After reading the case "Happy Brands and Ethical Implications" by Gringarten & Fernndez-Calienes, pages 125-142, wr ite a case study using the Case Analysis Ou tline Attached below.

CASE ANALYSES (3 pages maximum): Students are to use the Case Analysis Outline - suggested format - in the syllabus (see below) to review each assigned case. I. Case Analysis Outline - Suggested Format (a) Overview of major issues - describe the challenges/problems/issues outlined in the case. This section should be clear and succinct. You can make use of bullet points to describe the issues. (b) Applications of key themes - elaborate what you have learned from the assigned case by directly relating/connecting the case to concepts and themes described in the different chapters. (c) Analysis Situational Analysis External Environmental Analysis (Outside of the organization) Economic, Social, Political, Technological opportunities and challenges Internal Environmental Analysis (Specific to the organization) Organization's internal strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and external threats Describe the firm's product, pricing, distribution/place, and promotion strategy (if applicable) Market Analysis Description of the target market including primary customers/target market In analysis, you can also put down your own thoughts and opinions about the issues/challenges described in the case. You can bring in outside information (such as the latest news, articles, references to any calculations, charts, diagrams or graphs*). If applicable, you can also answer any questions at the end of each case. These questions can also be used as a guide to develop the other sections of your case summary/write- up. (d) Recommendations Development and Evaluation of Strategic Alternatives, Recommendation of the better Alternative, Implementation Techniques for Recommended Alternative (How, when, where, why). Please note: If any of the above outline points are not applicable to your case, you can skip those points in your case write-up.

Happy Brands and Ethical Implications

Wonkyong Beth Lee and Timothy Dewhirst

Introduction

The attribution of human qualities to brands, through means such as personification or anthropomorphism, has become commonplace (Aaker, 1997). Much like people, brands may link to qualities such as success, sophistication, ruggedness, and happiness. Indeed, several brands have integrated happiness into their positioning or differentiation strategies, for example, McDonald's "Happy Meal," Coca-Cola's "Open Happiness," and Disney's "The Happiest Place on Earth." Accounting for consumers' insatiable desire for happiness, marketing communication linking brands with happiness has become ubiquitous. It is easy to see why marketers commonly associate brands with happiness. Happiness is a desirable attribute and marketers seek to provide consumers with satisfying and pleasurable experiences. If brands can facilitate customers feeling "happy," "joyful," or "affectionate," consumers are likely to express stronger attitudinal (commitment) and behavioral (purchase) loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Satisfied consumers are commonly happy consumers who generate significant revenues for companies through consumer retention (Paliwal & Indu, 2013).

Brands integrate happiness into their branding strategies by seemingly cultivating happiness among consumers (Isen, Labroo, & Durlach, 2004; Mogilner & Aaker, 2009). While happiness often equals joy, pleasure, and satisfying experiences, brands associated with happiness also may suggest enhancements to consumer well-being and welfare. Nevertheless, happiness appears particularly applicable to hedonic rather than utilitarian consumption, and products pertaining to hedonic consumption may not ultimately be beneficial or healthy to consumers. In this chapter, we explore such dilemmas relating to "happy" branding strategies and provide case examples, including those pertaining to the marketing of McDonald's "Happy Meal" and Newport cigarettes, which has the longstanding tagline "Alive with Pleasure!" "Happy" branding strategies raise a number of ethical concerns, especially those meant to appeal to children as a target market or those pertaining to addictive and harmful behavior. There are several key ethical considerations concerning marketing communication that associates brands with happiness. With the advertising of "happy brands," emphasis is often on short-term gratification (i.e., immediate pleasure from consumption) and overlooks the consequences of repeated and persistent consumption (e.g., highly processed food, alcohol, and smoking). The association of happiness with brands is commonly for products that are not healthful, yet are appealing to youth and children. More generally, advertising regularly infers that happiness comes from consumption and the acquisition of goods, which is especially problematic if children develop such attitudes and beliefs at early ages. Accordingly, marketers and other stakeholders, including policy-makers, need to consider the minimum age that may be appropriate for targeting purposes.

What is Happiness?

