The Brandcast

‘Got Milk?’ is quite possibly one of the most recognizable tag line/slogans of the last several decades, spawning some brilliant ads and equally brilliant parodies.

Recently, the agency Goodby, Silverstein & Partners placed ‘Got Milk?’ posters in busy San Fransisco outdoor bus stop shelters that included a unique element: the posters came with covert strips of scented oils that gave off the aroma of freshly baked chocolate chip cookies. Since nothing is more complimentary than milk and cookies, these tempting ads would seem to be highly effective, especially during peak travel hours when commuters were returning home hungry after a long day at work.

Except, these little posters became so controversial, they were pulled from the bus stop shelters within days. The groups complaining about the campaign included advocates for the obese, diabetics and the homeless, with each alleging the ads were cruel to those unable to either eat or afford tasty baked treats.

After hearing this, I had to wonder what type of flood gate this situation might have just opened. The scented strips were highly effective at making people crave milk and cookies, and that’s what well-planned, well-placed advertising is supposed to accomplish… right?

Based on the above logic, we could make the argument that Rolex and Cartier advertisements should be removed from their respective locations since some can’t afford their pricey merchandise. But just because that high-end Mercedes might be out of one’s budget, does that entitle someone to be offended by something, that for any reason, is not currently attainable?

Situations like these make headlines in part because they seem absurd. Yet, it is impossible not to wonder: does this situation set a new precedent for hyper-sensitivity in marketing today?

Hopefully, probably not. With the amount of money that goes into planning an effective campaign, the last thing any business or brand would want to see is negative press or a canceled campaign because of unforeseen public outcry, no matter how oversensitive the complaint might seem.

On the other hand, though, when should a company fight back? If diabetic people cannot eat chocolate chip cookies, does that mean it is right for advocates to make others feel guilty enough to remove advertising that hints at their existence?

The question that remains to be answered is where to draw the line. There is value in fair, responsible and unoffensive advertising, but the exact definition of what that is remains to be seen–and would certainly vary from person to person.