BANNED IN BOSTON –
Marketing Communications and
the Law of Unintended Consequences

This issue of “What We’re Watching” examines the “law of unintended consequences” in Marketing Communication. We focus on two related, yet divergent media campaigns. One whose outcome was creatively and cleverly crafted, while another that produced results that were exactly the opposite of its critics’ “intended consequences”. Importantly, both demonstrate the significant impact proactive Public Relations can have, particularly with a limited media budget.

The term “Banned in Boston” may sound antediluvian in the first decade of the twenty-first century. However, one hundred years ago the combination of New England Puritanism and immigrant Irish Roman Catholicism had a major impact on the period’s literary, dramatic, and artistic creativity. Both the Catholic Legion of Decency and Boston’s Watch and Ward Society became formidable opponents to “avant-garde” artists and writers, including such literary notables as D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, William S. Burroughs, and H. L. Mencken. While almost any evening of today’s prime-time television schedule contains more explicit language and suggestive interplay, one hundred years ago it was possible to ban almost any artistic endeavor from the sensitive eyes of New England’s population.

However, writers, impresarios, and artists soon discovered that they could effectively “market” their works’ New England prohibition to the remainder of the nation, whose salacious instincts were left unchecked and unfettered by local societal guardians of good taste. So, items branded “Banned in Boston” were almost assured of increased sales across the rest of the nation. Thus, what the Puritans of New England had sought to curtail or eliminate, they had actually promoted, often well beyond the levels anyone could have anticipated. In fact, the “banned” branding had actually increased the public’s awareness of, and interest in, materials which left to their own devices may well have languished in relative obscurity.

Which brings us to our two campaigns in this month’s “What We’re Watching”. Both were part of the general advertising frenzy that annually surrounds the Super Bowl, in this case, the 2010 Super Bowl.

The old joke goes, “I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out.” The same is basically true for the annual Professional Football Super Bowl – somewhere an actual game is sandwiched between all the pre and post game analysis shows and the unending stream of commercial and promotional announcements. In fact, all the pre and post game shows really only serve as vehicles for the respective networks to sell even more advertising. Regrettably, the actual game rarely matches the level of interest generated by the advertising. Certainly, 2010 proved the point and added two unique entrants into the Super Bowl Advertising pantheon.

Man Crunch positions itself as an alternative dating website – “putting the Man back in Romance”. Man Crunch management clearly comprehends the key component of Digital Marketing - it is not sufficient to have a website. You need to develop a strategy to attract your Target Audience to that site. Once there, you need to provide that audience with content of value and hopefully something they can purchase or act upon to generate revenue for your organization. Otherwise, what is the point? Enter Proactive Public Relations.

Public Relations is an excellent Marketing Communication vehicle for organizations with limited funding. Effective Public Relations campaigns can obtain broad-scale message exposure with a very limited financial outlay. In fact, this approach can be seen as “ju-jitsu Marketing”, where a small marketing budget is imaginatively used to create a large number of media impressions, which normally would be unaffordable. Basically, you are generating a major media campaign and someone else is paying the bill – often unwittingly!

Clearly, this was the Man Crunch strategy. First, they invested in a very low-budget television commercial. Next, they launched a public relations campaign stating their interest in airing this commercial during the 2010 Super Bowl. In doing so, they created the ideal win-win tactic for their marketing strategy. Man Crunch was confident that neither CBS nor the National Football League would allow a commercial for a gay dating service anywhere near their precious Super Bowl, as if there are no gay football fans. Unwittingly, CBS and the NFL thereby created an ongoing news story ideally suited for the tabloid mentality of the 24-hour news cycle – sex, sports, David versus Goliath, alternative lifestyles, etc. Man Crunch built significant awareness of its services and received tremendous viewership of its television commercial on YouTube and talk shows across the television galaxy, while paying only a tiny fraction of $2 Million a thirty second Super Bowl spot would have cost them. A classic example of the “Banned in Boston” phenomenon and the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, except that in this case, Man Crunch was banking on this exact response.

Here is the Man Crunch commercial and an example of the free air-time provided on television talk shows, in this case the Wendy Williams Show.

Tim Tebow may not have been the best college football player in the United States in 2009, but he was certainly the most publicized. The six foot three inch, two hundred and forty-five pound Florida Gators’ quarterback was the “poster boy” for college football and winner of the Heisman Trophy. While many scouts doubted his ability to make the leap from successful college player to the NFL, there was no question that he was a publicists’ dream and his every move – on and off the field – drew media attention.

Thus, Tebow’s “straight-arrow”, scandal-free image made him a natural media vehicle for the conservative, Family-Values oriented Focus on the Family organization, led by Dr. James Dobson. Moreover, the Super Bowl provided an excellent media outlet for a message featuring the nation’s most visible college player, who was also prominently linked to the NFL and its player draft extravaganza. Who would draft Tim Tebow and could he duplicate his college magic in the NFL? Again, perfect fodder for the 24-hour news cycle and Sports Talk Radio.

Enter the “Banned in Boston” syndrome and the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Rather than previewing the Focus on the Family commercial and determining its actual message and content, a series of “Pro-Choice” organizations and personalities lined up to pressure CBS and the NFL to ban what they “assumed” would be a strong “Pro-Life”, conservative political message by Tim Tebow and his mother. One after another of the same media personalities who hammered CBS for disallowing the Man Crunch commercial now used their media podiums to protest the appropriateness of Tim Tebow and his mother to appear before a national television audience. Unwittingly, they were walking directly into the media trap set for them by James Dobson and Focus on the Family. The harshness of these protests played directly into the preconceived views of Dobson’s target audience and raised awareness among other Americans who had previously little – no interest in Tim Tebow, his mother, or Focus on the Family.

Thus, the media offensive to stifle the Tebow – Focus on the Family commercial actually raised tremendous awareness and interest, far more than would ever have existed if the “offended parties” had merely remained silent. Instead, they dramatically damaged their credibility, particularly when the commercial aired. It was a smoothly produced spot that focused on Tebow’s engaging and eminently likeable mother. No “heavy handed” message, no politics, just a proud mother, her “teddy bear” son, and a huge audience, thanks to the efforts of all those trying to achieve just the opposite result!

So, what did we learn from these two cases? Here are four top-line take-aways:

  1. Consider Proactive Public Relations as part of your media mix, particularly when your overall   budget is limited.
  2. Remember Ju-jitsu Marketing – can you leverage a small investment to gain broad-scale   media exposure, particularly at someone else’s expense?
  3. Consider the “Banned in Boston” syndrome and the “Law of Unintended Consequences” –   can you use these to your advantage and can you get someone else to fund your media plan,   even unwittingly?
  4. Avoid attacking someone’s mother, particularly if that someone is 6’ 3”, 245 pounds, and   playing in the NFL.

Visit RodMcNealy.com for the latest information on Insight-Driven, Customer-Focused Marketing. Look for more McNealy Missiles and the next edition of “What We’re Watching” in August.