“I’m sorry, our network only features prefabricated breasts. If you’re a woman with a healthy body image, you’ll need to step to the back of the line.”

Or so I expected to hear from networks ABC and FOX after reading a BrandWeek post this morning.

Reportedly, on Lane Bryant‘s blog, Inside Curve, the company claims, “ABC and Fox have made the decision to define beauty for you by denying our new, groundbreaking Cacique commercial from airing freely on their networks. …these are the same networks that have scantily-clad housewives so desperate they seduce every man on the block — and don’t forget Bart Simpson, who has shown us the moon more often than NASA, all in what they call ‘family hour.’”

All commentary on the objectification of women in advertising and how “big girls” are portrayed aside; I want to address this from a branding, marketing and public relations standpoint.

First off, to Lane Bryant, I’m on your side, BUT I wonder if the approach to this issue was handled with passionate brand focus and the community your brand serves in mind.

That said, here are a few things Lane Bryant should think about (as well as any brand that serves a specific, sensitive demographic):

Your brand lives on and grows through your community. Help them advocate for you!

While doing research for this post, I, of course, wanted to see the spot in question. From all angles, I found a lot of Lane Bryant brand advocates voicing their opinions on being slighted by the networks (here, here and here). But when I looked for Lane Bryant’s discussion or a YouTube video with commentary, I find a membership-only site and the “groundbreaking” spot taken off YouTube.

Why? They’ve pulled their community (their advocates) out of the conversation.

This is a perfect public relations opportunity for Lane Bryant. Lena Bryant (the original voice of plus-sized women everywhere) should be rolling in her grave at the idea of the big boy networks slighting the integrity and creativity produced on behalf of the legions of women looking for fashions complimentary to “real women.”

Does your brand have the “Balls” to fight the big girls? If not, don’t pretend it does.

While this is purely speculative, I wonder if Lane Bryant’s marketing and public relations crew simply doesn’t want to play in the same court as the brands that they imply get “preferential treatment” from the networks – referring to their comments on Desperate Housewives, The Simpsons and their comment on the über-sexy Victoria’s Secret spot:

“While it’s no secret that Victoria’s Secret ‘The Nakeds’ ads are prancing around on major networks leaving little to the imagination, steaming up TV screens and baring nearly everything but their souls, our sultry siren who shows sophisticated sass is somehow deemed inappropriate … Does this smack of a double standard? Yep. It does to us, too.”

GREAT argument, but if you walk up to the playground bully and slap her on the cheek, you’d better be prepared to defend yourself. Again, what good is it to complain and then withdraw all access to a productive dialogue? I get the impression that Lane Bryant, while advocating for the “poor big girls out there,” seems to be content playing the victim.

Social culture is harder to change than marketing culture. Advocacy for cultural change needs to come from the heart and not from the bottom line.

Bigger picture – like it or not, “little” girls in risqué attire have been a standard in advertising since anyone one of us can remember. We complain. We protest. Shaking our fists at the TV, we swear off beer, sports cars and restaurant chains. But when it really comes down to it, changing the American culture is much harder than it looks.

Culturally, changing the perspective of the “Big Girl Taboo” needs to be an effort driven outside commercial aspirations. Since Lane Bryant has a stake in changing how “real women” are perceived, driving the message through marketing and advertising, (while trying to compete in the same vapid market as Victoria’s Secret) may not be the best approach.

Food for thought:

While I have no idea what FOX was thinking, ABC IS owned by Disney. While that doesn’t explain the hypocrisy of Desperate Housewives and other spots we’ve seen on their network, they can still wave their “Family-friendly” flag with a modicum of legitimacy.

Without seeing the spot, your comments can only be formed by my post and your perspective of Lane Bryant. But I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Do you think Lane Bryant responded appropriately? Do you think ABC and FOX have a responsibility to respond to accusations of “favoritism or discrimination?”

I’d love to hear from representatives from Lane Bryant on some of the points I’ve made here as well. Are there set plans or processes in place for reacting or have we seen it?

Until next time,

Keep Cooking (big, beautiful, brand-driven decisions)!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

Additional Articles on the networks’ decisions to ban the Lane Bryant spot:

Fox News | Styleite.com | zimbio.com | BrandWeek

I LOVE social media.  It’s the wild west in cyberspace. Not only can I post anything I want on this blog, my Facebook account, my Twitter account(s) or any number of other outlets (look to the right) I subscribe to; but I can search and monitor (virtually) anything anyone else is saying, tweeting, video-taping, etc. as well – and all while talking to others through the same venues about what I’m seeing, reading, experiencing…  (you get the idea).

Now, THAT’s truly social.

Seeing my adoration of social media, a friend of mine posted this article from The Eastern Echo on my Facebook wall.  I assume she did it to rib me a little for what looks like backlash against social media outlets like Facebook, MySpace and especially Twitter for not having more robust security options. But the writer of The Echo brings up some pretty solid points.

