Shearer 1
The Got Milk Campaign
Sweet or Sour Milk?
Debra Shearer
Maryville University
Communications 352
Advertising Strategy and Copy Writing
Professor Jennifer Korte
April, 2009
Shearer 2
Beef. Milk. Pork. These commodities are known as collective goods. Consumers can’t
distinguish one producers’ milk or beef from another and branding is virtually impossible. Most
consumers purchase these commodities at some level. The challenge for a farmer or producer is,
“How do I get people to buy more of what they already buy?” The solution is for producers to
work collectively to promote the commodity (Ward 55).
In 1990 the dairy lobby persuaded Congress to pass the Fluid Milk Promotion Act to
combat steadily declining per capita milk consumption in the U.S. This legislation established
funding from assessments charged to large volume milk processors to promote milk
consumption. Responsibility for the campaign was handed down from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to the National Fluid Milk Processors Promotion Board and the California
Milk Processor Board. Boswell Worldwide was ultimately selected as the advertising agency to
develop the campaign. (Butler 309-14). The assessments from the legislation created an initial
ad budget between $23-37 million (Butler 309-14; Manning and Keller, 16-20).
The Got Milk? campaign has become one of the most popular and recognized campaigns
of the 1990’s and is still going strong. The tag line, Got Milk? has become part of the American
lexicon. In fact, the Got Milk? campaign has been so successful that it seems to have eclipsed
the product it is selling. But, has Got Milk? Got Results?
The first instinct of a marketer when sales begin to slide is to find new users to turn
things around. The California Milk Processors Board wisely focused first on regular milk users
who used the product at least several times per week.
They went beyond qualitative and
quantitative research and traditional focus groups to obtain consumer insights. They employed
Goodby, Silverstein and Partners to conduct experiential and ethnographic research on milk
consumers. They placed video cameras in the refrigerator at their agency, removed the milk
Shearer 3
products and recorded reactions when milk drinking employees discovered no milk. In one
study that turned out to be the most productive research they conducted, they asked a group of
consumers to go without milk for a week and then share their experiences. They found that milk
was an integral part of their daily routine. Some of the anecdotes shared by participants provided
inspiration later in the creative process. They also discovered that light and non-users were
drinking less milk due to concerns about fat content in milk and the belief that lower fat versions
of milk held fewer nutrients (Manning and Keller 16-20). In addition to increasing per capita
consumption by promoting low and non-fat milk products, the campaign also sought to educate
consumers about the nutritional value of those products (Butler 309-14).
The campaign rolled out in February, 1995 and focused on high impact visual posters of
celebrities with milk mustaches. The ad copy was small print which included two lines about the
person depicted, and two lines with information about milk. Since research had shown that
mothers between 25 and 49 had the greatest influence on milk consumption, that audience
initially became the focus of the campaign. The campaign blitzed women’s magazines with the
ads and included cross-over coverage of milk products into the magazine’s content. Later the
campaign included appeals to teen groups of males and females by using pop culture celebrities
and star athletes. Other placements have since included television programming, news
magazines, grocery trade magazines, internet and interactive mechanisms aimed at women
(Ivillage.com) and children (Butler 309-314). The campaign continues today with recent
celebrity posters including the casts of High School Musical and The Fantastic Four movies,
Beyonce and Solange Knowles, and professional football players
(http://www.milknewsroom.com/ads.htm).
Shearer 4
The campaign has been very successful by National Fluid Milk Processors Promotion
Board standards. Through 2001 they continued to increase funding for the campaign from an
initial $37 million to over $100 million (Butler 309-14). The milk mustache campaign has also
won numerous awards and become a pop culture icon with wide recognition. The objective of
increasing consumer knowledge about the health benefits of milk products has been effective. A
study by Roper Starch Worldwide before the campaign and one year after indicated an increased
recognition of milk’s low fat options and high nutritional value by 14% - 17% (Milk and Dairy
Beef Quality Assurance Center, 1996, as quoted in Butler 309-14). However, the USDA’s
research indicates that per capita consumption has not increased (Blisard, et.al., 1999, as quoted
in Butler 309-14). A recent report from the University of Wisconsin finds that milk consumption
has actually continued to decline at approximately the same rate as before the campaign was
launched a decade ago (Gould).
(Gould)
(Gould)
Due to its’ saturation into a variety of media and its’ use of celebrities with high visual
and popular appeal, the campaign has had strong recognition from the public. But, the campaign
seems to have lost sight of its’ target audience of mothers between 25-49 and fails to address the
Shearer 5
reasons that would persuade these purchasers to change their buying habits. The campaign has
also received criticism from science and medicine that the ads exaggerate the health and dietary
benefits of milk. Much of the research regarding these benefits is debated as conflicting findings
have been made from numerous studies (Butler 309-14; Helmich, 2006).
