Do businesses always know what they are buying when they purchase advertising? Two recent shows make me wonder whether they do. The CW network program “Gossip Girl” had a plot line that centered on a teenage boy having sex with two of his female friends. A “threesome,” the characters told us, is a “rite of passage” for college students and this exciting event was something everyone should take part in. This program is the most popular with girls aged 12 to 17. Verizon placed an ad for their “Friends and Family” plan. Does glamorizing this type of behavior among teens support family? Is it consistent with the Verizon brand? Is this the kind of message Verizon and other advertisers want to support? I’m sure some businesses do, but most probably wouldn’t.
The other recent program was this year’s American Music Awards. Adam Lambert staged an elaborate sexually charged S&M-themed production. Lambert fondled a dancer, led another around on a leash, had a dancer briefly stick his head in Lambert’s crotch and kissed a man. Before his performance, Lambert said that he wanted to break down a double standard that existed where female performers are often sexually provocative while men don’t do it that often. So, in some sense, advertisers were forewarned. Is glamorizing this type of behavior supportive of families or something that families would want to watch? Again, is this what advertisers expected when they agreed to advertise on this program? I would guess not.
Family-Supportive Marketing is a strategic marketing and advertising approach that allows businesses to proactively and intentionally support families by avoiding sponsoring programs like the two above and by shifting their promotional dollars towards programs with more wholesome content. This can be done in a way that sustains or grows business!
Are Family-Friendly Shows a Better Environment for Ads?
This question was reviewed in a November 4, 2009 article in Advertising Age based on recently released study results from the Association of National Advertisers. If you visit the website (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=140308), you can read the article and a few reactions to it. Some think companies are already considering the context of where their ads are placed and avoiding controversial areas (“Marketing 101”), others don’t think it’s new, while others applaud it as helping to provide support for being selective in advertising placement.
While there are many sophisticated models for media placement, it is my belief that most companies to not evaluate the content of the programs where there ads are placed, other than in a general sense. The placement is driven almost, if not entirely, by the demographics reached and cost. The question is, can companies gain from being even more selective and looking more specifically at the content? In previous posts, I’ve shared some quantitative numbers showing that advertisers can gain by avoiding shows with certain content (e.g., those containing sex and violence). This study provides additional support this position.
The ANA conducted research with 2,400 consumers and tested six different ads by watching them in various program segments. According to the study, nearly 11% of the audience changed their opinion about purchasing a product based on the content in which they viewed the ad that promoted it.
While some may argue that this is a relatively small change and that the study doesn’t reflect what happens in the real world, my question is, why take a chance? If you have evidence to show that there’s a risk of decreased advertising effectiveness that could result in wasteful spending, isn’t it worth factoring it into the media selection decision? In the end, the decision will be based on dollars and cents, but if a company wants to be supportive of families, this is another source showing that there is a benefit to doing so. That’s part of what Family-Supportive Marketing does.
What Families Are Targets of Family-Supportive Marketing?
With all this talk about Family-Supportive Marketing, you may wonder what families are being targeted through this approach. The simple answer is all families, although the approach is not necessarily targeted towards any family in particular. Let me explain.
The US Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor statistics define family as a group of two or more persons residing together who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. It may or may not include children. Children refer to the family’s own children and include sons, daughters, stepchildren, and adopted children, but not nieces, nephews, grandchildren, other children related to the family and all unrelated children living in the household.
We define “family” as the basic unit of society. Think about it. We are all formed (whether naturally or artificially) from male and female sex cells. So, a family is formed when a child is born. However, for purposes of the Family-Supportive Marketing, family is defined as the basic unit in society consisting of one or two natural or adoptive parents raising their children.
There are many different family structures today – traditional nuclear families where children live with both biological parents, families with adopted children, blended families, single parent families (mom or dad), families with grandparents raising their grandchildren and married couples with no children. All are “targets” for Family-Supportive Marketing, but we’re not marketing to them directly.
