DIRECTIONS:

Read the following case study and answer four T/F questions and six multiple choice questions. In addition to your answer, explain your decision in sentence form using material from the text as support. Each question is worth 2 points. One point is for the correct answer and one point is for the correct explanation.

Chapter 18Case Assignment: Yellow Tails Tails-for-Tails Campaign

Yellow Tail is an Australian wine produced by Casella Wines Pty Ltd. The company entered into bottled wine commercialization around the beginning of 2000 and quickly became a top imported wine into the United States. As such, it is not surprising that the company has targeted cause-related promotional efforts in the United States. However, the company created quite a stir in 2010 when it donated $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). At first glance, one might think (as probably did executives at Yellow Tail) that this type of donation would engender strong support and affinity among American consumers. Unfortunately, just the opposite happened!

The Humane Society of the United States

According to the HSUS website, the society ". . . is the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organizationbacked by 11 million Americans. . . . HSUS seeks a humane and sustainable world for all animals. . . . We are America's mainstream force against cruelty, exploitation and neglect, as well as the most trusted voice extolling the human-animal bond." Based on that mission, one might expect the HSUS to be a critical advocate for animals. Yet, the firestorm associated with the Tails-for-Tails campaign highlighted several possible flaws in the interpretation of what HSUS really does. For example, numerous reports point out that HSUS is not an animal shelter group seeking to take care of abandoned pets. Rather, some writers even suggest that the group is an animal rights extremist group opposed to the consumption of meat products and a group that seeks to outlaw progressive and humane agricultural practices. Adding fuel to the fire is the evidence that less than one percent of the HSUS budget actually goes toward the caring of animals. In a comment attributed to the Animal Agriculture Alliance, the American Institute of Philanthropy gave the HSUS a grade of "C-" in its Charity Rating Guide. Supposedly, the vast majority of the HSUS budget goes to fundraising, lobbying, and salaries.

Tails for Tails

On February 4, 2010, a Yellow Tail press release announced a collaboration between the company and the HSUS. In support of the HSUS mission to celebrate animals, the wine company made a donation of $100,000. The company said that it embraced animals and pointed to the company's logo of a yellow-footed rock-wallaby as an example of that affiliation. In addition to point-of-sale visibility for the Tails-for-Tails campaign, Yellow Tail's Facebook page would include a link to the HSUS pet photo contest. Via this online collaboration, consumers would receive information on how to make a donation to the HSUS animal rescue program.

The Uproar

The agriculture community has long felt like it has been a target of the HSUS. It was thought that the HSUS was an organization with a core mission of removing meat, dairy, and eggs from the American diet and, as such, putting farmers and ranchers out of business. Soon after the announcement of the Tails-for-Tails campaign, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance sent a letter to the American distributor of Yellow Tail wine. In the letter, it was pointed out that efforts by the HSUS weaken wildlife conservation within the United States while attacking a major economic sector. The Alliance also tweeted about the collaboration between Yellow Tail and the HSUS. The agricultural community picked up on the news and word began to spread throughout the Twitterverse, and a public relations nightmare began for Yellow Tail.

Within days, a "Yellow Fail" Facebook page was created and fans of the page skyrocketed to almost equal that of a Yellow Tail fan page. Bloggers condemned both Yellow Tail and the HSUS. A call to action was made to stop buying Yellow Tail wine. A fifth-generation rancher in South Dakota (USA) digitally recorded himself pouring Yellow Tail wine onto the snow while his cattle watched in the background. The recording quickly garnered thousands of views. Another rancher was seen using a bottle of Yellow Tail for target practice. People even became fans on Yellow Tail's Facebook page just so they could write negative comments on the company's wall. The agriculture community took a stand against Yellow Tail and the HSUS and used social media to disseminate its concerns.

Sources: Amanda Radke, "Yellow Tail Wine Donates $100,000 to HSUS," Beef, February 4, 2010, http://blog.beefmagazine.com/beef_daily/2010/02/04/yellow-tail-wine-donates-100000-to-hsus; Humane Society, www.humanesociety.org; The Grain Board, www.thegrainboard.com; Walter Pidgeon to Dill Deutsch, January 27, 2010, www.ussportsmen.org/Document.Doc?id=126; [Yellow Tail], www.yellowtailwine.com; Kay Smith of Animal Agriculture Alliance to Bill Deutsch, February 5, 2010, "Letter in Response to Yellow Tail's HSUS Donation," www.facebook.com/notes/animal-agriculture-alliance/letter-in-response-to-yellow-tails-hsus-donation/288862008417; Susan Crowell, "Yellow Tail Wine Donation to HSUS Incurs Farmers' Wrath," Farm and Dairy, February 9, 2010, www.farmanddairy.com/columns/yellow-tail-wine-donation-to-hsus-incurs-farmers-wrath/14217.html; "Jolley: Five Minutes with the Yellow Tail Fiasco," Drovers Cattle Network, February 5, 2010, www.cattlenetwork.com/templates/newsarchive.html?sid=cn&cid=983537.

True/False - There are only 4 questions for this case.

1. There was a disconnect between the benefit of Yellow Tail productwineand its animal welfare initiative, Tails for Tails.

2. Seen from the context of the communication process, a YouTube video of a rancher shooting bottles of Yellow Tail is also noise.

3. Yellow Tail lacked an integrated market communication message.

4. Tails for Tails would be appropriate had Yellow Tail produced a line of organic, sulfite-free vegan-friendly wines and specifically advertised its support of HSUS in friendlier venues such as vegetarian and vegan magazines and the like.

Multiple Choice - There are 6 questions for this case.

1. Associating Yellow Tail with HSUS on endcap signage in stores is a(n) __________ promotion.

a.	environmental
b.	Tails for Tails
c.	anti-meat
d.	social media
e.	sales

2. In Yellow Tails' promotional mix, the Tails for Tails campaign is which of the following?

a.	Advertising
b.	Sales promotion
c.	Publicity
d.	Public relations
e.	All of the above

3. The $100,000 donation "did not engender the strong support and affinity among American consumers." It did not get any support from American agricultural groups representing the meat and dairy industry. What does this suggest about a global company like Yellow Tail?

a.	It should have hired a lobby group first.
b.	Its home market lacked the kinds of controversy the U.S. market had.
c.	HSUS had successfully deceived the Australians.
d.	It did not understand the politics or culture of its chief export market.
e.	All of the above

4. Yellow Tail finally performed some crisis management and withdrew its sponsorship from HSUS. This suggests the winemaker does not engage in __________.

a.	advocacy advertising
b.	due diligence
c.	institutional advocacy
d.	environmentalism
e.	animal rights

5. Why would it have been difficult or even impossible for Yellow Tail to leverage its support of HSUS?

a.	The winemaker lacked a complementary product for vegetarians and vegans.
b.	HSUS did not soften its tone.
c.	HSUS has no real animal shelter or rescue program.
d.	The winemaker wants to portray itself as friendly to animals without controversy.
e.	All of the above

6. What went wrong with the Tails-for-Tails campaign is an example of the power of _____ in undoing the good will that a company wants associated with its brands.

a.	Facebook
b.	social media
c.	Twitter
d.	a plant-based diet
e.	all of the above