One of the reasons that the Got Milk? campaign has been so successful is that they have
been able to create a “brand” around a commodity. Jeff Manning, Executive Director of the
California Milk Processor Board reflected on the branding of milk for Brandweek magazine on
the 10th anniversary of the campaign launch. He outlined 10 lessons learned from the Got Milk?
campaign.
1. Find the Brand – the campaign was based on the “deprivation strategy” reminding
consumers that being without milk to wash down cookies or peanut butter was
incredibly inconvenient.
2. Recognize the Brand – He suggests describing the brand persona in human terms.
“In this case, the campaign, not the product, defined the brand.”
3. Simplify the Brand – The initial Got Milk? media plan was 50 pages or more. But
the final plan was a cartoon of a person on a couch. They recognized that the entire
campaign came down to reaching milk drinkers at home.
4. Fortify the Brand – The Got Milk? campaign has successfully partnered with
Nabisco, Nestlé, and General Mills connecting milk with Oreo’s, Cheerios and Rice
Krispies. They have even partnered with Sesame Street’s Cookie Monster and the
Girl Scouts. These are brands that drive milk sales, and helping the consumer make
the connection benefitted each partner.
Shearer 6
5. Flex the Brand – In the 15 years that the campaign has run, the brand has faced
shifting demographics and lifestyles of its target audience. Economics, competition
(from other beverages), legislation and litigation have also required the campaign to
be flexible.
6. Avoid death by testing – Manning seems to go against conventional advertising
wisdom in his distain for copy testing. He believes that testing can and often does
penalize subtlety and intelligence, which consumers are actually drawn to.
7. Agency as client – Manning suggests that, rather than acting like the client with their
research and advertising agencies, treating them as CMPB’s clients has enhanced
creativity and productivity by creating a sense of trust and security between partners.
8. Own your mistakes – dumping an agency or a campaign for soft sales or glitches in
the campaign destroys both the relationship and the brand. Failure to own your
mistakes also prevents critical analysis that might get to the real cause of failure
rather than perpetuating the mistake with another agency or campaign.
9. Taglines are not disposable – Taglines should sum up the strategy, the brand
personality and also include a call to action. When you abandon a tagline, you might
be abandoning the brand. Manning points out that in a 1999 brand awareness survey,
Got Milk? scored higher than Coke, Gatorade, Pepsi and Seven-Up.
10. Act as if it will never die – When every decision and idea is made with this concept
in mind it gives focus and direction to the brand (Manning 24).
Shearer 7
The campaign has had its share of detractors and challenges however. The non-profit
organization Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed a petition with the
Federal Trade Commission in 2000. They argued that a series of ads which claimed that
drinking milk improved sports performance and promoted weight loss was misleading (Helmich,
2006; "PCRM >> News and Media Center >> USDA Panel Backs Doctors' Complaints against
Milk Ads"). In Spring, 2007 the Federal Trade Commission sided with the PCRM and halted
the use of weight loss claims in dairy advertising ("PCRM News and Media Center USDA and
Dairy Industry Halt Misleading Weight-Loss Ads After Physicians Group Complains to Federal
Trade Commission").
The Got Milk? campaign has also had its’ source of funding challenged. The Fluid Milk
Promotion Act and similar legislation for other commodities have been passed by Congress in
the interest of promoting American agricultural production. (Lewczak and Starr 49-50). These
programs have become known as Commodity Check-off Programs. There are currently 35 or
more federal market orders or generic promotion programs in effect (Ward 55-60). While the
commodity and the exact functions of each program vary, they all entail an administrative
function, communicate a particular message for economic benefit and aim to be fair and
equitable in assessing costs and benefits to participants.
Joseph and Brenda Cochran are dairy farm operators in Pennsylvania who use sustainable
agriculture, believing that it produces a healthier product for humans and is better for the
environment. Their production process is very different from standard dairy farm practices.
They believe this produces a superior product from traditionally produced milk and that the Got
Milk? message weakens the value of their product. But, they are required by law to fund the
program, paying $3,500 - $4,000 per year. They filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of
Shearer 8
Agriculture on the grounds that the assessment violates their First Amendment rights by
compelling them to speak. On February 24, 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
agreed with the Cochran’s (Lewczak and Starr 49-50).
