Coca-Cola Encounters Backlash After Failed Marketing Stunt

Posted by Shelly Kramer on April 6, 2012 · 40 Comments

Coca-Cola’s guerilla marketing stunt, designed to capitalize on the remaining days of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, backfired within hours, resulting in a widespread backlash from New Orleans residents.

What happened? An ad agency employed by Coke hired several sidewalk graffiti artists to stencil and paint red logos with accompanying ad slogans on sidewalks and concrete surfaces throughout the city’s French Quarter and Central Business District.

Apparently, the graffiti application violated a number of city ordinances, including a city law that bars “posted or painted advertisement on any street, sidewalk, public buildings, utility poles, light standards, street signs, parking meters, trees located in public rights-of-way,” writes Michelle Krupa for The Times-Picayune.

New Orleans officials ordered Coke to remove the logos with power-washing by Friday afternoon.

A large number of New Orleans residents expressed outrage at the marketing stunt. In a letter to city officials, NOLAFemmes’ LunaNola wrote, “I ask, is this really how we want companies to behave when our city hosts national events?”

Coca-Cola was quick to apologize “and blamed the outside agency for exceeding its directions,” writes Michael McCarthy for USA Today.

Additionally, McCarthy reports that Coca-Cola has already removed the illegal advertising, as stated in an email sent by Ryan Berni, press secretary for New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.

“ ‘We’re moving expeditiously to remove them,’” said Kel Villarrubia, a Coke spokesman based in Jefferson Parish, as quoted in the Times-Picayune story. “ ‘We very much respect the integrity of our historic districts in New Orleans.’”

Villarrubia added that the beverage company didn’t give the ad agency the green light on the marketing stunt, a claim disputed by some.

“It’s a classic case of corporate cowardice,” writes Paul Lukas on UniWatch. “Outsource the dirty work to some small-times and then hang them out to dry when the shit hits the fan, all while feigning surprise and regret over the way things turned out.”

Interesting—the same thing happened with the Belvedere Vodka campaign that appeared to make light of rape. The brand didn’t take responsibility for approving the campaign and threw the agency anonymously under the bus. Funny thing, we work with lots of clients and can’t imagine launching an initiative like either one of these without full consent and approval from clients—before proceeding to execute. Is it really so difficult to screw up and just take responsibility?

What do you think? Does this kind of thing even make it to your radar screen or is it just me that gets crazy about stuff like this? Would love to know your thoughts.

Image via Inhabitat

Buffer

Filed under Brand and Reputation Management, Featured Articles, Pop Culture and Current Events, Traditional Marketing · Tagged with Belvedere vodka, brand and reputation management, Brand Crisis, coca cola failed final four stunt, coca cola guerilla marketing stunt backfires, coke final four marketing stunt, corporate and brand responsibility, crisis management, New Orleans backlash toward Coke

Mobriff

On my radar too and Coke made two mistakes. You and I could blame an agency (maybe) Coke needs to stand tall, clean the streets and put up a mill or so for New Orleans to say, Our bad, sorry.”
Pingback: Goat on a Rope – the Coca-Cola NOLA debacle | Dan White
http://www.burkeresearchservices.com Charlene Burke

This stuff hits my radar screen and I get a bit nuts about it, too. First, who does a stunt like this without asking for the rules of the venue? Second, Coca-Cola hired the agency, therefore they signed off on the campaign – they had to. No way would an agency invest time and money on a campaign not approved and paid for by the client. Third, taking responsibility seems to have been thrown to the side in favor of being a victim. And yes, Coca-Cola claims victimhood here. Personally, I feel for the people who worked on the campaign. Their stomachs must be flip-flopping like crazy!
http://marksherrick.wordpress.com/ Mark Sherrick

in the end, Coca Cola wins, because they get publicity. Whether this was the plan all along, who knows?
http://therealtimereport.com/ Tonia Ries

didn’t something similar happen with an athletic wear brand in San Francisco a few years ago? They pulled an experiential marketing stunt that violated city ordinances, then threw the agency under the bus. Wonder if any of the same people were involved ….
Stacy Q

Is it really unsuccessful if an article is written about the advert blast?
http://www.erinmargolin.com/ Erin margolin

Not just you. Especially as a NOLA native, this made me so mad. And sad. We have so much history in our city and to deface it with Coke ads on the SIDEWALKS? WTF? and I have to say if this is what Coke was hoping for (i.e. the backlash, the publicity resulting from what they did), then that makes it even worse. I don’t know b/c I’m not in your field and don’t have the PR/advertising background. EIther way, it disgusts me.
http://quetwo.com/ Nick Kwiatkowski

