How M&M’s “unintentionally” got into social controversy and now can win from it

In the past year, M&M’s has been the target of tirades on Fox News and criticism from a small segment of fans – first for changing the shoes of the green M&M’s mascot and, more recently, for featuring female M&M’s characters on its packaging for Valentine’s Day. Women’s International.

Then, this week, it announced a change: After the flood of attention, its characters are taking an “indefinite break,” handing over responsibilities as spokesperson for the brand to actress and comedian Maya Rudolph.

Given the hype, some feel that M&M’s ad is a public relations ploy to promote their upcoming Super Bowl commercial. But experts note that not all publicity is good. And M&M’s may just be trying to regain control of a narrative that’s gotten out of hand.

“I think M&M’s stumbled into a more political debate than they expected,” said Tim Calkins, professor of marketing at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

M&M’s relatively subtle shifts toward inclusivity didn’t seem designed to generate much, if any, controversy. But that’s not how things turned out.

“Either you back off or… get into a fight”

M&M’s revealed the first changes to its characters in January 2022, such as swapping the green character’s high boots for sneakers and swapping other characters’ shoes in what the company called an effort to make the characters more relevant and inclusive.

Its message was similar in September by adding the purple mascot, a new female character. So, earlier this month, the company celebrated Women’s Day by turning the Ms in its logo upside down to look like Ws. [por conta da palavra “mulher” em inglês, que é “woman”] – a typographic trick that McDonald’s used five years ago.

Fox News mockingly considered that the brand “woke up” after it altered the characters’ shoes. Tucker Carlson complained about the new and, from his perspective, less “sexy” look of the sweet characters.

“M&M’s won’t be satisfied until every cartoon character is deeply unpleasant,” said Carlson.

In the Washington Post, an op-ed declared that “the changes at M&M’s are not progressive. Give the boots back to the Green.” And, after the introduction of Purple and the Women’s Day package, Fox News once again took aim at the brand.

“What M&M’s has tried to do over the past few years is be very inclusive and make sure these characters are represented in a positive light,” said Calkins, a professor at Northwestern. “They were quite deliberate in their efforts to do this.”

What they didn’t want was to end up being the target of right-wing commentators. “I don’t think they desperately wanted to make themselves a target for Fox News,” Calkins said. “There are only two ways you can really play here. Either you have to step away from the characters, or you have to step up and really get into a fight.”

This week’s announcement suggests that M&M’s has decided to go for the former. But it’s doing it with a nod to controversy, a strategy that could end up working in its favor.

If, of course, the brand succeeds.

“Even a sweetie’s shoes can be polarizing”

When M&M’s announced its partnership with Maya Rudolph, it alluded to the reaction to Verde’s shoes.

“Over the past year, we’ve made some changes to our beloved mouthpieces,” said M&M’s. “We weren’t sure if anyone would notice. And we definitely don’t think it would break the internet. But now we get it – even a sweetie’s shoes can be polarizing.

To say that the reaction to Verde’s shoes broke the internet might be an exaggeration, to the benefit of M&M’s. But the statement itself sparked more backlash online, with other brands like A&W piggybacking on attention.

And it’s hard to measure any impact on sales from character changes or the reaction to them. The brand has seen a “record amount of interest and conversions about our spokespersons,” according to a spokesperson. But owner Mars, which is privately owned, does not release sales figures.

Rudolph will star in an upcoming ad during the game, but the company announced the commercial in December ahead of the latest round of criticism, adding that the partnership wasn’t just a knee-jerk move.

The Rudolph deal has been “in the works for some time,” Gabrielle Wesley, director of marketing for Mars Wrigley North America, said in a statement this week. “Let me say conclusively that this decision is not a reaction, but rather an endorsement of our M&M’s brand,” said Wesley.

As for the spokespeople – they may be on the bench for now, but they’re not going anywhere.

“The original colorful cast of M&M’s spokespeople are currently pursuing other personal passions,” said Wesley. Fans will learn more about her situation in the coming weeks, according to the brand.

A tweet from Snickers, also owned by Mars, suggests they could be used in the candy bar campaign.

Taking spokespeople out of the spotlight wouldn’t be unusual for M&M’s, however. The characters have been around since the 1950s, but over the years M&M’s has more or less relied on them in promotions.

But there is a risk of backtracking, noted Geraldo Matos, an associate professor of marketing at Roger Williams University. Customers may wonder if M&M’s has turned its back on its original plan to use inclusivity ideas to market its product. “They may have put themselves right in the middle of upsetting both parties.”

Giving characters a break sounds like a good strategy for Lauren Labrecque, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Rhode Island.

“I think they’re going to bring back the characters and probably within a year, if not less,” she predicted. “And when they come back, people – especially M&M fans – will have forgotten what the controversy was and will be very receptive.”

Also, she added, this is a low-risk situation. “It’s not a serious outrage,” she said. On the spectrum of brand controversies, “this is so inconsequential.” For all these reasons, “it will be a positive balance”.