A few weeks back, I saw the first set of stories on the so-called Dunkin' Donuts ad controversy, read the first few lines, and said, "meh" and moved on. Today, I see the ad has been pulled, which I consider to be a pretty boneheaded and shortsighted move, and one which shows essentially no understanding of the connection between the web echo chamber and the real world. Or, for that matter, to basic common sense.
Let's review. Rachael Ray wearing a scarf, promoting iced coffee. A silly post comparing the scarf to a keffiyeh from a conservative blog, picked up and amplified via another conservative blog. A backlash including youtube videos making fun of the original post. The ad is pulled, driving another round of coverage complaining how the company "caved" to protests.
Everyone, deep breathing all around. The echo chamber of blogs and viral videos and social media certainly has some connection to the impressions of consumers in the US and around the world, but it can often be perceived as impactful outside its real influence. In the case of day-to-day consumers of Dunkin' iced coffee, I would venture a guess that:
1. Less than 5 percent ever saw the ad in question.
2. That fewer than 1 percent were aware of the controversy.
3. That a number close to zero had their behavior changed by the chattering happening online.
In this case, what we have is the equivalent of sitting next to a very loud and boorish person at a sporting event who is screaming at the ref; even though the people sitting nearby might hear him/her, they take no action other than sighs of disgust, and the person 10 rows over hears not a thing.
Here's a voice of reason in the NYT story linked to above:
“There are scandals that are worth responding to and there are scandals that are worth ignoring, and I think the Internet amplifies these voices,” said Eric Hirshberg, the president and chief creative officer of Deutsch L.A. “But this is no different than the retired grandmother who used to write a handwritten letter because she was offended by a video game ad intended for 17-year-olds.”
Mr. Hirshberg said that the immediacy of the Internet made it seem like an immediate response was necessary, no matter how far-fetched the accusations. “The alternative is to assume that people will simply see through it, draw their own conclusions, and chuckle it off,” he said.
My rule of thumb? Deal with the echo chamber in the echo chamber, deal with the rest of the world in the rest of the world, and try hard not to mix the two. So in this case, Dunkin' Donuts would have been best served by having accurate information about the ad and its "controversy" on its web site, and if it wanted to it could've have encouraged some of the counter protest funny videos that popped up in various places. I've been a big fan of the Starbucks "rumor response" site, but see it has not been used much recently, still a good idea.
And as always, it starts with a real understanding of audience. If the core constituency of DD turns out to be little green football reading fans, then DD was right to pull the ad. :) Somehow though, my sense is their audience is a bit more varied than that.
There are lots of echo chambers, and lots of connections between them and society broadly. Communicate accordingly.