Through Family-Supportive Marketing, what we’re trying to do is make sure that relationships are portrayed in a healthy manner through the media, regardless of the family structure. We’re trying to influence the content of programs, websites and publications so it doesn’t undermine families by glamorizing sex, violence, disrespectful behavior, foul language, unhealthy conflict and other attitudes, perceptions and behaviors that may lead to unhealthy relationships. Advertisers shift their promotional spending towards media that is more supportive of families. When enough make the change, the content of media will shift so that we’ll see less content that has the potential to undermine families and more content that depicts behaviors that lead to healthy families. The hope is that this will in turn positively affect actual behaviors in families (and society as a whole).
As businesses adopt Family-Supportive Marketing and inform the public, and when consumers see that a business is serious, it is our hope that people who believe in and want to retain the integrity of families will embrace and patronize the company. In this sense, these families are targets, but they would consist of a subset and cross-section of all of the different types of family units.
Family is the foundation upon which communities are built. It provides the basis for relationships and functioning outside the family. On average, children coming from healthy families are better educated, healthier, more productive and better adjusted than those coming from fractured families. Because of this, businesses have a vested interest in families to ensure that they have a strong talent pool and workforce. Family-Supportive Marketing is one way businesses can create an environment to help families survive.
What Family-Supportive Marketing Is Not!
The term Family-Supportive Marketing may bring to mind many different thoughts and ideas. An earlier posting described a bit about Family-Supportive Marketing, and through other postings you are probably getting a sense for what it involves. To put some possible misconceptions to rest, this posting will discuss what Family-Supportive Marketing is not.
Family-Supportive Marketing is not limited to companies that are targeting families in their marketing. Tue, it’s not for every company, but Family-Supportive Marketing is a strategic approach that a company takes to intentionally support healthy relationships and families. It’s another filter companies use when evaluating their creative campaigns and when determining their media schedules. While it may strengthen the position of companies that are targeting families, it may also have a similar effect for companies targeting other consumers. For example, if a company is targeting young single adults it may want edgy advertising and placement of ads where that audience can be reached. In this case, a company initiating Family-Supportive Marketing would still look for an edgy ad, but one that doesn’t show disrespectful behavior, sexual content or violence. It may take more thought and there may be less “shock effect,” but it can be done. As for ad placement, this company would look for media that still reaches the target audience, but would focus on those places where the content is more neutral. Spending may be reallocated to a higher frequency in those media than the ones with more intense content. In the end, Family-Supportive Marketing guides decision-making, but it still has to make business sense.
Family-Supportive Marketing is not a morals and values initiative. As the author of this blog, I have a heart for keeping families together and it stems from seeing the consequences from my personal experience of not doing that. And, yes, there is probably an underlying motive for me relating to values. However, the reasons for a company taking a Family-Supportive Marketing approach are varied. In some cases, it is because a company is family-oriented or places family in high regard. It may be because a company wants to strengthen its connection with family customers. It may be that a company wants to portray a stronger family image. Or, a company may want to do something that is socially good, but that can also help generate revenues. A company may see financial benefits from the approach by building a stronger relationship with a key consumer segment. It may be to show family advocacy organizations that the company places a high value on family and wants to demonstrate that. And, yes, there are some companies that will do it because it aligns with their corporate or personal values, but it is unlikely that a company will initiate Family-Supportive Marketing unless it will benefit the company in some way.
Family-Supportive Marketing is not just a feel good approach. It’s been said that 50% of advertising is wasted, but we just don’t know which 50%. Well, there are studies that confirm that the context where advertising is placed does affect advertising effectiveness (potentially, by upwards of 70%). So, at least some of the waste is occurring because of media placement. Plus, if a significant segment of the audience is offended by the ad or by the program an advertiser is sponsoring through its advertising dollars, there is a cost either in negative association or personal boycott. There’s also a cost to businesses if exposure to negative behavior in the media is affecting behavior in the workplace when they cause interpersonal conflict or rude behavior to customers. Or, if media is contributing to behavior that leads to failing relationships and marriages, businesses shoulder costs in terms of absenteeism, decreased productivity and increased health insurance costs due to higher utilization. While these employee-related costs may be a little harder to grasp, they still impact the business.
