Chick-Fil-A “Eat Mor Chikin” Campaign

The “Eat Mor Chikin” advertisement campaign by Chick Fil A is an example of a long running successful ad campaign.  According to Chick Fil A’s website the campaign began in 1995.  The campaign is striking because the slogan is misspelled and shows cows doing things no cow would ordinarily do.  Because of the success of the campeat-more-chickenaign the company has decided to use the cows indefinitely.

It is difficult to find a blog about Chick-Fil-A that doesn’t focus on the owner’s views about gay marriage. He believes in the biblical definition and has received much public criticism for his belief.

No sources blogs or websites disagree that the ad campaign has been wildly successful.  PETA however has asked that the company to add a faux chicken option because it is healthier which may be considered a critique of the ad campaign in that it gets away from the message.  The full article is here http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2014/04/peta-asks-chick-fil-a-to-servefaux-chicken.html

The success of the campaign lies in its creativity as well as its expansiveness.  The campaign employs the use of outdoor advertising, social media, and interactive advertising.  Sometimes the advertisements will end without answering a question and at the end the announcer will say, visit our website to find out what happened to stimulate further association with the brand.

Also the campaign is ingenious because it is social marketing, the campaign doesn’t sell something physical, it sells an idea.  As Pavlik and McIntosh note, the company is selling a lifestyle and an idea, not a product (262).

Another reason the campaign is so successful is because the campaign acts like a public service announcement for cows.  Because the cows have been anthropomorphized the audience is encouraged to view them as relatable and more sacred and thus to “agree with the persuader’s point in an apparently natural or commonsense way (McIntosh 254).”  This point is that cows don’t want to be eaten, therefore don’t eat them.  One might call this type of persuasion rhetoric because the audience members are being swayed to an opinion that changes their actions.

One criticism of the campaign is that if cows don’t want to be eaten, why should  chickens feel differently?  They probably have the same desire.  Unless the entire goal of the advertisement is to trivialize the slaughter of animals in general.  Because of the laudable nature of the signs the cows hold, the true goal of the ad campaign could be to make consumers think they are better than animals and therefore consuming them is ethically sound.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *