lance in the role of giving product
testimonials. Victor explains to Annie that this endorsement is a testimonial given by a celebrity rather
than an average consumer. He tells her that Lance has signed an affidavit swearing that he is a bona fide
user of the product, as is legally required. The TV commercials featuring Lance, explains Victor, should
feature Lance testifying as to the quality, value, and tastiness of the bacon. Victor suggests that this will
take some good acting on Lance’s part, since he has just recently become a vegetarian. Annie wonders
whether a testimonial by Lance might not be dishonest, but she says nothing to Victor since she doesn’t
want to blow her opportunity to meet Lance in person. She figures she can get all of the details later
from Lance. Lance turns out to be as charming in person as he is on the silver screen. After some small
talk, Annie decides to query Lance about his experience with Bud’s Best. Lance explains that he has had
personal experience with the product, as is legally required for a testimonial. He tells her that he has
done many celebrity endorsements in the past and knows that the American Advertising Federation's
“Advertising Principles of American Business” state that “advertising containing testimonials shall be
limited to those of competent witnesses who are reflecting a real and honest opinion or experience”
and that as long as the endorser’s comments are based on verifiable personal use, the message cannot
be challenged as deceptive. In fact, he says, it has been his favorite brand of bacon ever since he was a
small child, and bacon and eggs were his favorite and most frequently consumed breakfast until about a
month ago when he became a vegetarian for health reasons. Lance tells Annie that a recent checkup by
his physician revealed that his cholesterol level was 200--in the danger zone. His doctor had warned
Lance to cut down on high cholesterol foods, such as bacon and eggs. Lance decided to go even further
and abstain from meat since so many meats are high in cholesterol. Annie asks Lance diplomatically
whether he feels comfortable testifying about how much he likes Bud’s Best bacon when he no longer
uses the product. Lance replies that his conscience is clean. He has discussed the legalities with Victor,
who told him that technically it was okay for him to discuss his past enjoyment of the product. After all,
Lance reminds Annie, the selling points he would discuss in the commercials would be the bacon’s
quality, value, and good taste. Lance explains that in his view, as far as bacon goes, Bud’s Best is second
to none along these criteria. He tells Annie that nothing regarding the bacon’s healthiness, or lack
thereof, will be mentioned. As long as people are going to eat bacon, Lance asserts, they might as well
eat Bud’s Best. MINICASE: MKTG rights reserved. Page 2 of 2 Annie thinks that Lance might have a point, but she isn’t sure. She doesn’t
want to rock the boat at this point with either Lance or Victor, for she really wants to work with Lance
on the shoot. She thinks she’d better just give it some more thought and prayer for the time being.
The Speedy Sale Topic: Unethical Sales Presentation Techniques Characters: Sam,
Consumer electronics salesperson for an outlet of a major discount store Bernie, Sam’s customer for a
color television set Michelle, Sales manager for the consumer electronics department at the discount
outlet Bernie is very interested in buying a color television. He tells Sam, the salesperson in the discount
store where he feels he can get the best buy, that his old color TV recently died and he really misses
seeing his favorite shows. The sooner he can buy and get a new TV delivered, the better, he explains.
Sam knows that the particular model which Bernie seems to prefer by far to the others will go on sale
for 15 percent off in three and a half weeks. However, he assumes that Bernie is not willing to wait that
long and might look elsewhere. Also, Sam will not make as much commission on the reduced price.