If you have other perceptions of Family-Supportive Marketing, please share them and let’s engage in a dialogue! It’s better to talk about them than to let them simmer.
The American Center for Civic Character (www.characterusa.org) developed a set of 20 traits of people with high character, described in The Declaration of UncommonSense™. It was adopted by the Better Business Bureau’s Center for Character Ethics (www.centerforcharacterethics.org) as a set of principles to guide businesses in character ethics for leadership and employees.
* Seeking wisdom * Fidelity * Integrity * Compassion for others * Honesty * Justice * Accountability * Respect * Promise-keeping and trustworthiness * Excellence * Serving-leadership * Unity * Forgiveness * Honoring Authority * Liberty * Learning and mentoring * Stewardship * Seeking counsel * Submission to truth * Validating transformation
Now, compare this to a list of traits and values that the majority of parents say are absolutely essential for their children based on a survey conducted by Public Agenda in 2002 (www.publicagenda.org):
- Be honest and truthful
- Be courteous and polite
- Have self-control and self-discipline
- Always do their very best in school
- Be independent and do for themselves
- Save money and spend it carefully
- Help those who are less fortunate
- Have good nutrition and eating habits
- Have strong religious faith
- Exercise and be physically fit
All of these are probably embedded in the business character ethics, but the first seven are directly related. So, parents want to create the same character that undergirds businesses. If they are developed well by parents, businesses benefit through good employees. If not, businesses pay the price through difficulty with their employees.
Think about the media. How often are the 20 characteristics portrayed? A 2006 survey by the Culture Media Institute (www.cultureandmediainstitute.org) revealed that 74% of respondents believe that entertainment media negatively impacts moral values and 43% describe its impact as strongly negative. Over one-third (35%) say parents and families are responsible for failing to teach proper values, and 26% hold television and media responsible.
Since parents, families, television and media are viewed as the strongest influencers of establishing values (and character that leads to ethical behavior), what does that have to do with business? It has everything to do with business! Employers count on their employees to have good values, character and ethics so that they can be trusted to treat customers with respect and to act with integrity in business dealings.
While businesses can’t control what happens in families, they can influence what is in the media that may contribute to attitudes, perceptions and behaviors in families. Wherever a company advertises or promotes its products through a medium, whether print, radio, television or online, it sponsors, and indirectly supports, the content of that medium. If a publication, program or website conveys messages that are inconsistent with the 20 business character ethics, it is encouraging behavior that undermines business and families. With enough exposure to low character behavior, people become desensitized, low character becomes the norm, and businesses suffer.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Family-Supportive Marketing is a strategy businesses can employ to evaluate their advertising and media placement and to intentionally adjust them to convey and sponsor messages that reinforce and encourage high character behavior, contributing to stronger employees and healthy relationships and families. In most cases, it won’t add expenses. Instead, it’s a matter of realigning the promotional message and spending.
What’s The Value of A “Family” Brand?
While doing some research on family and marketing, I came across an interesting recent article from researchers at Oregon State University.(1) Based on a survey of 218 family businesses, the authors demonstrated that a family-based brand identity positively contributes to a company’s growth and profitability, indirectly through a customer-centric orientation. Having a “family” identity conveys certain values, beliefs and norms that influence purchasing intentions and behaviors for at least some customers. For a family-business that uses a family brand, that often creates a competitive advantage. For example, trust is a value implied within a family which carries to the family brand. A family brand also implies that the company is committed to being customer-oriented and when all else is equal, a company with the family brand will win over one without.
The question is: Can businesses that are not family businesses benefits from a family brand identity? When you consider that 80% of businesses in the US are family businesses, maybe it’s a moot point. There are some examples of companies that started as a family business and have retained the family name in the business (e.g., Ford, Johnson & Johnson), but they may or may not live the essence of their family brand. I would challenge you to consider whether it might be worth exploring. Obviously, if every company’s brand was a family brand, the competitive advantage might be lost, but there may be some value in exploring it.