Commodity producers in other industries have also challenged the constitutionality of
assessing fees to pay for advertising that they do not support. The Supreme Court ruled on a
similar case in the beef industry and ruled that the beef check-off program was essentially
Government speech and therefore is not subject to the First Amendment argument. But that is
not likely to be the end of the check-off program challenge (Ward 55-60). What this means to
the Cochran case and Got Milk? funding is uncertain.
Overall these challenges are relatively minor. The Got Milk? campaign has continued to
evolve and remain current for nearly 15 years. The California Milk Producer Board has
managed to turn a bland, generic, no frills product into an interesting, relevant and timely
campaign. But has it been effective?
Got Milk? has raised awareness of the product, and perhaps changed beliefs about the
nutritional benefits and fat content of milk. But it does not seem to have been effective in
increasing sales. It may not even have slowed the decline very much. It is a very creative and
well executed campaign that seems to have measured its success in terms of recognition and
accolades rather than a measured evaluation of results.
The campaign is still going strong and that will most likely continue. The ads remain
current and relevant thanks to their reliance on popular cultural celebrities and icons. They have
a steady flow of cash for advertising that is not dependent on sales revenue. There is a steady
supply of product that is not dependent on supply and demand economics, which makes a good
argument for continuing an advertising campaign. And, they have very little, if any,
Shearer 9
accountability for results and post-campaign evaluation. It is surely a very sweet deal for the
Milk Producer Boards and the agencies associated with the campaign. But it smells a little sour
for those at either end of the transaction; namely, the milk producers and consumers who
ultimately pay for the advertising.
Shearer 10
Works Cited
Butler, Matilda. "America's Sacred Cow." Rice, Ronald E., & Atkin, Charles. K. (Eds.) Public
Communication Campaigns. London: Sage Publications, Inc., 2001. 309-14.
Gould, Brian. "Per Capita Total Beverage Milk Consumption." Chart. Understanding Dairy
Markets. University of Wisconsin Madison. 22 Mar. 2009
<http://future.aae.wisc.edu/data/annual_values/by_area/2165?tab=sales>.
---
"Per Capita Total Fluid Milk Products Consumption." Chart. Understanding Dairy
Markets. University of Wisconsin Madison. 22 Mar. 2009
<http://future.aae.wisc.edu/data/annual_values/by_area/2167?tab=sales>.
Hellmich, Nanci. "Got Milk and got controversy." USAToday 8 Mar. 2006. 2 Mar. 2009
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-08-got-milk_x.htm>.
Lewczak, Joseph, and Ivana Starr. "Got Money for Milk Advertising? Not Anymore." Marketing
Management July 2004: 49-50. Business Source Premier. EbscoHost. Maryville
University, St. Louis. 2 Mar. 2009
<http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.maryville.edu/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=4&sid=a
190c8ac-259e-471d-9bfa90d2f2ad80ab%40sessionmgr2&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXR
l#db=buh&AN=14096293>.
Manning, Jeff, and Kevin Lane Keller. "Got Advertising That Works?" Marketing Management
Jan. 2004: 16-20. 21 Mar. 2009 <http://classes.bus.oregonstate.edu/Summer05/ba499/elton/Articles/Got%20Advertisng%20that%20works.pdf>.
---
"Got Milk? A Decade of Lessons Pours In." Brandweek 2 June 2003: 24. Business Source
Premier. EbscoHost. Maryville University, St. Louis. 2 Mar. 2009
Shearer 11
<http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.maryville.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bu
h&AN=9986690&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.
"Milk Mustache Ads." Www.milknewsroom.com. Bodybymilk.com and Whymilk.com. 21 Mar.
2009 <http://www.milknewsroom.com/ads.htm>.
"PCRM >> News and Media Center >> USDA Panel Backs Doctors' Complaints against Milk
Ads." Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) - Neal Barnard, M.D.,
president. 2 Mar. 2009 <http://www.pcrm.org/news/health010920.html>.
"PCRM News and Media Center USDA and Dairy Industry Halt Misleading Weight-Loss Ads
After Physicians Group Complains to Federal Trade Commission." Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) - Neal Barnard, M.D., president. 2 Mar.
2009 <http://www.pcrm.org/news/release070511.html>.
Ward, Ronald W. "Commodity Checkoff Programs and Generic Advertising." Choices 2nd ser.
2qtr.21 (2006): 55-60. Www.choicesmagazine.org. The American Agricultural
Economics Association. 21 Mar. 2009 <http://www.choicesmagazine.org/20062/checkoff/2006-2-02.htm>.