Mingchi Choo's Blog

“I would never do an advert with a homosexual family. […] if the gays don’t like it, they can go and eat another brand,” declared Guido Barilla, CEO of the world’s largest pasta maker.

So, they did — and weren’t alone.

After the above statement was made on an Italian radio channel, there was a global outcry calling for a boycott of Barilla. Other pasta makers joined the protest as well, taking advantage of the incident being in the public eye to position themselves on the opposite side of the spectrum from Barilla.

“For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the fundamental values of the company,” Barilla had said, followed by: “I have no respect for adoption by gay families.”

Is it more important for a company to stay true to its own values, offensive as they are in the eyes of many groups, or should they focus on gaining the approval of the general public? It’s an interesting question to consider when thinking about how a brand is trying to position itself. Although Barilla was targeting the ‘traditional Italian family,’ they completely alienated other groups in the process.

Barilla released a public apology afterward, but it was too late. Immense damage had been done to their brand, and the obvious contradiction in their statement became the new center of attention: “I apologize very much […] I have the deepest respect for all the people.”

Narrowing your focus is fine, but when disrespectful words that come across as a personal attack on certain groups come into play, Barilla should have realized they had crossed the line on their own — not after public backlash forced them to retract their statement.

Apparently, money and public approval had more value than “the fundamental values of the company.”

Related Links:

International Business Times: Barilla Pasta Homophobic Rant

Slate: Why the Barilla Boycott Matters to Italian LGBT People

BuzzFeed: The Internet Responds To Barilla Pasta Chairman’s Anti-Gay Remarks

Apparently, technology has progressed to the point where it’s no longer necessary to physically go out and meet girls if you’re in search of a hookup. Tinder is a dating app that works on the simple basis of see and swipe. After giving the app permission to sign in with your Facebook ID, which hopefully includes your gender, age, photos, and sexual orientation, it then presents you with a picture of someone you’re sexually compatible with. If you like them, swipe right. If not, swipe left. It’s that easy. Once the app successfully matches you with one of the ‘yes’ candidates who also swiped right for you, you’re given the opportunity to start a private conversation. What happens next is up to you.

Possibly following in the footsteps of Facebook’s success, Tinder first launched its marketing campaign at various colleges. The main difference, however, was specifically which colleges they chose. Rather than aiming for its entire target market at once, they chose to focus on the portion that would act as satellites and would continue spreading the app on their own once they had been exposed to it. That’s what I believe was the most ingenious part of their plan. They targeted schools known for their reputation as ‘party schools,’ such as the University of Southern California, and narrowed it down even further from there, approaching those they considered to be “the highly social kinds on campus, the people that were looked up to in their peer groups.” Within a couple months even the CEO of Match.com was questioning just how they had managed such extraordinary growth, purely through word-of-mouth.

One year after its launch, Tinder makes two million matches a day on average. In August 2013, 3 billion swipes took place.

Related Links:

BloombergBusinessweek: Dating App Tinder Catches Fire

Tinder’s Homepage