Marketing Memo: NBC Rejects PETA's Sexy, Hot & Steamy 'Veggie Love' Super Bowl Ad As 'To Hot' For Super Bowl Sunday Viewing

Above: A scene from PETA's 'Veggie Love' Super Bowl Ad, the commercial NBC says is "to hot" for game-day viewing. [Photo: PETA]

Apparently the NBC television network, the broadcast network for this year's Super Bowl football championship game/American national holiday event, doesn't do sexy -- at least when it comes to fresh produce-inspired, sensuality-oriented commercials appearing on its upcoming telecast of the big game.

In its somewhat distorted wisdom, General Electric, Inc.-owned NBC, which has been known to run a sexually suggestive soap opera, prime time television serious and movie or two on the network, (not to mention sex-themed commercials), has rejected a Super Bowl Sunday ad spot from the non-profit animal rights and pro-veggie organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) on the grounds that the commercial is just "plain too sexy" to appear on the network as part of its Super Bowl telecast.

PETA's Super Bowl ad, "Veggie Love," which features a bevy of beauties who are powerless to resist the temptation of veggie love, was deemed "too hot" for the Super Bowl, NBC says. NBC rejected the video because of concerns over "rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin," a woman "screwing herself with broccoli," and more, a company spokesman said today without cracking a smile. [In the spirit of "equal time," you can read NBC's complete list of concerns about the commercial here.]

But what about all those "hot" beer commercials from Super Bowl's past, we wonder? Maybe that was on ABC, CBS or Fox? Or is NBC's rejection of the PETA "Veggie Love" ad really all about fear of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? Remember the "Janet Jackson moment" and the resulting fining of the network that aired the footage, even though it was on an awards show and not a commercial spot, by the FCC?

the rejected PETA ad shows numerous extremely attractive woman let us say "losing themselves" in the freshness and sensuality of fresh produce.

No men are shown enjoying the more sensual side of the veggies in the ad. We presume that's because most Super Bowl advertisers' target audience on game day are men. But we all know many women watch the Super Bowl as well. Of course, it's doubtful that the mere inclusion of a male or two in the "veggie love" commercial spot would have been enough to change NBC's mind in terms of running the ad. But doing so would have been more equal opportunity.

We think the censors at NBC should think twice about judging what the American people should or should not view. after all, isn't NBC the same network, along with the others, that's always the first to cry censorship when one group or another wants the network to ban a program (or ad spot) it feels is overly sexually explicit or offers some other offensive element to the group? Yep, the same NBC.

And aren't the TV networks famous for pulling out and using that saying they created: "If people don't want to watch it (an offensive to them program or commercial) all they have to do is press the off button on the television?"

But we guess "Veggie Love" is just a bit too much for the NBC brass. This despite the fact PETA was willing to pay the same millions of dollars for its Super Bowl commercial spot as everybody else is, including food and grocery companies PepsiCo and Kelloggs, both of which will be running Super Bowl spots. We didn't know PETA had that kind of cash on hand, by the way.

But you see, since it is the Super Bowl, and there are so many companies willing to buy ad spots (more demand than there is supply), it just might be that rejecting the PETA ad, and the millions of dollars that come with it in revenue for NBC, was easy since the once-annual Super Bowl event is the hottest advertising ticket around for TV networks. There were plenty of others waiting to take PETA's ad time slot.

We wonder if NBC would have rejected the same PETA ad, say for the same amount of money, if the animal rights and pro-veggie, non meat-eater loving group wanted to run it on the network at anytime other than on Super Bowl Sunday? What do you think? Would not the green eye shade-wearing guys at NBC veto the censors? After all, NBC and its parent company General Electric are hurting for revenue in this severe recession.

But alas the only sexy veggies on Super Bowl Sunday will be those viewers create in their own kitchens and display on serving trays for guests watching the game at their homes. We suspect some creative food styling can be done with carrot sticks, celery stalks, broccoli florets and other fresh veggie snack fare -- all in the raw and in their natural sensual state of course. Image the added sensuality if those veggies also are organic and locally-grown.