I know it is easy to blame the big-corporate cola company, but in all honesty — if the agency was tasked with doing one of these campaigns, it should be up to them to find out the legality of actually executing on it. Regardless if Coke approved it or not, somebody should have done the research or done a basic check to see what would be involved to spray paint the streets… No different if they would have hired the agency to put up a billboard that violated a local ordnance — the local agency doing the work should take the responsibility on the campaign if they were hired to execute on it.
http://twitter.com/lauraBseymour Laura S.

In a city that’s already dealt with catastrophe, for any company, PR agency, etc. to think it was a good idea to graffiti anything PURPOSEFULLY is just shortsighted and, frankly, dumb. Then, Coke, a seemingly smart company, blames the PR firm because they didn’t know “how far” they were going to take it? Please. As the company with their trademark and logo graffitied on the streets of New Orleans, you’d think they’d want to know exactly what the PR agency was doing. The whole thing reeks.
http://www.attunementsforthesoul.com/ Sophie Lhoste

Yes, I notice corporate arrogance (thinking they can abuse a public space and graffiti wherever they want), cowardice (blaming the agency when they clearly had to approve it) and corruption of a system because after all, we are still talking about them. I notice those things all the time and I am glad I am not the only one. At the end of the day it can only change when we hold the corporations accountable, as people in New Orleans did and when the individuals who run the corporations behave with humility, courage and integrity. The culture at the top is always reflected through the organization, be it a corporation, an NGO, a school or a small agency. That;s why we love you Shelly!
Pingback: The Best Small Business Marketing News & Blog Posts of the Week — April 6, 2012 – DIYSEO
http://twitter.com/interlinejim Jim Nowakowski

I thought it rains there pretty often. What’s the fuss?
Anonymous

LOL. Good point. But I suppose if you’re the agency getting trashed about it, you’d call it unsuccessful. O
Anonymous

To a certain degree, yes. They do get that. I doubt it was the plan. A brand like Kenneth Cole might do something to get attention, but I can’t imagine the folks at Coca Cola intentionally trying to get this kind of negative feedback/attention, can you?
Anonymous

Well said in every way, Charlene! And I agree with you. I’m seeing a trend at blaming agencies for every failed campaign that comes along and, while agencies definitely have some responsibility, clients are the ones who ultimately sign off on things. At least they are in my world. Thanks for coming by, and for sharing your thoughts – always appreciated!
Anonymous

Imagine how cool that would be? And I agree with you – one million percent. The good that would do would come back to them a hundredfold. Unfortunately it appears to be the very last thing a brand tends to do. Sigh.
Anonymous

Ask a NOLA dweller how they feel about a brand doing this in their historic district, Jim. I think you’ll get a sense of what the fuss is about.
Anonymous

Well said, @sophielhoste:disqus - and Coca Cola is usually not the brand we see doing this kind of thign – which is why it’s so noteworthy. I’m with you, accountability doesn’t seem that hard, but for businesses often an elusive “brand character trait.” And that’s too bad. Oh, and I heart you and your big brain right back, Sophie!
Anonymous

Agreed! It’s really lame.
Anonymous

Yes. And it was as dumb as this is, too.
Pingback: Links for April 7, 2012 « Andrzej's Links
Kasey S.

Coke made its mistake but saying they should donate money is tasteless. Why do we always blast brands and then demand they donate money? Throwing money into this discredits any argument you have against coke.
Justinarhin

I think that in as much as we can assume that Coke may have had previous knowledge about the of the direction of the campaign, it was also the agencies job to do a background check on the limitations of the idea b4 going ahead to execute thus they also have a portion in the blame.
Rsa Sfo

This was a clear mistake and Coca-Cola has apologized and rectified the error. Coca-Cola is an extremely generous company in terms of giving back to the communities in which it serves, and New Orleans is no exception. They have given generously to the New Orleans Recreational Department, the local Second Harvest Food Bank, and various other local causes. They have been the presenting sponsor for the Essence Music Festival for the past 15 years and just donate over $300,000 to local N.O. organizations during the past festival. Calling for a “pay-off” for a mistake is wrong given their apology and ongoing efforts to support the community.
Anonymous

