Here is a blunder for the history books, or perhaps a case study for a business school. With just one racy advertisement, Pfizer has taken a venerable product that has been widely used by who-knows-how-many millions of people for more than 100 years and damaged its reputation by alienating a huge swath of the consumer-buying public - women, in particular.
How did they do that? Take a close look at the picture. Until a couple of days ago, this is an ad that Pfizer ran to promote its Chapstick lip balm, an innocuous salve for chapped lips that has a decidedly boring profile compared to, say, Viagra, which is another Pfizer product. Perhaps to spice things up, though, the Pfizer marketing pfolks decided they needed something a little different to grab eyeballs.
And so they gave us this young woman scrambling on a couch trying to find her treasured Chapstick. Presumably, the lip balm landed behind the couch. But who can focus on the crevices of the furniture when the contours of her tush are staring us in the face? This is no accident, but how this reinforces a need for Chapstick is unclear. Instead, the message is this: stop and look at her ass.
Not surprisingly, reaction to the ad was fast and furious. The Chapstick Facebook page was littered with angry comments, some of which Pfizer removed. A few blogs took the company to task and an online petition was formed to pressure the drugmaker, which has a large unit that sells various consumer health items, to end the ad campaign. For example, here is what Redefine Girly wrote...
"Why you paid an advertising agency big dollars to use a woman’s 'Ass' to sell me a product I put on my lips seems a bit off. Why you chose to go with the ad that sexualizes a woman and gives off that low budget, basement porny-feeling right at the beginning of the winter season when every parent across America is in need of a good balm to put on her kid’s lips seems to me as though you don’t understand that women control 86% of consumer spending.
"There isn’t much in question about your ad – the odd pose, butt in the air, the skin tight jeans, the sexy blowing hair – it is all a mind-numbingly sophomoric use of implied sex to sell a product. The thing is, for everyone who uses (used) ChapStick, we know that those little tubes go missing all of the time, and there were dozens of other very clever ways for you to depict this. But you didn’t. You chose to go with 'Ass,'" wrote Redefine Girly's Melissa Wardy, who know proudly uses Burt's Bees (read here).
In the end, Pfizer capitulated. But not before offering a rather weak excuse for its ad and for removing comments from Facebook. This is what the drugmaker posted on the Chapstick Facebook page: "We see that not everyone likes our new ad, and please know that we certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone! Our fans and their voices are at the heart of our new advertising campaign, but we know we don’t always get it right. We’ve removed the image and will share a newer ad with our fans soon!
"We apologize that fans have felt like their posts are being deleted and while we never intend to pull anyone’s comments off our wall, we do comply with Facebook guidelines and remove posts that use foul language, have repetitive messaging, those that are considered spam-like (multiple posts from a person within a short period of time) and are menacing to fans and employees."
There is, as they say, a time and a place for everything. But serving up a well-rounded tush in such a way is not smart marketing. Many women are long-standing Chaptstick customers and may not appreciate seeing an ordinary item promoted in a way that appears to degrade women. Chapstick, after all, is generally not the sort of product that lends itself to playful innuendo. In fact, Viagra ads may have been controversial - remember the Viagra devil? - but not so graphically suggestive.
Whether this permanently damages the Chapstick brand remains to be seen. The controversy may have been intense, but was also short lived - Pfizer moved quickly to pull the ad, which may have limited the extent to which the outrage spreads. Yes, the ad will live on the Internet, but the blue jean-clad tush will not be staring at us from official web sites or elsewhere. But what do you think?
Will You Stop Using Chapstick Because Of This Ad?
- No (75%, 230 Votes)
- Yes (25%, 91 Votes)
Total Voters: 308
41 Comments
Ed, I'm not sure you are really in a position to be critical of Pfizer for using sexual imagery to try and sell chapstick. After I read that article, I scrolled down the page a bit scanning your headlines and noticed a rather provocative picture next to an article you wrote called "Doctors Are Split On Avastin For Breast Cancer". Was that really necessary, or were you just trying to grab people's attention? I suggest the latter. Which is exactly what Pfizer was doing....
(Just to make it clear: I don't have a problem with either Pfizer's ad or with your article. I have a problem with what seems to be a double-standard here...)
Just another shameful example of off-label marketing.