Meanwhile, NBC is handing PETA a public relations gift of gold. The animal rights, pro-veggie organization is beginning to get all sorts of ink, a video of its NBC-rejected Super Bowl commercial is now up on YouTube and other sites, and between today and Super Bowl Sunday the word-of-mouth buzz, media mentions and views of its video will likely provide the veggie-loving group with even more exposure than they would have received with its Super Bowl ad -- and without spending the millions for the commercial. In fact, PETA now has the "Veggie Love" Super Bowl ad issue at the very top of its Web site here. It's a PR goldmine in the making.

We happen to enjoy (eating) meat, as well as fruits and veggies (all from a culinary-only perspective of course), so we aren't what you would call "Friends of PETA" in the sense that we share all of the group's advocacy positions. But we do call them like we see them. And in this case we think NBC looks super-silly in its rejection of the ad for its Super Bowl Sunday telecast.

We do think the PETA ad, if shown on the Super Bowl Sunday telecast, might just have provided the fresh produce industry and America's food and grocery retailers with the most massive "post-game" spike in fresh produce sales in history. So in this regard PETA's loss is the fresh produce industry's and grocer's loss as well. (Tongue only partially in cheek.)

In learning of NBC's rejection of the hot and steamy ad we are reminded of what a 10-year old boy we know said the other day to a boy a couple years older than him, in a different context of course. The 10 year old said to the 12-year old who was teasing him: "Grow up already."

We think this is good advice for NBC regarding it rejection of the ad featuring attractive women and fresh produce -- "Grow up already." The people watching the Super Bowl can turn their heads, go to the kitchen to get some real veggies, or in a worse-case scenario press the TV remote control off button for 30 seconds when the spot comes on if they find it offensive.

[You can watch the PETA "Veggie Love" commercial video at this link: 'Veggie Love': PETA's Banned Super Bowl Ad. Or view it here from the PETA Website. Unlike NBC, Natural~Specialty Foods Memo (NSFM) doesn't censor our readers. However, if you feel strongly that fresh veggies should not be used in non-culinary ways, you might not want to view the video. More on the Peta issue...Video: Too Hot for TV: More Banned PETA Ads. And: Read NBC's Sexually-Explicit Rejection E-mail. Finally: Subscribe to the PETA YouTube channel.]

"Hand me the veggie tray" and "Please pass the dipping sauce" could have taken on whole new meanings this Super Bowl Sunday we suspect had PETA been able to run its "Veggie Love" commercial during the game. Super Bowl Sunday might have never been the same.

Wine Memo: Does Price Really Matter When it Comes to Wine Marketing? Modern Science Says Yes it Does

Researchers at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) say a recently completed scientific experiment they did demonstrates that at least when it comes to wine, the old adage that "you get what you pay for" is true.

The Stanford B-School and CalTech researchers say if a person is told he or she is drinking two different wines--and that one costs $5 and the other $45 when they are, in fact, the same wine--the part of the brain that experiences pleasure will become more active when the drinker thinks he or she is drinking the more expensive wine.

"What we document is that price is just not about inferences of quality, but it can actually affect real quality," says Baba Shiv, an associate professor of marketing at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and a co-author of a paper titled: Marketing Actions Can Modulate Neural Representations of Experienced Pleasantness published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "So, in essence, price is changing experiences with a product, and therefore, the outcomes from consuming this product," Shiv says.

Professor Shiv and company at Stanford and CalTech used functional magnetic resonance imaging (commonly called MRI) to conduct the scientific study that resulted in the paper mentioned above with a title that certainly is a palette-full.

MRI scans have been used often in various studies to gauge brain activity. But this study is one of the first to test subjects using an MRI scan as they swallow a liquid. In the study, the research subjects consumed and swallowed wine through a pump attached to their mouths, while being given an MRI scan. The MRI then measured the subjects blood flow to their brain.

