Dunkin' Donuts Caves in to Nuts
Attention food executives: it’s good to pay attention to what’s being said about you online, but caving in to attention-mongering ideological nutbags isn’t a good strategy. Don’t spend money on advertising campaigns only to send that money down the chute when crazy bloggers and syndicated columnists make ridiculous, conspiracy-theory claims.
Case in point: Dunkin’ Donuts, owned by the privately held Dunkin’ Brands, has yanked an online ad featuring Rachael Ray because of complaints by Michelle Malkin and other screechers about Ray’s scarf. It reminded them – seriously – of a keffiyeh, the headgear worn by some men in Arab countries. Think Yasser Arafat. The keffiyeh has periodically been worn as a fashion accessory in the West by both men and women, occasionally as a statement of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, but most often not.
Sometimes a scarf is just a scarf, and so it is in this case. Ray’s scarf looks little like a keffiyeh, save that it is black and white, which is one version of the garment. But that didn’t stop Malkin from claiming that Ray is taking part in what she says is a trend toward “jihadi chic” among “left wing” celebrities. I won’t even address the insanity here, as it is self-evident. Malkin and her ilk aren’t doing anything they haven’t been doing for years now.
But what gives at Dunkin’ Donuts? In a statement the company said: “In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended.”
Right, Ray’s not a jihadist. Got it.
“However,” the company continued, “given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.”
Malkin was pleased. On her blog, she wrote: “It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists.”
What would really be refreshing is to see an American company understand that the overwhelming majority of its customers are rational, and not easily swayed by Internet nutbaggery. Of course, those customers aren’t going to gang up online and scream Dunkin’ Donuts into being rational, so they can’t possibly get the kind of attention that Malkin et al are so good at getting. Just for starters, those customers have real jobs, and little time for stirring up the gullible.
But they still might think a little bit less of Dunkin’ Donuts when they learn what has happened here.
From the company’s perspective, it might seem like dumping a relatively minor online ad isn’t much of a trade-off for what it sees as protecting its brand. And that may be true in this one discrete instance. But what about the next instance, and the one after that? The same logic that applies to bargaining with terrorists applies here: the more you do it, the more the “brand-terrorists” will feel they can get away with. To forestall such events in the future, Dunkin’ may feel it has to be extra-careful in all of its messaging, which could lead to blander advertisements with the result of the brand being weakened — which is just what the company is trying to prevent here. As Malkin herself would say in another context, you can’t win through appeasement.
UPDATE (5/29): BNET’s advertising blogger Jake Swearingen takes the opposite view, arguing, in part, that making Malkin happy should be counted as a win for Dunkin’ Donuts.
BNET User Analysis