How To Waste $20 Million: Call TBWA/Chiat/Day. Although I would argue there are a lot more agencies to add to the list

The mind boggles

If you want proof positive that Madison Avenue and corporate America still don't get the internet, look no farther than the new website created by TBWA/Chiat/Day for Mars' Uncle Ben's Rice. It's also a great place to learn how to waste $20 million dollars.

Are they freaking kidding?! Where's the human voice? Where's the transparency? Where's the educational element for children? Where's the interactivity? The reality? And, jeez, where is the compelling, amusing, or even mildly interesting content? Where's Ben's last name?

Besides being insulting to African Americans, the site fails - big-time -- because it's nothing but a simplistic attempt at advertainment that assumes people are interested in reading about the history of rice as told by an updated Step 'n Fetchit character. But then racial slurs are nothing new at Mars, the owner of Uncle Ben's, which also makes SUZI-WAN complete Oriental dishes.

And there is more

The company says that Ben was actually an African American rice farmer in Texas who was known for the quality of his rice. Undoubtedly he had a last name. Why not tell the true story of why they named the product after him? Why not give Ben a last name to bring him into the real world?

According to Wikipedia, "In years past in the American South, whites commonly referred to elderly black men as 'uncle,' though they were not blood relations. The practice was considered patronizing and demeaning and largely has been discontinued."

Who's more clueless: TBWA/Chiat/Day, or Mars for turning the pejorative image on the box of Uncle Ben's Rice into the company's chairman and not giving him a last name?

"Through the magic of marketing, we've made him the chairman," said John Shands, a creative director at the agency. Uncle Ben's office, he said, is "reflective of a man with great wisdom who has done great things."

But there's no evidence on the site of great achievements by Ben or any other African American.

Via MarketingProfs DailyFix

What it does show is how backward many marketers are, how they have failed to grasp the reality of the world they live in today. Poor old ChiatDay gets it in the neck, but we know its the piper that calls the tune.

I can tell you getting innovation past mindless marketing gatekeepers of global brands is a task I am no longer remotely interested in. Pissing in the wind is a metaphor that springs to mind.

Mars got what they deserved because that is what they probably asked for.

But on the other hand I know two UK CEO's of big London agencies that have admitted that working in their respective famous companies is like working in a time warp of about 20 years ago.

So whilst these companies are struggling with the decline of empire, new companies and in fact a new media eco-system is growing up that will supercede the old media and marketing communcation empires.

Comments

[Marc Blank]

Come on, you make some weak arguments that more honestly show just why it was an excellent execution on TBWA/Chiat/Day's part. They took a brand with an incredibly difficult past, and made the originally racist mascot into the corporate chairman with an office so fancy it probably puts to shame the office either Tomi or Alan have. To give him a last name would draw too much attention in the press, and weaken, not strengthen their slow and subtle reposition that needs to be done with the greatest care. You may complain, but honestly, industry talk matters little, what does matter, would be to raise the ire of civil rights groups and bring attention where in this case, flying low and under the radar is the best way to not hurt sales. Uncle Ben's has a huge potential liability, and great market share, and TBWA/Chiat/Day did a great job keeping the negatives at bay, while slowly remaking a racist mascot into an apocryphal chairman of the board. I am sure Mars got their money's worth and more.

[Alan moore]

Marc,

We live in a world of engagement. Of co-creation and interactivity. Dig deeper into what I am saying, the criticism is levelled at more than just the agency. Sure it looks great, but there are many examples out there where brands have done a much better job in enabling a brand to become part of people's lives in more meaningful ways.

Go have a look at Kleenex, think of the Dove campaign for real beauty (in general terms) mini and mini.com. These are much richer and therfore better experiences. People are used to intereracting. And we live in an experience economy. Just today I found some great examples of that from a mobile phone company to a company making kitchens and cookers. Those examples are not readily to hand but I can dig out the material were you interested? My point is that you dont come out of a computer game and put up with the sliced white bread of the average brand experience. Uncle Ben feels manufactured to me in the old marketing sense of the word. And image advertising is the junk mail of the 21st Century.

All brands have a mythology, and have stories to tell, but they must be true and they must be authentic.

I am afraid that I have to disagree with you.

Thanks for dropping by.