How Should Mars, Inc. Respond to This Derivative Brand Challenge
3/8/24 – – In last night’s State of the Union Address, President Biden shared his positions on such hot-button election-year issues as the military conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, immigration reform, reproductive rights, the economy, and Snickers.
That’s right, Snickers.
How did the popular candy bar get into the address? And what should Snickers’ parent company Mars, Inc. do about it? Let’s start by reviewing the relevant section of the speech:
Too many corporations raise their prices to pad their profits charging you more and more for less and less. That’s why we’re cracking down on corporations that engage in price gouging or deceptive pricing from food to health care to housing. In fact, snack companies think you won’t notice when they charge you just as much for the same size bag but with fewer chips in it.
You probably all saw that commercial on Snickers bars. You get charged the same amount but you get about 10% fewer Snickers in it.
Pass Senator Bob Casey’s bill to put a stop to shrinkflation!
You can imagine the discussions taking place today at Mars headquarters in McLean, Virginia. The President of the United State criticized one of the company’s most iconic products in front of a primetime audience in the tens of millions, presenting Snickers as Exhibit A in his war against the scourge of shrinkflation.
WHY SNICKERS WAS SINGLED OUT
Mars’ executives may be wondering what President Biden was referring to when he said, “You probably saw that commercial on Snickers.” I can’t find any such commercial, but I think what he meant to say was, “You probably saw that article on Snickers.” A January 18 New York Times opinion piece by Paul Donovan, chief economist of UBS Global Wealth Management, headlined “Why Are Voters So Upset? Consider the Snickers Bar,” thrust Snickers into the spotlight and the Biden administration’s crosshairs:
Why aren’t voters recognizing the decline in the inflation rate? Because voters are humans, and humans don’t think about inflation rationally. To understand why, let’s look at a Snickers bar.
Donovan argued that under Biden, prices of large-ticket items like televisions have come down, but not the prices of less expensive items like food (including Snickers) and gasoline we buy more frequently. That’s bad news for the White House:
The different inflation rates for infrequent and frequent purchases is a big part of why consumers mistakenly believe inflation is higher than it actually is.
Those damn Snickers! They’re confusing consumers and hurting our approval ratings.
So, what should Mars do?
So far, the company has made no public statement. That’s probably the best response, and here’s why:
PICK YOUR BATTLES
The wise advice to “pick your battles” is especially germane when it comes to effective crisis management and communication. No matter who is in office, the President of the United States is the most powerful, influential person on Earth. It’s almost always better not to swing back at the leader of the free world (and the person who appoints the head of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Affairs) when attacked.
ASSESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRITICISM
While being spotlighted in the negative context of shrinkflation is not a good thing for the Snickers brand, the criticism is not as potentially damaging as a charge of contamination or nutritional/health risk. Such a more serious assertion by the President of the United States would demand a robust response.
Joe Biden adlibbed the Snickers remark, which got a laugh and came off as a bit garbled and silly in comparison to the other issues discussed in the speech.
WEIGH THE STRENGTH OF YOUR DEFENSE
Does Mars’ have grounds to challenge the fairness of President Biden’s decision to single Snickers out? Sure. It could be argued that the primary reason for having to shrink the product, while holding the price steady, is inflation. The cost of every ingredient in a Snickers bar, as well as manufacturing, packaging and shipping has increased since Joe Biden took office. Who is more responsible for inflation, Mars or the President?
When in 2022 Mars announced its plans to reduce the size of its Snickers bars — yes, they were transparent about it — a company spokesperson explained that the decision was made in response to “unprecedented cost pressures,” adding, “While we continue to absorb cost increases, changes to product weight is sometimes necessary to ensure we can continue to supply our much loved chocolate bars to consumers.”
MEASURE THE RISKS
But as legitimate and tempting as the “inflation made us do it” argument may be, advancing it in response to last night’s speech would require Mars to jump into the briar patch of politics in one of the most contentious election years we’ve ever experienced. As I’ve warned repeatedly in this blog, the American public is divided pretty evenly between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. The political environment is toxic, with no middle ground. Appear to be picking a side and you’re certain to turn off half the country and your customers.
Mars, with annual international sales of close to $50 billion, is one of the five largest privately held U.S. companies. Its snack and gum products, in addition to Snickers, include M&Ms, Dove, Milky Way, Life Savers, 3 Musketeers, Juicy Fruit, Twix, Skittles and more. They are a big target. Picking a fight with the President would risk a boycott against all these products.
SHORTEN THE NEWS CYCLES
Right now, I’m seeing very little discussion of the Snickers mention on social media. Any response by Mars would kick off a new and unpredictable news cycle.
WHAT WILL MARS DO?
I think Mars will stay silent. They won’t take the bait.
As we discuss in The Crisis Preparedness Quotient, Mars is not new to a predicament I call a “derivative brand challenge.” That’s when a company or brand gets pulled into a highly visible predicament they were not expecting and had very little or nothing to do with.
In February 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American on his way home from buying a bag of Skittles, was shot and killed by neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman. The tragic encounter in Sanford, Florida, dominated the news and heightened racial tension across the nation. In the ensuing emotional public debate over villains and victims, the bag of Skittles became a symbol of Trayvon’s youth and innocence. “Justice for Trayvon” T-shirts depicting a colorful bag of Skittles were worn by demonstrators calling for the prosecution of Zimmerman.
Here’s Mar’s only public statement:
We are deeply saddened by the news of Trayvon Martin’s death and express our sincere condolences to his family and friends. We also respect their privacy and feel it inappropriate to get involved or comment further as we would never wish for our actions to be perceived as an attempt of commercial gain following this tragedy.
If they had protested the unauthorized use of their brand by Trayvon’s supporters, the blowback, including a likely boycott of the product, would have been severe. If they had embraced the brand’s involvement, they would have thrown themselves inappropriately into a highly emotional, contentious debate.
Mars played it just right in 2012, and I think they will again in 2024.
***
UPDATE: 3/11/24 – – The New York Post reported today that Mars released the following statement to CNN contributor Scott Jennings:
“We have not reduced the size of Snickers singles or share size in the US. Like many industries, we continue to face high inflation and spikes in material costs; however, we work to absorb these extra costs wherever possible to provide affordable treats and the best value. Final prices are always at the discretion of the retailer, but we make every effort to minimize costs to provide a full range of delicious products.”
Crisis Quotient Blog 