We’ve often said in these blogs and during our crisis communication training courses that a crisis can strike any organisation at any time.
And the latest evidence has been provided by a paint company.
Crown Paints new advert has seen it embroiled in a misogyny and sexism row that has grabbed the attention of both mainstream and social media.
It is also a story you asked us to look into.
The advert is part of the company’s Life Stories series and recounts the story of expecting couple Hannah and Dave.
Singers tell their story while sitting on a paint roller. We learn that the couple met at an illegal rave and that Hannah initially did not want a child.
But she is now pregnant.
Then the song says: “Now a baby’s coming and they don’t know what it is. Hannah’s hoping for a girl, Dave’s just hoping that it’s his.”
Hannah and Dave’s big news has meant a big change to their previously grey spare room 🎨
— Crown Paints (@crownpaints) August 8, 2022
Whether you’re renovating an old home, or welcoming a baby into a new nursery, we’re here for you. For us, it’s #notjustpaint, #itspersonal
🔗 Discover more: https://t.co/ZiFAko4cHe pic.twitter.com/g5B4o5fgGW
Comic Jenny Éclair was one of those who shared her disgust about the advert on social media. She tweeted: “Hey Crown Paints get that offensive baby ad off air - what were you thinking!? What on earth possessed you?”
In another tweet, she described the advert as “massively offensive” and said the creators had “set up a scenario that implies a woman has possibly conned a man into fatherhood".
Many others have also taken to social media to complain that the advert is “degrading to women”, casts “Hannah as a woman who sleeps around”, and puts “childfree women down.”
As we often highlight during our crisis communication training, the backlash moved from social media to traditional media.
Here’s a selection of headlines:
Crown Paints advert triggers complaints of misogyny and sexism The Guardian
‘Sexist’ Crown Paints advert to be examined by regulator The Times
'Are we living in the 1970s?' Crown Paints faces 'sexism' backlash over advert about a couple expecting a baby with the father wondering if the child is his Daily Mail
That said, not everyone commenting on the story understands the outrage. LBC presenter Nick Ferrari discussed the story on his show and said: “Where do people find the time to get angry about a TV commercial?”
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has now received around 300 complaints about the advert. It has not launched an investigation at this stage but is “carefully considering” complaints.
But despite the row, the advert remains live, and you can easily find it on the Crown Paints social media channels.
And that raises the question of whether the company is enjoying the notoriety.
Controversy sells and increases brand awareness, doesn’t it?
The last time I heard of Crown Paints was when its name was emblazoned on the iconic Liverpool Football Club shirts of the 1980s.
Yet, this week, everyone has been talking about it.
It has been trending on social media, discussed on talk radio programmes and gained valuable column inches in newspapers.
Oscar Wilde once said: “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
Shock promotional or advertising campaigns can grab attention and make brands stand out.
But it is hugely risky and involves complicated calculations. For those you alienate, how many new customers are you going to attract?
Are those who have taken to social media saying people need a sense of humour or thicker skin about this advert more likely to buy a Crown Paints product next time they decorate?
Will those promising to boycott the brand follow through on that threat next time they are in a DIY store?
Or will price be the decisive factor?
You may remember back in 2015, there was a Protein World advert that appeared across London Underground stations featuring a woman in a bikini with the slogan “Are you beach body ready?”
There was a massive backlash, with accusations of body-shaming, a petition and a protest in Hyde Park.
From Protein World's 'Beach Body Ready' to VW - who made the biggest PR clangers of 2015? https://t.co/VfHZQukJmI pic.twitter.com/3TJU5AexVP
— PRWeek UK (@prweekuknews) December 14, 2015
Yet, Protein World claimed that the £250,000 advert resulted in 30,000 new customers and an extra £2m sales in one week.
So, while its reputation was taking a battering, the bean counters were working overtime.
But maybe that was just short-term gain. A few years later, the company moved away from the beach body image to a more inclusive campaign featuring people of all shapes and sizes.
History shows there have been companies that have deliberately courted controversy.
In the 1990s, FCUK sparked outrage with adverts that used the brand name as an unsubtle substitute for a swear word. The ads were banned by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Those of a certain age will also recall the controversial and hard-hitting United Colours of Benetton campaigns, featuring newborn babies with umbilical cords trailing from them and a victim of Aids in his dying moments.