Commenting on the study's results, Shiv says that a "basic assumption in the field of economics is that a person's 'experienced pleasantness' from consuming a product depends only on its intrinsic properties and the individual's thirst.' However, "marketers try to influence this experience by changing a drink's external properties like its price," he added.

Of course, many marketers have long known intuitively that price matters, and that pricing an item a bit higher can actually create more of a demand for it than reducing its retail cost.

According to the paper, "This type of influence is valuable for companies, because 'experienced pleasantness' serves as a learning signal that is used by the brain to guide future choices."

Despite the pervasive influence of marketing, very little is known about how neural mechanisms affect decision making, according the researchers. In our paper, "we propose a mechanism through which marketing actions can affect decision making," the researchers state in the scientific paper. "We hypothesized that changes in the price of a product can influence neural computations associated with 'experienced pleasantness'," the paper's authors conclude.

Shiv and his fellow researchers argue in the paper that because perceptions of quality are positively correlated with price (you get what you pay for) that someone might expect an expensive wine to taste better than a cheaper one.

Their hypothesis--which turned out to be correct--went even further. They said a person's anticipated experience would prompt higher activity in the part of the brain (the medial orbitofrontal cortex, or the mOFC, located in the forehead) that experiences pleasures. The results of the study subject's MRI scans showed just that result. The medial orbitofrontal cortex has also been identified by researchers as an area of the brain that has to do with food cravings, including a craving for chocolate.

Professor Shiv says he initiated the study in part because he lives in California where wine is a big deal, and because he personally is interested in wine, and professionally is fascinated with wine pricing and its wild variations.

You can go from $4 bottle up to $200 or $300 bottle in nothing flat, he commented. "Why are people going for that?" Some people are trying to show off, but most aren't," he says. "They're serious about it (wine)," and they think the more expensive it is, the better (it is). That has always befuddled me. Is it really that people are getting more pleasure from it? Or do they just think so.?

Well, thanks to the study and paper from professor Shiv and his associates, he--and all of us--have a little better answer to those questions he asked himself before conducting the study.

We do wonder though: As a result of the study, should Trader Joe's immediately increase the price of its famous, best selling $1.99 bottle of wine called "Two Buck Chuck," to $2.99? Or even up to $3.99? Where does the price elasticity begin to have a negative effect at this end of the price-point market for wines? We aren't sure. But "Three Buck Chuck" has a nice ring to it. And "Four Buck Chuck" doesn't even sound all that bad.

If Trader Joe's, as an example, could charge an additional dollar or two per bottle, imagine the profit-effect it would have based on all those bottles of "cheap" wine the specialty grocer sells every year. The implications could be staggering.

Marketing Memo: Just a Man and His Brands

Finding himself all alone in a retail store on a stormy and raining day, a writer ponders his relationship with the grocery brands all around him, on the store's shelves.

The relationship between people and grocery brands can be a complex yet simple one. The relationship can be emotional as well as psychological.

A brand can make a person feel good, but also feel bad after the fact--especially when he or she feels they paid too much for the particular branded product. Generally, brand relationships are long-term ones, and sometimes a brand-divorce is more difficult than a human one.

We all know on some level we're manipulated (not always a negative by the way) by marketers in terms of how they position and communicate their brands to us. On the other hand, there are in most cases real and substantial difference between one brand and the other. And price isn't always the differentiating aspect of such quality measures.

Some laundry detergent brands are better than others, for example. Certain brands of Mayonnaise just plain taste better than others. National brands aren't always better than store brands. Some "plain-Jane" branded food products actually taste better than those labeled "gourmet." And, on and on it goes.

Increasingly, there are other concerns regarding brands. These include a brand's green or environmental attributes, the ethical reputation of the company that markets it, and other variables. Consumers weigh all these attributes, along with price and emotional appeal the marketer creates, when choosing a particular brand.

Almost completely alone the other day in a retail store in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a storm raging outside, San Francisco Chronicle columnist and long-time newspaper and magazine writer and editor Jon Carroll, found himself daydreaming. As he walked the aisles of the near-empty store, he thought about his relationship with grocery brands. His relationship with retail stores, from the basic to the upscale. Just a man and his brands.