Philosophers have a longstanding interest in happiness. In particular, the hedonist philosophy of Aristippus of Cyrene theorized that happiness was the sum of material pleasures, and the meaning of life was the maximization of delight (Fromm, 1976; Layard, 2005). This hedonistic perspective of happiness was particularly influential in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and continues in contemporary consumer culture with the belief of "having more" is "being more" (Fromm, 1976). According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2009), happiness is "a state of well-being and contentment; a pleasurable or satisfying experience" (n.p.). Despite considerable attention among psychologists and consumer researchers, happiness is problematic to observe and a difficult construct to define (Mogilner, Aaker, & Kamvar, 2012; Robbins, Francis, & Edwards, 2010). Psychologists commonly define happiness as a human personality trait (i.e., something that is comparable, measurable, and predictable across contexts) (Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Eysenck, 1983; Gilbert, 2006; Layard, 2005). For example, happiness is stable extraversion and the ability to have pleasant interactions and easy sociability (Eysenck, 1983). A necessary component of defining happiness is the presence of good social relationships (Diener & Seligman, 2002). Data support that happiness accompanies stable extraversion (Robbins et al., 2010). Various individuals experience happiness as a trait in the same way (Layard, 2005; Myers & Diener, 1995).

Other psychologists use subjective well-being as a construct to describe happiness (Diener et al., 1999), which reflects happiness as a non-physical state that we cannot measure objectively. Subjective well-being is "the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of his/her own life-as-a-whole favorably" (Veenhoven, 2001, p. 4). Myers and Diener (1995) discovered that frequent positive affect, infrequent negative affect, and a global sense of satisfaction with life equates with high subjective well-being. Regarding subjective well-being, Gilbert (2006) describes that happiness means distinct things to different individuals, and given everyone has unique lives, we should create a unique view of happiness. For example, happiness is a feeling of excitement to some people, yet a feeling of calmness to others (Mogilner et al., 2012). Happiness is not set, and it systematically changes over an individual's life span (Mogilner, Kamvar, & Aaker, 2011). Although not everyone defines happiness in the same way, some similarities within a given culture or age group exist. To illustrate, younger people tend to find greater happiness in extraordinary experiences, whereas older people usually find greater happiness in ordinary events (Mogilner & Norton, 2015).

What Makes People Happy?

This longstanding question has attracted the attention of many researchers. In particular, psychologists have identified several predictors of happiness: extraversion, assertiveness, cooperativeness, high self-esteem, the ability to savor positive events, satisfying and close relationships, and an engagement in leisure activities (Argyle & Lu, 1990a, 1990b; Bryant, 1989, 2003; Bryant, Smart, & King, 2005; Layard, 2005; Lu & Argyle, 1991, 1992, 1994; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2007). What about the role of money? Does money buy happiness? In a seminal paper from 1974 by economist, Richard Easterlin, he observed that wealth increases, in several countries in the years after World War II, did not associate with increases in average happiness. This observation became Esterlin's paradox (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008). Although income may increase in a given country, disparity is likely to persist - there are still many people who become richer and poorer - and relative income, on balance, likely remains the same (Argyle, 1999; Diener, Lucas, & Napa Scollon, 2006; Easterlin, 1995; Frey & Stutzer, 2002). Nevertheless, other scholars have started critiquing and reassessing the Easterlin paradox. Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) have shown a positive relation between income and happiness with more comprehensive data: the richer in a given country are more satisfied with their lives than the poorer, and this pattern is consistent in most countries around the world. Based on a United Nations-sponsored report, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, and Finland are the "happiest" countries in the world (Rahim, 2017). Interestingly, Scandinavian countries, which generally have wealth, but high taxes and lessened economic and social disparity among citizens, are typically the happiest (whereas the United States, despite its considerable wealth, ranked fourteenth in 2016).

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has raised an interesting argument regarding the money and happiness relation. Kahneman and Deaton (2010) found that possessing a higher income increases a person's life evaluation. More specifically, earning beyond $75,000 in the USA does not enhance experienced happiness, but it continues to raise an individual's life satisfaction. Some researchers argue that where or how we spend money is more important to happiness than how much money someone earns. Prosocial spending on friends, family, or those who are close to you relates to happiness; the more people give to others, the happier they are likely to become (Mogilner & Norton, 2015). Committed time also affects happiness: Spending time with significant others and socializing relates to a higher level of happiness in contrast to commuting and working, which result in lower levels of happiness (Mogilner, 2010). Expanding on this idea of time versus happiness, Mogilner and Norton (2015) conducted a study to see the ways in which people should use their time and money to enact maximum happiness, and results showed that happiness is less contingent on the amount of time and money at hand and more so dependent on how individuals choose to spend them.