The Echo writes:

…like any responsible organization, Facebook finally updated its privacy settings a few years ago after users encountered plenty of embarrassing situations. You can now control which of your friends are able to see those great pictures of you passed out on the bathroom floor with genitals scrawled on your face.

But the truth is, Big Brother isn’t watching anymore, he’s tweeting.
Twitter, too, has security options that can allow users to select who can see their tweets. Unfortunately, people just don’t seem to know about them — or even worse, they don’t care.

They go on to say:

So should we all delete our Twitter accounts?

In my opinion, that would be the easy way out. …

But we can’t continue blaming every new social networking site for our blatant misuse of its technology. The answer isn’t to stop using the Internet, it’s to start using it more responsibly.

And parents? Don’t blame the Internet every time your kid is caught sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends. It’s not Twitter, it’s you.

Sweeeeeet!

So, here’s my take (as written on The Eastern Echo’s article post):

It’s not Facebook’s, MySpace’s, or Twitter’s fault that the “victims” of such horrible, depraved mismanagement of mental scruples are eventually caught.  Social media is exactly that…  SOCIAL.  If you stand up at your next cocktail party and announce that you’re getting breast implants… well…  it’s out there and the repercussions are yours to deal with.  Similarly, you can’t charge Twitter (et al) with keeping idiots form incriminating themselves or filtering content to our children.

It’s simply a matter of ethics. How long has it been since an Ethics 101 course was over-booked?  Can we blame parenting?  Sure, but don’t forget all of the lackadaisical marketing executives, most media outlets and virtually all of Hollywood.

The future of communication is going to be driven through social media. Heck, I even found this article through a friend of mine on Facebook.  So, technically, it’s my responsibility, as a marketer and as a role model for following generations to participate in social media with ethical, reasonable candor.  It’s my responsibility to educate and to foster those values.

Long lost are the days of plopping the kids in front of the boob-tube and call it babysitting.  Because the boob-tube has been replaced with YouTube and we KNOW what can be found there.

There are a lot of unethical, unreasonable people out there.  There always has been.  But we can’t expect the social media developers to protect us.  That’s our job.

Posted and disseminated…

Food for thought.

Keep Cooking (reasonably ethical conversations?)
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

Fact: Newspapers can’t survive unless they change the paradigm in which they practice. Customers, including yours truly, are jumping ship for digital media content that is more up-to-date, accessible and relevant. Long lost are the days when newspapers produced engaging content and – in turn – sold ad space to generate revenue to support what (once) was a tremendous source of public information.

Why?

Newsgathering has shifted from being a passive act—tell me a story—to a proactive one—answer my question.

According to journalism.org,

“…Pew Research Center survey. The figures for almost every traditional media platform are now at historic lows. For instance, the number of Americans who said they read a newspaper “yesterday” has fallen by 40% since the 1990s—to 34%. The number of people who watched the nightly network newscasts yesterday has fallen even further—by half—to 29%. Radio news is at 35%. Regular readership of weekly news magazines is down to 12%.”

So, what does that mean for us? Where is that 40% going to get their news?

Blogs, baby. Blogs! Not to mention podcasts, vlogs and heavy-handed translations of traditional media to online, user-driven sites, and micro-sites.

With that, yesterday, I ran across this story: On January 27th, Joshua Karp (follow on Twitter: @theprintedblog) will be launching a twice-daily free print newspaper in Chicago, San Francisco and later in New York City. The content he will be publishing will be solely from BLOGS!

“So what,” you say, “Nothing novel there?” Hold on. Joshua has a little twist for you.

His intent is to aggregate local content from blogs and print them in tabloid form in time for the morning and evening commutes… The advertising – focused to reach targeted, local audiences – supports the newspaper (of course). It will also include classifieds (of course).

From Joshua’s venture, The Printed Blog web site:

“The selection of content in The Printed Blog is based solely on the votes of readers and their geographic location. In such a way, The Printed Blog revolts against the top-down, ‘one size fits all’ model of newsprint, as we know it. Instead of one paper serving hundreds of thousands of people, as is often the case, The Printed Blog publishes hundreds or even thousands of highly-localized editions based on what a community declares is important to them. The papers are distributed to neighborhood pickup points in A.M. and P.M. editions, and will incorporate rapid turnaround reader comments.

… As our society moves towards individualized information, The Printed Blog has the courage to respect our readers. We recognize the value of what individuals have to say, we publish the information they create, and provide them with the information they demand.”

News = information relevant to the people. When traditional news sources become irrelevant, or self-serving, people go to their community for relevance.

I’m interested in Joshua’s new venture. The online community will drive content. Readership will be driven by the local community. Advertising will benefit from a more targeted audience. Hmmmm…Where can this go wrong? Market? Content? Commuters? Advertisers? Classifieds?

Can you combine the past with the present? Why not just keep it all online? Why take it to press?

What do you think? Take a look at his formula and give me your thoughts.

Until Next time…

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
- The Brand Chef