You know what, Kasey – I’m thinking I might agree with you. Coke has apologized, maybe that’s enough. This conversation has been a lot about thinking out loud. I’m not sure it’s a terrible thing for Coke to make a donation that could be used for the beautification of a city that has certainly had it’s challenges. But I don’t think it’s required, either. Interesting that you feel so passionately about it (and you’re not alone). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s always appreciated.
Anonymous

You don’t have to be in PR/Advertising to have an opinion — and as NOLA native, your thoughts are very relevant, Erin. Thank you for sharing them. I was suspecting you might not be crazy about this. I know I wouldn’t be.
Anonymous

Thanks for sharing your thoughts – and it’s great that Coke supports the communities it serves. It probably serves them well to do so. I don’t think we called for a “pay-off” in the original post – and it’s always interesting to see what people think – and feel – after reading about something like this. I’m not sure a donation would be completely undeserved, but neither do I think it’s required. To me, acknowledging that it was a poor choice and apologizing would make all the difference in the world. In this and many situations involving brands who make a misstep.
http://www.paulgraydon.co.uk Twirrim

Whilst I’d generally agree with you, I wonder if you’re crediting the advertising agency with more brains than they might have. The kind of fly-by-night firm that would think to do something like this without checking the legality or suitability strikes me as the kind of firm that wouldn’t get Coca-Cola to sign off on a campaign. Far too busy being ‘disruptive’
http://www.burkeresearchservices.com Charlene Burke

The only way I could think that the agency is truly a rogue team is if the final decision and actions were taken by a sub-group – a team brought in specifically for part of the campaign, then they decided to move forward to impress the ad agency. Otherwise, it’s in the hands of the representative from Coca-Cola who provided the final sign-off on the project.
http://twitter.com/skypulsemedia Howie at Sky Pulse Media

Yes the brands did know and just like with politics the uppers make the lowers take the fall in exchange for something on the back end. And while it is bullshit many marketers think even bad buzz is good.
http://www.zoealexanderuk.com/ Zoe Alexander

It is completely obvious that firstly, Coca Cola initiated the project, and secondly, that they fully endorsed the marketing otherwise why hire a team of graffiti artists? I think it is appalling they then tried to distance themselves from the event! Much better would be a public announcement saying “sorry we got it wrong this time!” The brand would have had more respect from the public! It takes more courage to publicly admit a mistake but the respect is far greater following the admission! Thanks for the post!
lunanola

While the product that was used was identified as “aerosol chalk” or “spray chalk,” that’s not precisely true. It was reportedly the same product used by utility companies and city agencies for street marking or utility work, and was also reported to leave markings for a period of “15-30 days,” I have observed that such markings can remain for several months’ time (I’m aware of some that are still present after three months’ time), even after intermittent periods of heavy rain. The so-called temporary nature of the product used to apply the stencils is debatable.
http://marksherrick.wordpress.com/ Mark Sherrick

I do agree and doubt that the negative backlash was Coca Cola’s intent, but this is the company that was able to pretty much start printing their own money after the coke/coke classic bit. They have people who know how to take advantage of anything they don’t expect.

This was designed to get a reaction in general. They were hoping positive, and they got negative – and they’ll be fine, unfortunately.
lunanola

I spoke with a friend yesterday who noted that she’d witnessed one of the stencils being painted on the corner in front of her workplace; the team was using a tricked-out promotional Powerade mini-truck.
http://twitter.com/klloomis11 Karen Loomis

Coke…shame on your for not accepting reponsibility. Evidently David does drink Goliath!
Anonymous

And I’ve still not written that post we discussed. Sigh. So annoyed by all of this. As I know you are, too. The upside? I discovered your fab NOLA blog )
Anonymous

They will, of course, be fine. But it is interesting to think about, discuss, etc. At least it’s interesting to me. But then, I’m kinda dorky.
http://marksherrick.wordpress.com/ Mark Sherrick

and dorky is why I love you, Shelly. Intent vs outcome is always a good discussion, because it almost rarely ever happens correctly.
Larry A Gildea

Everything a company says and does is a reflection of its core values. If a top executive at Coke thinks that any publicity is good publicity, they would be mistaken. Too bad you can’t directly track brand value with a stock ticker because I believe the brand took a hit with this stunt and an even BIGGER hit by not taking responsibility for it. Funny, this isn’t a first for Coke, is it? Can you say “New Coke”?
Pingback: Coca-Cola SMS Campaign Encounters Backlash | SMS Marketing Blog