Much of the reviewed literature pertaining to happiness focuses on individual differences, but the possibility of public policy interventions to account for shared social problems suggests a need to consider the subject on a more collective level. According to philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, "The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation" (cited in Fitzhenry, 1993, p. 192).

Happiness in Consumption Contexts

Although consumers may aim to increase their happiness levels through consumption, research has shown increases in consumption do not necessarily increase happiness (Belk, 1985; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Easterlin, 1995; Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996; Richins, 1994; Richins & Dawson, 1992). For example, those more agreeable with statements such as "Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions" and "Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure," tend to be less satisfied with life (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Moreover, materialism links positively to different psychological problems such as depression, paranoia, and narcissism (Kasser & Ryan, 1993).

According to Van Boven and Gilovich (2003), there are two types of consumption and their relations with happiness: (1) experiential purchases that people make with the primary intention of acquiring a life experience such as travel, attending a concert, and going out to a restaurant; and (2) material purchases that people make with the primary intention of acquiring a material possession such as a laptop, car, and clothing. Research has shown that experiential purchases, compared to material purchases, make people happier (Carter & Gilovich, 2010, 2012; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003). There are several possible reasons for why experiential purchases make people happier and are more gratifying than material purchases. First, experiential purchases boost social relations more easily and effectively than material goods. Positive, meaningful social relationships contribute to people's happiness (Diener & Seligman, 2002, 2004; Myers, 2000). We tend to engage in experiential purchases with others: We typically go on vacation with family and go to concerts with friends. We may potentially enjoy material purchases with others, but we often do so by ourselves (Gilovich, Kumar, & Jampol, 2014). Consequently, experiential purchases that more deeply connect us to others tend to contribute more happiness to people compared to material purchases. Second, experiential purchases, compared to material purchases, relate more closely to the self (Carter & Gilovich, 2012; Gilovich et al., 2014). For example, when people describe a purchase experientially, rather than materially, they are likely to think that the qualities of the purchase overlap with their lives and identities (Carter & Gilovich, 2012). Third, experiential purchases evoke fewer social comparisons than material purchases and consequently make people more satisfied with their purchases. While we try keeping up with the Joneses, comparing what we have to what others have, we may experience less satisfaction and happiness (Frank, 1999; Schwarz & Strack, 1999; Suls, 2003). However, because we cannot easily compare our own experience purchases with those from others - relative to material goods - we may engage less in social comparisons (Carter & Gilovich, 2010; Van Boven, 2005).

Brands and Happiness

Despite consumers obtaining more satisfaction from experiential purchases than material purchases (Gilovich et al., 2015), brands still attract consumers and are ultimately a definitive expression of materialism (Holt, 1995; Kozinets & Handelman, 2004; Schmitt et al., 2014). A brand's traditional functions include an identification role that helps consumers link a name or image to the product (Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998), being an object of desire (Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2003), and serving as friends, partners, and other relationship roles (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998; Fournier & Alvarez, 2012). An additional emerging function of brands is to provide consumer experiences. Schmitt (1999) proposes an integration of the numerous ways in which consumers may experience brands. Brand experiences are consumers' subjective responses (sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behaviors) when consumers search for, shop for, and consume brands. When consumers have stronger and more intense experiences with a brand, consumers' satisfactions are higher. Brand experiences can influence consumers' satisfaction and loyalty directly and indirectly (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009).

Although consumers find more happiness from experiential purchases than material purchases, brands - the epitome of materialism - may play an important role in a consumer's well-being. Schmitt et al. (2014) argue that brands can create and evoke experiences among consumers. For example, consumers experience strong and meaningful relationships with brands and become emotionally attached to them as they do with their significant others (Fournier, 1998; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005). When a brand transgresses a consumer, however, the broken relationship can take a toll on the brand (Thomson et al., 2012) as well as consumers (Thomson, Whelan, & Johnson, 2012). Such illustrations indicate that consumers can experience through brands. In addition, when consumers have strong and favorable brand experiences, brands can influence consumers' well-being and can make consumers happy (Bettingen & Luedicke, 2009; Schmitt, 2014). For the most part, the aforementioned functions of brands are positive for consumer well-being, but brands also have been central to criticism and moral questions (Handelman, 1999; Holt, 2002; Klein, 1999; Kozinets & Handelman, 2004). Such studies point to branding as potentially promoting over-consumption and resulting in the damage of human and environmental resources as well as a diminished quality of human relationships and overall well-being (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). In particular, we now move our attention to ethical issues surrounding "happiness" brands when vulnerable consumers serve as target markets (i.e., children) and hedonic consumption that relates to addictive and harmful behavior (i.e., cigarette smoking)

Cases of Happy Branding

Happy and Fun in Food Marketing Targeting Children

The food industry is a major contributor to the problem of childhood obesity given their substantial promotion of food that is high in sugar, salt, and fat without substantial nutritional value (Elliott, 2008; Kant & Graubard, 2004). Overall, children are often a target of high levels of food marketing (Elliott, 2008) and, in particular, food-related media messages targeting children has been dominant historically in television advertising (Chamberlain, Wang, & Robinson, 2006; Gantz, Schwartz, Angelini, & Rideout, 2007). Not surprisingly, the more children see television advertising, the greater their preference is for unhealthy foods (Institute of Medicine, 2006). In the Canadian province of Quebec, where advertising targeting children less than 13 years of age is not allowable - including fast-food advertising - fast-food consumption has notably declined (Dhar & Baylis, 2011). To complement television advertising, the fast-food industry has commonly used toy premiums - providing toys with the purchase of meals - to target children (Scholsser, 2001). Utilizing cross-promotions, toy premiums link with the entertainment industry including feature characters from popular children's movies or television programs (Hobin, Hammond, Daniel, Hanning, & Manske, 2012). In 2006, the fast-food industry spent nearly $330 million in the USA on toy premiums with children's meals, and such meals were the top-selling fast-food item to children (Federal Trade Commission, 2008). Toy premiums clearly influence children's food choices (Hobin et al., 2012; Institute of Medicine, 2006).

A well-known example of toy premiums is McDonald's Happy Meal. Bob Bernstein, founder and CEO of Bernstein-Rein, a marketing and communications firm, coined the name "Happy Meal" in 1977 (Lawrence Journal-World, 2004). Although Bernstein might have not predicted the power of "happiness" in branding when he came up with the name, happy and fun are particularly appealing when targeting children. Research has shown that appeals to fun - in addition to taste and the use of other persuasive techniques (e.g., promotional characters) - increase children's recall, liking of advertising, purchase-requests, and food preferences (Cairns, Angus, Hastings, & Caraher, 2013; Hastings, McDermott, Angus, Stead, & Thomson, 2006). Fun is a popular theme in food marketing targeting children and refers to non-verbal displays of happiness (e.g., smiling or playing) or verbal use of "fun," "happiness," or "pleasure" (Hebden, King, & Kelly, 2011). Several content analyses have shown that fun or happiness is the most frequent emotional appeal in food marketing targeting children (Folta, Goldberg, Economos, Bell, & Meltzer, 2006; Kunkel & Gantz, 1992; Warren, Wicks, Wicks, Fosu, & Chung, 2007). Fun is a common theme in many different countries when targeting children on television (e.g., the USA, Australia, Canada, UK, Turkey, Switzerland, and Bulgaria) (Jenkin, Madhvani, Signal, & Bowers, 2014).

A critical lens on targeting children, however, warns that children can be vulnerable consumers, who are "those who may not fully understand the implications of marketing messages" (Rittenburg & Parthasarathy, 1997, p. 52) due to their level of cognitive development. Children may not have sufficient cognitive abilities and defensive mechanisms to understand fully the persuasive or possibly manipulative intent of marketing messages (e.g., McAlister & Cornwell, 2009; Pechmann, Levine, Loughlin, & Leslie, 2005). Themes of fun and happiness in marketing communication often suggest to children that the product may make you happy (i.e., mood alteration), and this kind of emotional appeal can provide a strong positive association with food brands while deemphasizing and distracting from information relating to the product (Wicks, Warren, Fosu, & Wicks, 2009). Attracting children with McDonald's as a happy brand appears to be a principle strategic initiative for the company. The US-based McDonald's website provides some basic information about Happy Meal options with a tagline of "Make 'em smile with a HAPPY MEAL" (https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/full-menu/happy-meal.html). The company's separate website of Happy Meals (www.happymeal.com) exclusively covers various incentives of Happy Meals. The website obviously targets children by containing games, activities, and information about toys accompanying Happy Meals. This kind of "advergames" is widespread on websites targeting children; interactive games include brand messages that are colorful and fun. While playing games and engaging in activities on the website, children become more aware of brands, and marketers encourage children to visit their websites repeatedly (Moore, 2004).

In addition to the various games and activities, Happy Meal's mascot, "Happy," has a predominant presence on the Happy Meal website. In 2014, McDonald's added a Happy Meal Ambassador, "Happy," in the USA. In a press release, Julie Wenger, senior director of US marketing for McDonald's, states: "At McDonald's, we're always looking to bring fun and happiness to families" (McDonald's, 2014). Marketing communication of its "happy" brand is pervasive in McDonald's websites in various countries. The McDonald's website for Singapore, for example, states that "Happiness Starts Here." Interestingly, McDonald's Happy Meal once had a longstanding co-branding partnership with Disney, in which its Disneyland theme park has a tagline of "The Happiest Place on Earth." In 2006, however, the Happy Meal partnership with Disney ceased after ten years of cross-promotion. McDonald's Happy Meals had provided children with little figurines of Disney's Nemo, Mr. Incredible, and so on. According to Steve Jobs, who was Disney's largest shareholder and Pixar Animation Studios chief, acknowledged that there is value in fast-food tie-ins, "but there are also some concerns, as our society becomes more conscious of some of the implications of fast food" (Abramowit, 2006). Over the years, McDonald's Happy Meals have evolved in which they now provide healthier food options such as apple slices or milk (instead of Coke, even though McDonald's and Coke are additional brands with a longstanding strategic partnership and inextricably linked) (see Gelles, 2014). Nevertheless, McDonald's use of "happy" branding targeting children raises ethical issues: As the mood alteration literature has shown (e.g., Wicks et al., 2009), children may rely on McDonald's to make them happy, and encourage food choices that contribute to the obesity epidemic and link with health risks.

Pleasure and Satisfaction in Tobacco Marketing Targeting Youth

Tobacco serves as a principal example of an inherently harmful product (Dewhirst, Lee, Fong, & Ling, 2016; Rittenburg & Parthasarathy, 1997). The harm coming from tobacco use in the USA as well as globally is astounding. In the USA, cigarette smoking is attributable to an estimated 443,000 premature deaths annually, which represents approximately one of every five deaths domestically (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). Globally, experts anticipate tobacco use as a cause of more than eight million deaths per year by 2030 (World Health Organization, 2008). The tobacco industry's consumer research and marketing planning documents have well documented that smoking initiation typically occurs during adolescence. Additionally, reviews of internal tobacco industry documents, which became public from litigation, reveal that cigarette brands have been successfully targeting youth, including the classification of "starter" or "new smoker" consumers (e.g., Cummings, Morley, Horan, Steger, & Leavell, 2002; Dewhirst & Sparks, 2003; National Cancer Institute, 2008; Perry, 1999). In particular, Newport, a mentholated cigarette brand from the Lorillard tobacco company, is particularly appealing to youth and those initiating smoking (Hersey et al. 2006; Pollay et al., 1996). For Newport, test marketing began in 1956, and 1957 represents the brand's formal introduction. Newport has been a brand celebrated from the onset as a "fun cigarette" (Yellen, 1964, p. 01124261). According to Lorillard documentation, Newport "was advertised as such and obtained a youthful group as well as an inmature [sic] group of smokers. Newport was marketed successfully according to plan" (Yellen, 1964, p. 01124261).