Therefore, he reasons that it would make little sense to inform Bernie of the pending sale. When Sam
tells Bernie that the TV set he is interested in is currently out of stock and will not be in for another
week, Beanie is dearly disgruntled. Fearing losing the sale, Sam goes out to the back room to ask his
sales manager, Michelle, if anything can be done to speed up delivery. Michelle says that this would be
impossible, and she suggests that Sam could tell Bernie that the store can get the set within 24 hours
and simply sell him the demonstration model. Michelle explains that the demo is in as-new condition
and Bernie will never know the difference. Sam feels that selling the demonstration model to Bernie
wouldn’t be on the level. Knowing that it will take five working days to have a new set delivered to the
store, Sam thinks of a different sales strategy--tell Bernie he can get a set to him in two days, then call
Bernie tomorrow to say it will be sometime next week due to a flood of orders at the factory. Sam
wonders how he can lock in the sale today. Author: Geoffrey P. Lantos, Associate Professor of
Marketing, Stonehill College
Washing Dirty Laundry Topic: Advertising (Unethical Tactics) Characters: Bruce Seth,
project manager at a consumer products company Priscilla Wheeling, Bruce's boss Bruce Seth, a project
manager at a consumer products company, was wondering how he should proceed with his
recommendation for the Endirt commercials. Endirt had been doing well in the market, but not a week
went by without a customer (or former customer) writing to complain about the commercial. There
were variations of the commercial, but the central theme was “Dirt on your shirt.” It typically featured a
woman saying, “Dirt on your shirt! Dirt on your shirt!” in a taunting voice to a man whose shirt was
soiled. The man looked at another lady (presumably his wife), who was very embarrassed at the entire
situation. Later shots showed her washing the shirt after rubbing Endirt into it, and the other woman (or
women) saying, “No more dirt on your shirt!” The complaining letters, almost exclusively from women,
expressed objections to the commercial because it was demeaning to women and otherwise offensive
as well. On the one hand, the brand was doing well; it was the brand leader in a growing market, though
a much larger competing company was quite capable of beating Endirt with its brand. On the other
hand, were the rights of the women being infringed? All the letters seemed to imply that. Bruce was a
believer in the profit motive, but not at the cost of condoning unethical behavior. He had been asked to
make a recommendation for the commercial for the next TV season. After reviewing the sales data and
reading the letters of complaint, Bruce was contemplating his next move. Marketing research managers
and project managers worked along with brand managers on specific brand research issues. Bruce
reported to Priscilla Wheeling, a marketing research manager, and would provide recommendations to
her and to the brand manager responsible for Endirt. Priscilla was a capable, promising executive with
excellent graduate degrees. She was supporting her husband through his Ph.D. in history. She did not
like the Endirt commercial and made no secret of it. She proclaimed that she would never buy the brand
because the message was offensive and because of the role of the woman in the commercial. Bruce was
pursuing a graduate degree while working and putting his wife through college; he certainly needed the
job and the income. He was a recent recruit still in his probationary period. Bruce had reviewed all the
letters, practically all of which were from women and strongly negative. Many of them said, as Priscilla
did, that they would not buy the brand because of the offensive commercial and because it was
demeaning to women. Secondary data showed that the primary decision makers and purchasers of the
product were women. Part of the reason for Endirt’s success was believed to be the advertising
message, which not only had a high level of recall but a high level of association with the brand. Bruce
wondered if, in spite of its apparent success, it was ethical to continue with the advertising message if it
infringed on the rights of women, the major buyers of the brand. Author: Beheruz N. Sethna, Ph.D., Gulf
States Utilizes Professor of Business, Dean,
Green Acres Promotion Topic: Advertising Sales/Promotion Characters: Cathy
and Dave, a well-to-do professional couple Al, a real estate salesman Cathy and Dave are young,
upwardly mobile. They hold good professional jobs in downtown Chicago. One day Cathy received an
invitation in-the mail, from a resort called Green Acres (GA), which was located near the mountains,
about eight hour driving time from Chicago. The mailer invited the young couple to spend two nights
free of cost and receive $50 for expenses. All they had to do in return was to listen to a presentation,
see a video, and take a tour of the resort for about two hours. Additional conditions included 24 hour
advance booking of the room with 24 hour notice for cancellations, and a valid credit card. Green Acres
would charge $50 for a no show. Although the letter made no mention of it, Cathy and Dave knew the
invitation was a real estate promotion and guessed that the two hours with the GA staff meant a hard
sell for a condo or a timeshare near a lake or a golf course, something they did not want. They decided
to take the offer anyway in order to get a free vacation and arranged to visit GA the following weekend.
Cathy and Dave had a good time at GA. The only sour point of the trip was the last exchange they had
with Al the salesman. At the end of the two hour presentation when Cathy and Dave had refused to buy
any GA properties, Al looked at Dave in frustration and said, “If you knew you weren’t going to buy any
property here, why did you come? Our company spent $300 to get you down here, and you have taken
food off my family’s table. What you did is immoral. Please don’t do it again." At this Dave retorted,
“Your letter was clear, there was nothing in it that said a purchase of real estate was involved, and we
had no obligation to buy anything from you. Your invitation was unconditional, I don’t owe you or your
family anything and I resent what you just said.” At the end of this uncomfortable exchange, Cathy and
Dave left the room with an unpleasant feeling. But the unpleasant feelings did not last long because the
drive back through the mountains was truly spectacular. After a few days Cathy said to Dave, “You
know, I'm still mad about what Al said to us at Green Acres. Should we write to his boss, or to the real
estate board or to some government agency? You know, if we don’t do something, some poor
unsuspecting people might fall for their gimmicks!” Dave replied, “No, I don't think we should waste any
time on this. Most people know, or should know what they are getting into-there are no free lunches!
Besides if we complain, Al may lose his job and when we’ll be really taking the food from his family’s
table!” Author: Anil M. Pandya, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Northeastern Illinois University