Branding is a fundamental aspect of any business, but it’s also one of the most delicate aspects of public relations. A brand represents a company’s identity, values, and promise to its customers, and the way a company presents and manages its brand can determine its success or failure. When PR strategies fail, they can lead to long-term damage, erode consumer trust, and even cause financial losses.
While some branding failures may be the result of poor market research or product misalignment, many of the most infamous brand failures in PR history are related to miscommunication, tone-deaf messaging, or the company’s inability to respond to consumer feedback appropriately. Whether it’s a controversial campaign, a failed product launch, or a damaging public relations misstep, these branding failures offer valuable lessons that brands today can learn from.
In this op-ed, we will explore some high-profile branding failures from a PR perspective, discuss what went wrong, and analyze the lessons that can be learned to avoid similar pitfalls in the future.
1. Pepsi’s Controversial Kendall Jenner Ad (2017)
One of the most infamous branding failures in recent history was Pepsi’s 2017 advertisement featuring model and reality TV star Kendall Jenner. The ad, which was intended to portray a message of unity and peace, was widely criticized for appearing to trivialize and co-opt social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. In the ad, Jenner joins a protest and hands a police officer a Pepsi can, which seemingly resolves the tension between protesters and law enforcement.
What Went Wrong:
- Tone-Deaf Messaging: The ad’s attempt to capitalize on serious social and political issues came off as insincere and exploitative. Rather than making a statement about social justice, Pepsi appeared to be commodifying a very real and sensitive issue for commercial gain.
- Insensitive Representation: The ad failed to capture the gravity of the struggles that many activists face when protesting systemic issues like police brutality. By using a glamorous celebrity like Kendall Jenner in place of actual activists, Pepsi risked appearing as though it was minimizing the struggles of marginalized communities.
- Lack of Market Research: The company did not conduct adequate research to understand the potential backlash the ad might provoke. Instead, it relied on a trend of social activism without fully understanding the weight of the issues being portrayed.
What We Can Learn:
- Authenticity Matters: Brands need to approach serious societal issues with authenticity, especially when those issues have real-world consequences. Appropriating social movements for commercial gain can backfire spectacularly if consumers perceive it as a shallow marketing tactic.
- Know Your Audience: It’s crucial for brands to understand the sensitivities and perspectives of their target audience. Failing to account for how the public will respond to certain messages can result in brand damage and a loss of trust.
- Involve Diverse Voices: In cases where brands want to address social issues, they must be mindful of who is speaking on behalf of the issue. Involving marginalized voices or experts in the field can help create more genuine and respectful messaging.
2. Gap’s ‘Fake Pride’ Campaign (2016)
In 2016, Gap launched a limited-edition Pride T-shirt to celebrate Pride Month. The shirt featured the words “Love Pride” and was marketed as a way to show support for the LGBTQ+ community. While the campaign seemed well-intentioned on the surface, it was quickly criticized for being inauthentic and for failing to sufficiently support the community beyond the sale of a T-shirt.
What Went Wrong:
- Insufficient Commitment to the Cause: The company marketed the T-shirt as a way to support LGBTQ+ rights but did not provide any substantial commitment to LGBTQ+ causes. Gap did not donate a portion of the proceeds to LGBTQ+ charities, nor did it demonstrate any lasting support for the community beyond the T-shirt.
- Perception of Exploitation: Many consumers saw Gap’s Pride T-shirt as an attempt to profit from the LGBTQ+ movement without offering any meaningful contributions. This resulted in accusations of “rainbow-washing” – a term used to describe brands that profit from LGBTQ+ symbolism without doing the work to actually support the community.
- Failure to Understand the Market: Gap’s Pride campaign appeared disconnected from the actual struggles and activism within the LGBTQ+ community. The lack of depth in their approach led to backlash from people who felt the campaign lacked sincerity and was more of a commercial strategy than an authentic message of support.
What We Can Learn:
- Follow Through With Action: When companies choose to align with social or political causes, they need to ensure that their support goes beyond a marketing gimmick. Simply using a cause for marketing purposes can appear disingenuous if not backed by concrete actions or support.
- Transparency is Key: If a company is going to use a social movement to market its products, it needs to be transparent about its goals and the contributions it is making to that cause. Lack of transparency can lead to accusations of exploitation and damage to the brand’s reputation.
- Be Mindful of Consumer Expectations: Today’s consumers are highly informed and socially conscious. If a brand wants to align itself with a cause, it must do so in a way that resonates with the audience and reflects their expectations of corporate responsibility.
3. Coca-Cola’s “New Coke” (1985)
One of the most well-known branding failures in history was Coca-Cola’s decision to reformulate its flagship product in 1985. The company introduced “New Coke,” a sweeter version of the classic drink, in an attempt to combat competition from Pepsi. However, the change was met with intense backlash from loyal Coca-Cola customers, leading to the eventual return of the original formula.
