Kellogg's Brand Reputation Takes A Hit After Dumping Phelps?
Supposedly, Kellogg's "brand reputation" is in the gutter after canning Phelps over the pot photo, slipping from #9 to #83 in a list of 5,600 companies. We'd believe it more if this "reputation index" chart from Vanno, a brand index company, didn't look like someone was given PowerPoint and 3 minutes and told to produce some convincing evidence for a press release.
I've never heard of Vanno before today, but apparently they've heard of us. At least two of their front page topics reference Consumerist posts—so I take back any snark about that graphic! They are awesome! Do you agree? YES or NO.
"Dumping Phelps Over Bong Rip Damages Kellogg's Brand Reputation" [Business Insider] [via Towleroad]
Post a comment
Comments:
I had a box of Mini-wheats in my hand, saw that they were made by Kellogg's, and put them back on the shelf. If they are going to make a big stink over something stupid, I can do the same.
yeah big fricken deal - he was photographed smoking weed. I would be willing to bet that 99% of the population has smoked weed before.
I still cant see why its not legal when prescription drugs are legal and most are extremely harmful and addictive. OH wait, i know. The country is run by corporations. Big business pays off government and in turn thier product is legal.
What a corrupt world we live in.
@private1111: They must not be paying enough. Cali is supposedly looking at legalizing pot across the board and just taxing the shit out of in an attempt to get them out of their current mess.
Apparently Vanno is some sort of Digg like thing which really means that this is data that only reflects those who choose to participate so it is basically meaningless.
Aside from children, the next two biggest cereal eaters are college students and potheads with munchies, with some overlap. What did Kelloggs expect after slapping such a major constituent in the face?
It serves them right. What Phelps does in his own time is his own business. OMG! A 20-something guy using a bong...shocking.
If they're smart they can spin this and Weedies will finally be a real cereal.. oh pleas oh please oh please!
this chart is a little bit terrible.
@Plates: Why?
Its not meaningless it still gives insight into what people (admittedly of a certain demographic) see as positive or negative.
This chart's ugliness is more than offset by the complete awesomeness that it represents.
@Plates: Totally agree with you there. I just looked at it, and it reeks of Digg. If it was using any type of real scientific method, I doubt that there would be any way for users to look up other members profiles and see their history/comments.
27.5 percent of all statistics are made up
@Plates: No I believe in looking at the information that I'm given and making logical inferences from it instead of jumping to conclusions that no one is trying to make.
What is meaningless about it? I don't understand. Its showing that these people didn't like the story. Thats all its claiming to be about. Its saying that the people that were given a yes or no option on a certain story voted negatively then they did vote positively. Thats it.
What is the dashed blue line part on the far left? The horizontal axis is apparantly time, but what scale? It kind of looks like all of 2008 takes up as much horizontal distance as Jan 2009 or Feb 2009. Yeah, this is a failure as a display of quantitative information.
This is useless data, Vanno is a lot like Digg - you go there and vote up or down if you want to take the time out of your day to do so.
What more than likely happened is some pro-pot forum or blog post directed people to vote Kellogg's down. I wouldn't give this chart too much credence.
I know I have never partaken of weed or any other illegal mind altering substance.
How much $ are you willing to back up your 99% claim?
When your only real method of support is based upon your image, that image probably shouldn't include you sucking on a bong.
Despite my, or anyone else's, personal feelings on the prohibition of pot, he's a dumbass.
I think that Colage has got it right.
This is a voting site. Some people voted against Kellogg for dumping Phelps. That doesn't mean that they don't like Kellogg. It means that they don't like what Kellogg did.
And who would do that? People who are in favor of legalizing pot, or at least de-shaming its use.
I don't know about you, but I buy cereal based on taste and/or price. I could care less who is peddling it. Well, maybe Hitler...
I thought the 'peanut butter events' were still ongoing - or at least continued into February. Also, were there 5 distinct Phelps events? Those triangles are confusing.
@private1111: Oh, come on. It's not like a corporation would have a hard time monetizing marijuana.
Pot is legal because - wait for it - it harms both the user and the community.
@Colage: That argument tends to break down when you really analyze it though. Alcohol does more (confirmed) harm to the body and the community than marijuana does, for example. Marijuana is not physically addictive like many other legal substances.
I'm not going to say it should or should not be illegal, but saying it's illegal because it is dangerous is too simple an answer for a really complex issue.
@Corporate-Shill: If I had to guess, it'd be more like 50%. The real world isn't a mirror of digg.com, where 99% of the site members probably have toked up at some point in time.
Whatever your stance on the legality of weed is, the point is that Phelps was a pretty big idiot here. When you have millions upon millions of dollars worth of sponsorships, it's not in your best interest to be photographed doing something that's currently illegal. Whatever you do in your own time is fine with me (though I know someone will spin this into an anti-weed post...), but if you're a public figure, don't get caught doing something illegal or you deserve what you get.
@Colage: So does alcohol and cigs, yet they remain legal, but regulated and heavily taxed. I think thats Private1111's point. Apply the same standards to these substances.
@private1111: Part of it is big business, but part is the fact that we're talking about very small quantities. Cigs are bad, but smoking a lot won't do anything but cough up blood and die early. Alcohol is liquid so the transportation issue allows it to be better monitored.
@Colage: And alcohol doesn't? The millions of deaths attributed to smoking each year isn't "harmful to both the user and the community"?