In 1972, the company moved the Newport advertising account from Grey Advertising to the Will Graham Company, which quickly elevated "Alive with Pleasure" from minor ad copy status to its longtime use as a bold tagline for the brand. Newport cigarette advertising "emphasized couples or small groups having highly pleasurable experiences depicted against a bright kelly green background with the Newport name in day-glow orange" (Jarrett, 1993, p. 91915559). For the creative strategy of Newport, the target market has been "all smokers, and young adults entering the market, with specific emphasis placed against competitive menthol smokers" (Lorillard, 1973, p. 04231759). By the late 1970s, market research for Lorillard Tobacco revealed that, The success of Newport has been fantastic during the past few years. Our profile locally shows this brand being purchased by black people (all ages), young adults (usually college age), but the base of our business is the high school student. (Achey, 1978, p. 03537131) Newport has been a common "starter" brand for those beginning to smoke, typically between the age of 10 and 17, with half of study respondents starting between 10 and 13 years old (Shoi Balaban Dickinson Research, 1981). When respondents - young adults ages 18-24 - generally described Newport advertising, they understood the people shown in the ads as happy, or 'having fun' and healthy. They said the people shown were 'into the outdoors' and often reiterated they did not think people such as those shown in the ads would be smokers. (Shoi Balaban Dickinson Research, 1981, p. 84411683) In separate and earlier research, respondents who were entirely US smokers of the Newport brand, described a Newport advertisement featuring a couple as

depicting people who are young, happy, and in love. It was said that this ad 'showed' that smoking Newport is being younger and active. The headline 'Alive with pleasure!' was thought to relate to the picture both in terms of the people shown and the situation. (Shoi Balaban Dickinson Research, 1976, p. 84187589-84187590) An additional ad, depicting those playing tug of war, was "said to show people in a situation where they 'are having fun.' It was also described as 'outdoorsy,' as 'alive,' and 'happy'" (Shoi Balaban Dickinson Research, 1976, p. 84187594). Among menthol cigarette smokers, interviews concerning their perceptions of outdoor billboard advertising found the "Alive with Pleasure" marketing communication focusing on "pleasurable," which also was similar with "enjoyable" (Communicus, 1978, p. 84175897). Focus group research, with attention to the image associations of Newport, has found that the brand has a personality - a friend, approachable, always there for them. We know that Newport smokers' perceptions of other Newport smokers, that they know and those they envision the Brand to attract, mirror their perception of themselves - youthful, outgoing, active, happy, warm, friendly, modern, extroverted. (Lorillard, 1993, p. 93285629) While pleasure and fun have been longstanding themes in Newport cigarette advertising, the "Alive with Pleasure" tagline also points to being vibrant, energetic, active, and infers healthiness. Current advertising uses the tagline "Newport pleasure!" The models in Newport advertisements are typically youthful and carefree with emphasis on sociability (i.e., multiple people in the promotions, with romantic couples or a small group of friends - involving both men and women - usually in the ads). The common themes in Newport cigarette advertising reflect the aforementioned underpinnings of happiness: satisfying relationships, engagement in leisure activities, cooperativeness, and extraversion.

Discussion and Conclusions

Happiness commonly links to consumer well-being, yet it appears contradictory to associate health and welfare with highly processed food and smoking. In this chapter, we have focused on two prominent case examples - McDonald's and Newport - but the applicability of happiness branding for youth-appealing and unhealthy or harmful products appears more widespread. Double Happiness, for example, is a leading cigarette brand in China. Additionally, "happy hour" is a common marketing term consumers hear when venues such as restaurants and bars offer discounted alcoholic beverages during a defined time period (e.g., 4 p.m.-6 p.m.), although such promotional initiatives may prompt binge drinking and overconsumption. Coca-Cola is a brand commonly linking to happiness despite the product's youthful appeal and scrutiny for contributing to the problem of childhood obesity. Moreover, Mondelz International (formerly known as Kraft Foods), self-described as a "global snacking powerhouse" that offers "well-being snacks," has introduced a "Bring on the Joy" campaign for its nutritionally questionable portfolio of products that includes leading brands of gum, crackers, cookies, and chocolate bars. As associating human personalities and emotions with qualities attributed to particular products and brands becomes commonplace, the blurring of people and goods within such symbolic structures might be merely amusing to some and unquestioned among others given its prevailing normalcy. While it may seem playful or trivial that brands link to happiness, it is a theme that marketers often use when appealing to children and youth as well as for unhealthy or harmful products, thus raising ethical questions. Target marketing of children and teens - as well as the marketing of "unsafe" or "harmful" products - is principal ethical issues (e.g., Murphy, Laczniak, Bowie, & Klein, 2005; Rittenburg & Parthasarathy, 1997). In closing, while consumers consider happiness as positive terms and outcomes, there is a darker side for consideration.