God only knows how many women will be injured now treating their hemorrhoids with chapstick.
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for the note and you make an interesting point. However, there are degrees of relevance involved. The photo of the woman checking her breast is the same sort of picture that is on display in physician offices and, while I suppose some may find it suggestive, it is clearly a different sort of pose than what Pfizer offered in its ad.
Yes, we all know that photos are used to generate attention, and news sites are no different. And different people will, of course, have different impressions, anyway. However, the choice of this particular photo for the Chapstick promotion seemed rather irrelevant to the product. And the message, itself, is unclear. It seems to be designed to be racy for the sake of it. And that is a key reason for the hue and cry, at least far as I can tell.
Hope this helps, ed
Sorry guys, how on earth can a person dressed in jeans looking over the back of a sofa for a dropped chapstick be considered even vaguely 'racy'? I'm usually the last person keen to stick up for Pfizer, but I can't really see what they've done wrong here!
I think you guys need to get out a little bit more often :-)
I guess people would expect Pfizer to have a higher standard. Realistically though, sexual imagery in advertising is commonplace these days on television, etc.....
More importantly, where do all the used chopsticks end up?
Pfizer just misunderstood their target audience's gender. Maybe the Ladies can look forward to a photo of a sexy guy..
I don't think "racy" is as much an issue as that it was "vaguely racy" and just plain gratuitous. Perhaps Pfizer is feeling the heat from startup (novelty) brands that prefer a more transparent approach to selling chapstick via sex (or is it sex via chapstick?) like Balm Chicky Inc.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Balm-Chicky-Balm-Balm/92645628615#!/pages/Balm-Chicky-Balm-Balm/92645628615?sk=info
This Chapstick not needed uproar, reminds me of the AT&T ad where the girl says, "Now I can talk to my mother all day about nothing". That ad is assuming a female has all day to chat and chat and chat. Or,maybe even hare-brained. Now that is somewhat more obvious than a girl with her butt showing.
I vote for "no offense".
By the way, the Chapstick ad cannot be construed as even suggestive.
Can we move on, now?
Women dominate social media -- by the numbers and through their influence -- and this is a classic example of how NOT to score with women on social media.
This will be discussed in more detail in this LIVE online discussion/podcast on November 9, 2011. Join us. Learn more here: http://bit.ly/PMT152pmn
This is so funny. Did you get any angry response from Asia? Because that`s the region where a Chapstick might have some kind of phallic connotation. Seriously, go find a job, and let ad guys amuse us for a couple of seconds!
Maybe the picture of the ad is not clear enough, but what exactly is racy (or sexy) about it?
If the model was wearing short shorts, or a tight dress, or short skirt, or lingerie, it WOULD be racy, sexy, and demeaning. But she is wearing fairly non-descript blue jeans.
On one hand, some feminists are sponsoring "slut-walks" to parade their right to wear what they want, where ever they want (which is fine); On the other hand, some feminists are complaining about ads like this. So one group wants to bare almost all, and not be thought of as sexual; another group regards a completely covered tush as overtly sexual. (between the 2, it is a very mixed & confused message)
Would it be better if she was covered head-to-toe in a Burka? Would it be offensive if it were a man searching behind the sofa?
The only people I know that would look for a chapstick tube behind a couch are those same compulsive people who would make sure that there are no french fries or salt packets between the seats when they went to sell their car.
There really is an embedded off label marketing message in this picture, albeit subtle. As some may know the active ingredient in Chapstick is petroleum jelly, which has also been shown to be useful as a rectal lubricant in patients with painful hemorrhoids.
I'm sure that you needed to know this tidbit of medical information before this weekend's cocktail parties.
The Chapstick brand of lip balm sucks. I would never buy this product anyway. But aside from that, maybe Pfizer knew what they were doing. Much like men, any attention (negative or positive) they can get is the strategy.
These comments are better than the advertisement! Nothing at all wrong with this PFE ad in my opinion. And Dennis is right on... Thanks Ed, for your article and bringing this nonsense to conclusion (hopefully).
I can't use chapstick on my labia? It is a lip balm, right?
Lacy, you might try some Premarin cream first. At least it has the "labialed" indication.
it isn't racy, it's objectifying and it's stupid. and now Pfizer has shown us all how NOT to react to online criticism.