Whether a family business or not, companies that have a family-based brand identity should be living the brand in all that they do. Many companies create a culture that is family-oriented or position themselves as a family company, but do they consider family in their marketing? Have they considered whether the messages conveyed in their advertising and promotion are family-oriented? Have they examined the content of the stations, programs, sites and publications to see if it is consistent with their family point of view or family brand? The Family-Supportive Marketing approach is intended to do just that. Most companies have spent a lot of time evaluating their advertising and promotion, but not as much time considering what they are sponsoring through their advertising dollars. If a company is family-oriented and especially if it has a family-based identity, it may be time to make sure its marketing is fully supportive of family.
1. “Leveraging Family-Based Brand Identity to Enhance Firm Competitiveness and Performance in Family Businesses” Justin B Craig, Clay Dibrell, Peter S Davis. Journal of Small Business Management 46(3):351-371. 2008
ABC To Have “Family Night” In The Fall
ABC announced that it will have a family night on Wednesdays this fall. (See Columbus Dispatch article at http://shar.es/9maz). If the three comedy shows are truly for the entire family, it will be encouraging and could be examples of the kind of shows that companies could include in a Family-Supportive Marketing strategy.
Could “Family” Be Where Corporate Social Responsibility And Marketing Come Together?
Broken relationships and families place a significant burden on society and on businesses. A report issued last year estimated that the US spends in excess of $112 Billion annually to address divorce and unwed births. That equates to approximately $800 per employed person per year in taxes. Estimates for the cost of failing relationships and marriages to businesses range from $6 Billion in lost productivity to $300 Billion in stress-related costs. These figures would yield a cost of nearly $3,000 per employed person in the US. One study estimated the cost of divorce for a $20 per hour employee to be $8,000 in the first year. Another study estimated that incidental absences cost $6,000 per employee per year, and over half could be attributed to family, personal or stress-related issues.
Okay, so that’s where the social aspect comes in, what’s that have to do with marketing? Well, I’d like to suggest that what we convey in marketing communication and where we advertise and promote our products, services or company influences relationships and the family. I think we’d all agree that our attitudes, perceptions and behaviors are influenced by what we see and hear, and that the media has a strong influence. After all, if it did not, companies would not spend the kind of money they do on advertising. It may be that marketers are inadvertently contributing to failing relationships and families.
Consider this. Over 1,000 studies have been done exploring the impact of exposure to violence on behavior. Most of the studies have evaluated television violence and the general consensus is that viewing violence is associated with increased aggressive, antisocial behavior, and desensitization. There are fewer studies of sexual content, but they most also conclude that viewing sexual content affects behavior. Studies have shown a link between increased viewing of sexual content and earlier initiation of teen sexual activity and pregnancy. One group of researchers concluded that sexually explicit media promotes sexual promiscuity, cynical attitudes about love and marriage, and perceptions that promiscuity is the norm.
Over 60% of television programs contain violence and/or sexual content and since advertising dollars essentially pay for the programs, businesses are sponsoring this content, which may be contributing to attitudes, perceptions and behaviors that lead to relationship and family breakdown. Add to this all that’s available online and what is conveyed in advertisements, and you can begin to see just how much businesses influence what we see and hear…and ultimately how we behave.
By paying attention to advertising content and media placement, and being intentional about developing content that supports healthy relationships and families, companies can be socially responsible in their marketing efforts. They can do something good for the community that may also have a financial benefit to the company.
Of course not! But, you may be doing that unintentionally by advertising in media that contains violent or sexual content.
A study of 356 adults aged 18 to 54 published in 2005 revealed that brand recall was 68% higher for people who saw a television program without violence and sex than for people who saw a program with violence and sex. (p<.002) AND, recall impairment tended to be larger for sexual programming than for violent programming.
The study revealed similar findings for brand recognition, which was 51% higher for participants who saw a program without violence and sex than for participants who saw a program with violence or sex. (p<.0001) Again, recognition impairment tended to be larger for sexual programming than for violent programming.
For intent to purchase, participants who watched a program without violence and sex selected 35% more of the advertised brands than did participants who watched a program with violence or sex. (p<.0001) Participants who watched a program without violence and sex selected 33% more coupons for advertised brands than did participants who watched a program with violence or sex.