I'm not a big legalization proponent but the hypocrisy between an illegal drug like pot and a legal drug like tobacco and alcohol is pretty apparent to me.
@tande04: Yes, but its ability to represent the attitudes of the general society are seriously questioned.
For example if Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh put up a poll on their website that asked, "is Obama doing a good job?" you'll get a 75%+ negative response. Likewise if you put the same poll at the Daily Kos (75%+ positive). So, it only says something about tiny demographic that doesn't repreent the buying public in a statistically significant way.
@tande04: Yes, but it, like every poll, makes an inference that the entire populace agrees with the opinions of a few.
If you've ever read the front page of Digg, you'd know why it's meaningless. A group of people that spends all day digging up lolcats and the latest xkcd isn't exactly the best representation of the general population. All it tells you is that the people who already support something still support it.
Nice graphic... but I'd like to see the data behind it.... specifically, who they asked.
I can't imagine such a dive in this number so quickly.
@utensil42: Confirmed nothing. The real problem with any pot 'fact' is there have been so few studies done we cannot trust their results. We have decades of research on alcohol and only a few scattered reports on pot.
Between the people I know who drink everyday and those who smoke everyday, the potheads are MUCH more affected.
@vliam: Um...his method of support is based upon his winning a shitload of athletic trophies. He CLEARLY doesn't have the face for banking on his image, and wouldn't have the deals he has if not for his athletic ability. As it is, Subway did the right thing in not trying to be self-righteously outraged when they saw a 20-something kid who embodies self-discipline in all other aspects indulging at a private party.
@changed my name: Yeah, but be honest...if you really based it on price, you would be buying generics like the rest of the world. Kellogg's barely has an edge on taste, and certainly they lose the price battle.
Or it could mean that Kellog's reputation took a dive after being associated with someone who was caught smoking pot. If they hadn't cut ties with him, it could have been a lot worse.
(Just playing devil's advocate here to demonstrate that data can be massaged to say whatever you want it to.)
@xenth: There are many good studies, they just aren't done in or funded by the U.S. The answer, obviously, is more good research on marijuana and the effects it has on people and their communities.
I agree with you on the second point though. The people I know who smoke regularly are more *personally* affected than the people who drink regularly (and dumber, in general). But most DUIs and most violent crimes involving a substance are alcohol, not pot. The effect on the community is very different.
@Colage: Unless you happen to believe in things like freewill, informed consent, and personal responsibility.
It's actually 31.2%, but 27.5% is within the margin or error.
I generally base all of my purchase decisions (especially big ticket items like cars, boats or houses) based upon the personal habits of the actors or spokes people the company chooses.
I let quality, value, features, taste and nutrition get out of the equation eons ago.
Since the graph itself is incorrect, it's hard to get any valuable data out of it. The have "M. Phelps incidents" as a negative event, when it should be listed on the graph as a positive event. Dumping a loser pothead like Phelps is a *good* thing, and increases the reputation of the company.
@Colage:
And who are you to tell anyone what they can and can't do? It's my body. If I choose to smoke weed, it's my decision and my decision only and nobody else has a say in it.
@Colage:
Then let's ban them. Nobody seems to notice the utter ridiculousness of the way tobacco and alcohol are accepted and yet pot, a far less dangerous substance, is demonized. What about other narcotics? Why is Oxycontin legal? Why is Vicoden legal? Both are arguably far more addictive substances. And along those lines, why is Marinol legal? All it is is pot in pill form.
@Colage: That's not true, at least not any more true than it is for alcohol and tobacco. Informed consent and accepting the consequences of your own actions works for them, so why not marijuana?
It's illegal because the pharmaceutical companies don't want people growing their own pain medication; because the prison and satellite "inmate support" industries like having such a large inmate population to charge the taxpayers for; because DuPont didn't want their new nylon product to have to compete with hemp rope; because a senator stood in the floor of congress and told a bald faced lie about the AMA supporting the 1939 Marijuana Tax Act, which prompted the other senators to vote the act in.
Legalization, or at least decriminalization of marijuana would end up saving YOU a lot of money and would lead to more jobs in the United States. (growing, processing, packaging) and a stronger less deficit-y budget (taxing.)
I don't smoke it or use it and I very much want it legalised, or at least decriminalized.
@xenth: And here is something for you to consider - there are a great deal of educated and motivated citizens who indulge recreationally. Odds are very good you know some, and that you would never suspect.
@utensil42: Informed consent is what you need to give when someone is going to perform a medical procedure on you. I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Free will and personal responsibility? Fine. I'm not going to stop you. But this has nothing to do with the law. You need to weigh for yourself whether getting high is worth the downsides (both legally and medically).
So, I'm glad we're in agreement.
As for @Alberto Fernandez: Get over yourself. I didn't say you couldn't.
@private1111: regardless, he's a public figure - a hero to our youth - & it's his responsibility to uphold his reputation.
i'm no saint (& no hero), but you'd be hard-pressed to find a picture of me with anything but a smile on my lips. why? b/c somewhere along the way i learned that shit like that came come back to haunt you someday.
remember kids, before billy von bong comes out to play, the cameras must all be put away.
Sooooooooo...let me get this straight. There was less bad press from the peanut butter o'death than a pot smoking swimmer?
The graphics would look a lot better with the little skiing dude from the stock market article...