Why Clorox Isn't So Clean

"Getting ad guys out of hot water for generations."

As I was browsing my daily email from Ad Age today, an article titled "Political Talk Shows Talk Themselves Out of Ads" caught my attention. It might be because I have been religiously following Meghan McCain's tweets (@McCainBlogette which I LOVE), or maybe I am just missing DC, but I was interested enough to open the article and read about how Clorox is just one brand that has decided to pull out of advertising in political shows. This was sparked by the recent controversy with Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck claiming that President Obama is a "racist" and out to get white people. I took a political campaign advertising course in college that is partially responsible for my fascination with branding. Political figures have to sell harder than any product on the market, especially during election season, and throughout their term in office. And as we know, they are constantly being criticized by hosts such as Beck and tainting their brand image. However, with a weak economy, companies are not wanting to risk their brand's reputation through questionable placement (although, let's face it Clorox, you did choose Fox and not CNN...) and this creates an interesting dilemma for both the networks AND the brands advertising within their programming.

We are lucky as citizens of the U.S. to have freedom of speech, allowing us to talk about our beliefs whether it is at a neighbor's or on nationally broadcast television. Our rights as Americans give us our own opinions to freely discuss them with one another. But this freedom seems to walk a fine line when you are dealing with balancing profit, such as cable networks like Fox News. While a Clorox spot was seen after Beck's accusing words about our current Commander-In-Chief, consumers aren't dumb. They understand that with a talk show, the loosely scripted nature is a part of the schtick and there is always a chance that controversy will ensue. But alas, it is the chance you take. It doesn't matter whether Beck is right or wrong, he has the authority to say what he feels is right, however does he owe any responsibility to the hands that feed him? What will happen as more advertisers are dissatisfied with the content of political shows and no longer give these networks any revenue to survive?

It is safe to say that Fox News will not fall dark tomorrow because of a few bottles of bleach, but it is interesting to think that advertising may start to have more control over cable channels as we move into an age where network news may become obsolete. According to the article, Fox News retained the same amount of media buys from Clorox after the Beck incident, but the spots were shifted to other programs on the channel as to not lose any money from the company. It isn't the first time that we have witnessed a talk show host, specifically political, say something that has made half the country outraged and the other half cheer. The difference here is that brands are starting to recognize that they have power as network news begins to transition into solely cable news (or so predicted by the media gurus of today). The article makes a good point stating that brands should be making an attempt to reach the largest possible audience for their products which includes shows like Glenn Beck's, especially for a neutral product like Clorox. Advertising within those shows over time may have a lasting effect on their brand perception, and it is wise to be aware of that. But what happens when you pull out of one placement only to be seen doing the same thing in another...willingly?

This is where Clorox failed. In Clorox's response to the placement of their ad claiming that it was "a mistake" and that they never intended to advertise on the show. This coming from a company that is also stating that they "hold true to advertising standards..." what, like advertising on last night's episode of Mad Men that featured yet another stimulating round of adulterous activity and pregnant women smoking and drinking? Good call on pulling out of Beck's show as to not be further associated with anything controversial in America... This is what I don't appreciate about big "American" brands trying to stand for something more than what they are. I thought that last night's commercial during Mad Men was brilliant. It was finally a successful attempt at trying to use the "change over time" theme that the rest of the brands advertising on the show have been failing at. For a show like Mad Men, Clorox seems like a natural fit for such a varied audience and we do see Mrs. Draper's maid doing her fair share of laundry, but it seems comical that for a brand being so proud of their defiance against Glenn Beck that they would outwardly support Don Draper. I can't decide which one is worse.

The image above is from an insert ad in the season 2 DVD set of Mad Men released just a little over a month ago. The copy reads "Getting ad guys out of hot water for generations." Is this not JUST as controversial as the statements made by Beck? Clearly this move was not a "mistake" and while they are concerned with now being associated with the beliefs of one man on a cable news program they don't seem to be concerned with endorsing adultery across the country. Yes, the ad is clever and it is a well matched strategy with the show, but it makes their actions with pulling from Beck's show laughable. You can't claim to be against one thing one day and outright supporting something else the other. Racism, adultery, scandal, sex, the list continues and while one thing might be pitted against the other for being "worse" to endorse, they all don't align with what Clorox claims to be behind. Producing an ad for Mad Men like this devalues their statements and reaction to the Beck controversy and it threatens the authenticity of Clorox position on American consumer history. They splattered the media with their testimony but their beliefs fall short.

As it turns out, Clorox can't get the stains out of everything they wear....