Grillin’ the Patriarchy: How Burger King Solved Misogyny With Fried Chicken

Over the last several years, we’ve seen controversy serve as one of the most popular and effective marketing tools. Advertisers are more willing than ever to think beyond the status quo in order to generate buzz around their brands, but many fail to consider all of the potential repercussions and the backlash that can ensue. Burger King’s recent Chick Tax campaign is a perfect example. This isn’t the first time that Burger King set out to confuse their consumers all in the name of entertaining yet thought-provoking creative, but this effort paled in comparison to the company’s Whopper Neutrality campaign, which accumulated a staggering 2.8 million views in just 48 hours. That video has accumulated nearly 5 million views since January, while the Chick Tax ad is stuck on a paltry 147K views over a month after its release.
In coordination with DAVID the Agency, BK created a social experiment where their “fan favorite” chicken fries were $1.69 for men, but $3.09 for women because “girls like pink sh*t.” The stunt was created to draw attention to the pink tax and the fact that 42% of the time women are expected to pay more for the “female version” of a product, despite earning only 79% of what men do.

Burger King is not a millennial favorite (even among fast food chains), but this campaign feels like them forcing themselves on the demographic, trying to appeal to the millennial desire to spend money at companies with social consciousness — even though there’s no real connection between the pink tax and their business. But that may be the point. Like chick(en) fries, there’s no reason that razors, scooters, and adult diapers should cost more for women and girls, and this video does call attention to the ridiculousness of the problem. Their action is likely appreciated by the customers they’re trying to court, but two questions arise:
- Does it feel authentic? This doesn’t feel in line with Burger King’s business or its products. It also bears mentioning that Burger King doesn’t have any women on its board and shareholders rejected adding any. Change starts with you, kids.
- Does it actually make people want to go to Burger King and order the chicken fries? We’re not sold, especially if those were real customers (temporarily) duped in the ad. No one needs that kind of stress when they’re feeling hangry.
The campaign is a clear extension of Burger King’s history of fusing fast food with a good-humored take on social issues in order to bring attention to well-deserving causes. In the past, Burger King has spotlighted bullying, marriage equality, and net neutrality with similar campaigns. More often, consumers are expecting their favorite brands to take a stance on relevant topics and by doing so Burger King is able to capitalize on this trend while generating buzz and positioning themselves as an increasingly attractive option in the increasingly crowded fast food market. According to Sprout Social, around two-thirds of consumers want to know the social and political stances of brands. Other companies like Patagonia and Ben and Jerry’s have run similar smartly crafted, opinionated campaigns for certain issues with great success.

Burger King did a fantastic job of creating thought-provoking, cheeky branded content, but one must ask at what expense? Consumers seemed to be largely turned off by the campaign…if they weren’t confused altogether. The comment sections of the videos are filled with angry and baffled customers venting their frustrations. BK hit it out of the park with their “Whopper Neutrality” campaign, but their pink tax effort seems more akin to the Bic pen fiasco. The engagement numbers and comments on the video’s YouTube page speak for themselves. The sentiment towards their ad is negative and many fans feel as if Burger King should not go out of its way to align themselves with SJW/feminist movements when they are a fast food chain. Others were offended by the fact that the video showed BK employees assuming the gender of various customers. Many people commented that they were ditching the brand in favor of alternatives like Wendy’s and McDonald’s so it’s hard to imagine that this ad resulted in an uptick in chicken fries sales.

Lesson to Burger King: Inciting anger and frustration with consumers is bad. Marketing managers must learn that controversy does not always equate to increased sales. While it’s admirable that Burger King is encouraging women to recognize and question the fairness of the pink tax, the campaign came across as another attempt at co-opting the feminist movement for monetary gain.
When the two campaigns are juxtaposed, the company put a greater emphasis on educating consumers on the issues surrounding the repeal of Net Neutrality. Not only is the accompanying video description in more depth, but the video style is more informative. If BK was serious about shedding light on the issue of gender inequality, they would have been wise to repurpose their Chick Tax ad for additional creative assets distributed across other platforms. The video was only posted once on Twitter and doesn’t even appear on the company’s Instagram page.
The Chick Tax campaign comes off as a little undercooked (Sorry, we couldn’t resist the pun). If given the opportunity to further extend this campaign, we would be sure to leverage the shocking nature of the first few seconds of the creative, repurposing the video content into quick six-second ads on Instagram Stories, YouTube, and Snapchat to ensure that viewers are engaged while watching the ad and likely to investigate the campaign further. Simply posting the video once on a few platforms feels insufficient. If you’re going to intentionally dupe customers, there has to be a larger plan in place. Burger King passed on the opportunity to drive consumers to a landing page that both educated them on an important issue while positively engaging consumers with the Burger King brand once they realized the company’s actual stance on the issue was the opposite of what they were led to believe through the ads. In addition, this campaign could have been a perfect opportunity for Burger King to experiment with IGTV, as the rules have not been laid out yet for the new platform.

While we commend Burger King for attempting to raise awareness around the issue of gender inequality, we were disappointed by the lack of scope of this campaign. No, women shouldn’t have to pay more than their male counterparts for similar products. Yes, we’re in favor of equal pay for all sexes, but we’re still adamant in our belief that controversy does more harm than good for brands. Sure, BK was able to generate some traction on social media around the campaign, but nothing about the Chick Tax ad evoked a craving for chicken fries. As brands continue to reshape their marketing strategies to align with millennial consumption habits, they must be careful not to stray from the company’s core competency. If there’s an opportunity to take a thoughtful, well-informed position on an issue, then a company should take a stance if they’re comfortable doing so, but they should never hijack social issues at the expense of their brand health.
To learn more about what interests and inspires our team, visit WhisperMob.com