Carroll, who's been around the media business for decades and knows the influence of marketing and advertising, writes in his Tuesday, January 8 Chronicle column about His brands, and the relationship he has with them.

Carroll''s is not a marketing column. Rather, it's a first-person column. But, as so often is the case, sometimes the best marketing insights (as well as thought-provoking ideas) come not from marketing-oriented pieces, but rather from first-person narrative ones.

We enjoyed reading Carroll's column, and think it offers much food for thought--along with a chuckle or two--and wanted to share it with our readers. We read it while it was raining hard outside the other day--and somehow we think we enjoyed it even more that way. We hope you enjoy it--and glean a little human insight from his thoughts, like we did.

Read Jon Carroll's Column here.

(Cartoon: courtesy CartoonStock.)

Marketing Memo: New Coke CEO to Soon Find Out What's 'Tappening'

We call it an anti-product marketing, marketing campaign. It's creators are calling it a "Tappening." What is it?

It's a welcoming gift of sorts being designed by two marketing executives for incoming Coca Cola CEO Muhtar Kent. But it's not likely the type of welcoming gift he was looking forward to receiving.

Mike DiMasso, creative director at the marketing consultancy DiMasso Goldstein, and Eric Yaverbaum, president of public relations agency Erico communications, are planning to deliver 1 million used water bottles stuffed with messages to new CEO Kent in July, when he takes over the reigns of the huge, international beverage company, according to a story written by Natalie Zmuda in today's Advertising Age.

DiMasso and Yaverbaum's gift to Coke CEO Kent is part of a campaign they call "Tappening." The campaign's goal is to encourage consumers to drink tap water instead of bottled water, along with persuading consumers to buy reusable water bottles with messages on them like "Think Global." "Drink Local."

"We are bringing our marketing experience to bear, and therefore, people are viewing us differently," DiMasso told Ms. Zmud. "This is a public-education initiative dressed up as a brand to change the context in which Coke does business."

Coca Cola Co. is the biggest bottler and marketer of bottled water in the world.

The two marketing execs told Ad Age they chose Coke because it's the biggest bottled water marketer. "They're (other major bottled water marketers like Pepsi and Nestle) all worthy targets but Coke is the biggest, and one thing you learn is to start big," DiMasso says.

DiMasso told Advertising Age that Coke already knows about the plan to deliver the 1 million empty plastic water bottles with the messages inside to Kent in July. In fact, he said Coke has told him they will gladly recycle the plastic bottles upon delivery. The campaign has thus far collected 10,000 empty plastic water bottles towards their goal of 1 million.

The overall "Tappening" tap water campaign is designed to build brand awareness among consumers for tap water. The campaign wants consumers to stop buying bottled water, and instead drink tap water and buy and use reusable water bottles for away from home drinking.

(Read more about the campaign at the Tappening website here.) (You also can read more about the anti-bottled water, pro-tap water movement here.)

The "Tappening" campaign was launched in November, 2007. Among its activities is the selling of reusable water bottles emblazoned with sayings like "What's Tappening" and "Think Global." "Buy Local." Since November, nearly 40,000 of the logo bottles have been sold via the website.

Their are other anti-bottled water--or pro-tap water, depending on your position--initiatives going on the the U.S., along with the "Tappening" campaign. (Do a search at the top of the blog using the key words "bottled water" and "bottled water backlash," and you can read some stories we've done on the issue.)

The pro tap water, anti-bottled water coalition is a diverse one. It includes numerous city governments in the U.S., consumers, community organizations, environmental groups and businesses that produce and market reusable water bottles and tap water filtration systems.

It's a good thing Coke's new CEO Kent will have a nice big corner office at the company's corporate headquarters. It takes lots of space to hold 1 million empty plastic water bottles. We also wonder if he just won't be able to resist at least reading one or two of the messages in the bottles? After all, you don't generally get to become CEO of a multi-billion dollar company without being the curious sort.

Read the full Advertising Age story here.