The effects held for men and women of all ages, regardless of whether they liked to watch violence or sexual programs.
There have been many studies examining the affect of context of media on advertising effectiveness. While there have been mixed results, depending on study design and other variables, many studies support the notion that where a product (service or company) is advertised has at least some impact on the effectiveness of advertising. Advertisements placed within media with less intense content, tends to be more effective.
Now, you may be thinking that if you stop advertising on programs with violent or sexual content, you won’t be able to reach your target audience. While it’s true that the majority of television programs have violent or sexual content, there are still programs out there that have less or none. It just may take a little more work to find them. Plus, there may be other alternatives to reaching the audience. After all, if you use the numbers in this study, it is possible that up to $68 out of every $100 you spend is not being as effective as it could be. Can you afford to take the chance that only 32% may be getting through? Is it worth the risk? Would it be worth exploring whether you can put the advertising dollars to better use?
(Source: Violence and Sex in Television Programs Do Not Sell Products in Advertisements. Bushman BJ, Psychological Science, Vol. 16, No. 9, 702-708. 2005)
Why Should Businesses Care About The Content Of Media?
Have you ever been watching a television program with your children and something in that program causes you to cringe or want to switch the channel quickly? If so, you are not alone! But, how are we influenced by what we see and hear through the media and why should a business care?
The two areas that have received the most attention from researchers are violence and sexual content, primarily through television.
Violent Content
Approximately two-thirds of programs on broadcast television contain violence, higher in basic and premium cable programs. By the time a child reaches the age of 18, he or she will have viewed about 200,000 acts of violence on television (American Academy of Pediatrics). Here’s a sampling of highlights from some of the research that’s been done to determine how viewing violence influences us:
• Boys who preferred and viewed more violent programming at age 8 were more likely to be aggressive as teenagers and have arrests and convictions as adults for interpersonal crimes, such as spousal and child abuse, murder, and aggravated assault. (Developmental Psychology, 1984)
• Teens who watched TV more than one hour per day were almost 4 times as likely as other teens to commit aggressive acts in adulthood, 22% vs. 6%. (Science, 2002)
• Men who were heavy viewers of violent TV shows as children were twice as likely as other males to push, grab or shove their spouses, and three times more likely to be convicted of criminal behavior by the time they were in their twenties. (Developmental Psychology, 2003)
• Women who were high-volume viewers of violent shows as children were more than twice as likely as other young women to have thrown something at their spouses, and more than for times as likely to have punched, beaten or choked another adult. (Developmental Psychology, 2003)
• Viewing TV violence may affect the brain in a similar way as post-traumatic stress disorder (www.associatedcontent.com, 2008)
• Viewing violence may desensitize people and make them less willing to help others (Psychological Science, 2009)
Sexual Content
Over two-thirds (68%) of all TV shows other than news, sports and children’s shows, and 75% of network prime-time shows contain sexual content (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). By the time a child reaches the age of 8 (yes, 8, not 18), he or she will have seen over 58,000 scenes with sexual content (American Academy of Pediatrics). Here’s a sampling of highlights of research that’s been done to determine how viewing sexual content influences us:
• Watching TV shows with sexual content speeds up initiation of teen sexual activity. (Rand, 2003)
• Pregnancies were twice as common among those who regularly watched shows containing sexual content compared to those who rarely watched them. (Rand, 2008)
• Teens (12 to 14 years old) who used media (television shows, movies, songs and magazines) with high sexual content were up to 2.2 times more likely to have sex by the time they were 16 than those who used media with less sexual content (Pediatrics, 2006)
• Sexually explicit media promotes sexual callousness, cynical attitudes about love and marriage, and perceptions that promiscuity is the norm. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988)
So, a business should care because these programs are influencing attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of their employees. While some of the content can reinforce positive relationship skills, much of what we are exposed to through the media doesn’t. It is common to view dishonesty, disrespect, unhealthy conflict, aggression, disloyalty, theft, and other behaviors that would not be welcomed in the workplace.
Should you care? You decide how important these things are to you. Because advertising dollars support programming, businesses have an opportunity to influence this situation, if they choose to do so.