What Went Wrong:
- Disregard for Brand Loyalty: Coca-Cola underestimated the emotional connection its customers had to the original recipe. The decision to change the formula was seen as a betrayal by many loyal fans, who felt that their beloved product was being taken away.
- Failure to Listen to Customers: The decision to release New Coke was made without adequately consulting or understanding the opinions of Coca-Cola’s core customer base. The company did conduct taste tests, but they did not factor in the strong emotional attachment that people had to the original formula.
- Lack of Clear Communication: Coca-Cola did not communicate the reasoning behind the formula change effectively to the public. Consumers were left confused about why the company was altering a product they had loved for generations.
What We Can Learn:
- Understand Customer Sentiment: Brands should recognize that customer loyalty is a valuable asset and not take it for granted. Any significant changes to a beloved product or service should be carefully considered and communicated to customers in a transparent way.
- Don’t Underestimate the Power of Tradition: In some cases, the classic version of a product is integral to the brand’s identity. While innovation is essential, brands need to balance change with tradition to preserve the values and emotions their customers associate with the brand.
- Listen to Consumer Feedback: Effective market research goes beyond just surveys and tests; it involves actively listening to the voices of customers and understanding what they truly value.
4. H&M’s Controversial “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” Hoodie (2018)
In 2018, fashion retailer H&M sparked outrage with an advertisement featuring a young Black boy wearing a hoodie with the phrase “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle.” The ad was widely condemned for its racially insensitive messaging, and the backlash was swift. Celebrities, activists, and consumers all voiced their displeasure, leading to calls for boycotts.
What Went Wrong:
- Lack of Diversity in Decision-Making: The incident was widely seen as a failure of diversity and inclusion within H&M’s marketing team. The racially insensitive nature of the hoodie was not flagged before the campaign went live, suggesting that the brand did not have sufficient diversity among its decision-makers to spot problematic issues.
- Insensitive Messaging: The phrase “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” has historical connotations of racial stereotypes, particularly when used in relation to Black individuals. The ad was seen as trivializing issues of race and perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
- Poor Crisis Management: H&M’s initial response to the backlash was seen as inadequate, as the company did not immediately issue a public apology or take responsibility for the hurt caused. Although the company eventually apologized and removed the hoodie from sale, the incident had already caused significant damage to its reputation.
What We Can Learn:
- The Importance of Diversity: A lack of diversity in marketing and PR teams can lead to disastrous mistakes, as the failure to understand different cultural perspectives can result in insensitive or harmful messaging. Brands should prioritize diversity in their teams to avoid these missteps.
- Be Quick and Apologetic in Crisis Situations: When a PR crisis occurs, a swift, heartfelt apology is essential. Brands need to acknowledge the harm caused and take immediate action to rectify the situation. A delayed or insufficient response only adds to the damage.
- Sensitivity is Key: Brands must be sensitive to the social, political, and cultural implications of their messaging. In a globalized world, what might be acceptable in one market could be offensive in another.
5. Ford’s “Pinto” Case (1970s-1980s)
The Ford Pinto, a compact car introduced by Ford in the 1970s, is infamous for its safety issues. During crash tests, it was found that the car’s gas tank could rupture, causing deadly fires in the event of a rear-end collision. Despite this, Ford went ahead with the car’s release and failed to address the issue adequately, leading to numerous accidents and fatalities.
What Went Wrong:
- Neglecting Safety for Profit: Ford’s decision to prioritize profits over customer safety was one of the most egregious PR failures in automotive history. The company had knowledge of the Pinto’s safety issues but chose not to address them due to the costs associated with making the necessary changes.
- Failure to Act on Negative Feedback: The negative media coverage and public outcry were ignored for too long. Ford’s inability to respond quickly and transparently to the safety concerns only worsened the situation.
- Erosion of Brand Trust: Ford’s handling of the Pinto case severely damaged its reputation, leading to widespread distrust among consumers.
What We Can Learn:
- Put Safety First: Brands must always prioritize consumer safety and well-being, especially when their products have the potential to cause harm. Failing to do so can result in irreversible damage to the brand.
- Act Quickly in Response to Criticism: When a problem arises, brands must respond quickly and with transparency. Ignoring or downplaying serious concerns can lead to irreparable damage to the brand’s reputation.
- Transparency and Accountability: Brands must take responsibility for their mistakes and be open about how they plan to rectify the situation. Clear communication and accountability are essential to rebuilding trust after a crisis.
Conclusion
Branding failures are often the result of a breakdown in public relations strategy, whether it’s through miscommunication, lack of market research, or tone-deaf messaging. These PR failures, such as Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner ad, Gap’s Pride T-shirt campaign, and H&M’s “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” hoodie, highlight the importance of authenticity, sensitivity, and customer-centric thinking in branding.
For companies aiming to avoid branding failures, the key takeaway is clear: understand your audience, listen to their feedback, and ensure your branding aligns with their values. By prioritizing authenticity, empathy, and transparency, businesses can avoid making the kinds of PR mistakes that can lead to lasting damage.