Harpy, compared to the online bullying that kid's are doing these days, this is PG rated by comparison.
what? did I not say "it isn't racy"? oh, yes, right there. in my comment.
and your logic is impeccable. much like how theft isn't a big deal because there are people being murdered.
Harpy,
You are hysterical. I like it.
Harpy, I would love to know of anyone who was murdered with a tube of chapstick, unless they figured out how to turn it into napalm.
You don't get it OII. It's Pfizer. They could develop a cure for AIDs and give it away and they'd be murderers because they didn't pay for the price of shipping.
You gotta get with the program, dude.
John, Pfizer Medical is a caring, compassionate organization. They are leading the way in helping to find cures for serious tropical diseases as part of the WIPO initiative. They also have a program to combat trachoma, the leading cause of infectious blindness, which they are doing at a financial loss. They are working with UNICEF in this effort.
These don't always make the Pharmalot headlines, but show that my industry colleagues as a whole are a caring, compassionate group. I think that I'm quite with the program, dude.
http://news.yahoo.com/leading-pharmaceutical-companies-research-institutions-offer-ip-expertise-070216313.html
http://www.unicefusa.org/news/news-from-the-field/pfizer-and-iti-helping-to.html
Dude, didn't wish to seem overly optimistic. My OII brethren do like the idea of making money, and I trust their accountants have figured out a way to write off the money that Rodriguez stole from them.
Nice quarterly result.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45115131
OII, just tongue in cheek.
Hi OII,
Thanks for the comments here. This is an interesting conversation. Just one small point - Pfizer was mentioned among the drugmakers that joined the WIPO effort on tropical diseases. The post from last week is here...
http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/10/drugmakers-join-un-project-on-tropical-diseases/
Chapstick ads aside, we try to give them their due.
Regards ed
Thanks, Ed. I should have remembered the story, as I commented on Medicines Sans Frontieres
stupid yes but objectifying and racy? you have GOT to be kidding me. This is much ado about nothing
"No such thing as bad publicity." PT Barnum Now that's settled, off to get me some "chapstick."
Commenters are missing the point. Women may control 86% of consumer sales, but they control 100% of lip balm sales. Chapstick's market is women. Is the add aimed at women? No. Its aimed at men. Do you know how irritating it is to constantly have ads addressing you as a man (eg. 'Ask your wife?' I don't have a wife, I have a husband). So really the Ad guys made it for themselves - wasted Chapsticks money. I would prefer to have less sexualised imagery in general, but using sexist imagery to sell things to women is just stupid
logic, I always go for the knowledgeable question, "Ask your doctor".
Whatever happened to product shots?
Dr Altus, this may be an educated guess, but by NOT showing the product the company may stay out of regulatory difficulty, given the convoluted way that the DDMAC regs are written.
Where did the ad run? I wish the story had said something about that. If it ran in male-oriented publications, I can see why they did it, though it would still be off-putting.
Is this kind of ads , using a woman ass to promote chapstick that remind me of that movie "Idiocracy" and make me think that might be the most acurate prophecy of future society.
The most accurate prophecy of future society is that tort reform will make ambulance chasing attorneys obsolete.
AZ internal email on burying studies:
"There is growing pressure from outside the industry to provide access to all data resulting from clinical trials conducted by industry. Thus far, we have buried Trials 15, 31, 56, and are now considering COSTAR.
The larger issue is how do we face the outside world when they begin to criticize us for suppressing data. One could say that our competitors indulge in this practice. However, until now, I believe we have been looked upon by the outside world favorably with regard to ethical behavior. We must decide if we wish to continue to enjoy this distinction.
Best regards,
John"
“Exhibit 13”, “AstraZeneca Papers Raise Seroquel Issues,” WSJ, 2/27/09
Okay, that's just stupid. I didn't look at that picture and think " oh, that girl is just begging for sex". She's not. The TEENAGE girl is looking for her lost chapstick. And generally, teenagers wear tight jeans. This ad was about trying to fit in with the younger generation, obviously the girl is wearing cool clothes. As for mothers, we wouldn't look at this and title it as pornagraphic, because it's not. Me, my husband, and I will CONTINUE to use chapstick