Paddy Power, which employs a Head of Mischief, produced the most complained about advert of all time. The advert offered to refund losing bets to customers should paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius “walk” from charges of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. The Advertising Standards Authority received 5,525 complaints about the advert and concluded it brought advertising into “dispute”.
Paddy Power's Oscar Pistorius poster was the most complained about advert in 2014 http://t.co/05XfiYddZS pic.twitter.com/ozJl4JC83Q
— Independent Sport (@IndoSport) February 23, 2015
I asked Matt Wilson, from the Advertising Standards Authority, whether the media and social media coverage was sometimes worth companies seeking controversy.
“There will always be public and media interest attached to these cases,” he said.
“Whether a brand or advertiser gains any positive PR from having an ad banned by the ASA for causing offence is, and has to be, a moot point from our perspective.
“We’re responsible for upholding standards in UK advertising, not worrying about the reputation of the advertiser behind an ad or indeed their motivation for publishing it.”
He added: “We have never played a numbers game. Just one complaint can be enough for us to launch an investigation. Conversely, we may receive 1,000 complaints and decide that there isn’t a problem under our rules and no grounds for further action.
“It is also our experience that the vast majority of advertisers don’t set out to deliberately offend their audience. It would be counter-intuitive to do so.
“But, of course, matters of offence are highly subjective. What one person finds offensive another will not, what one person finds amusing another will find distasteful.”
Let’s get back to Crown Paints. It is worth looking at how the paint firm has handled the backlash.
On social media, the company has tried to respond to all those who have tagged it into complaints about the advert – a useful crisis communication move, as long as you stay away from the copy and paste approach, which makes brands sound robotic and uncaring.
Responding to one user, it said: “We’re sorry if you were upset by the remark in this advert - we were simply trying to tell the story of one of life’s most special moments in a lighthearted way.”
Thanks for your message. Our ads are intended to give a humorous account of our characters’ stories. We appreciate that people have differing tastes when it comes to humour and whilst the ad has been broadly well received, we apologise if the remark has caused offence to anyone.
— Crown Paints (@crownpaints) August 11, 2022
A statement from the company featured in the stories about the advert said: “The ads depict a range of characters at various stages in their lives, and (this) ad, in particular, tells the story of Hannah as a strong and empowered female character who is in a happy relationship with Dave and they are expecting a baby together.”
It added: “We appreciate that people have differing views and tastes in humour and, whilst the advert has been broadly well received, we apologise if any of the lyrics have caused offence to anyone - this was certainly not our intention.”
That’s a masterclass in how not to respond to a crisis communication incident.
If you think you’ve done something wrong, own it and tell us what you are doing about it.
If you don’t, stand by the campaign.
But don’t opt for this horrible middle ground of apologising “if” it caused offence.
When people tell you they found the lyric offensive, apologising “if any of the lyrics has caused offence” seems pretty meaningless and doesn’t suggest the concern is being taken seriously.
“If” is a word that must be avoided in apologies and crisis communication responses.
“If people felt upset”, “If I have upset people”, “if there are failings” - these phrases all detract from the believability of an apology.
I’ve mentioned previously in these blogs that You Gov has carried out some research on apologies.
60 per cent of those who took part in its study believe “I am sorry for any offence caused” to be a proper apology – even though we would argue it is a poor effort.
But if you tweak it slightly to say “If my words caused offence, I apologise”, then only 38 per cent felt it was a real apology.
For a two-letter word, that’s a big impact.
Equally, telling those offended that “people have differing views and tastes in humour”, seems a little, err, offensive - and not much of an attempt to understand alternative views.
Whether Crown Paints set out to be controversial is unclear. It feels misjudged rather than a cynical attempt to provoke a reaction.
But the lesson here is that businesses must consider all the potential outcomes of their promotional activity.
You may see it as a light-hearted take, but will others view it the same way?
You need to predict how people will respond and, if it is edgy or controversial, weigh up whether it is worth the hit.
Will it help you sell yellow paint for nurseries? Or will you be busy painting over the reputational cracks?
Media First are media and communications training specialists with more than 35 years of experience. We have a team of trainers, each with decades of experience working as journalists, presenters, communications coaches and media trainers.
Click here to find out more about our crisis communication training.
