Why Mayor Bloomberg’s Soda Ban Plan Is PR Genius
Since proposing a ban on large-sized sugary drinks last Wednesday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been labeled everything from a “nanny state” tyrant to an out-of-touch rich guy with a Napoleon complex.
His proposed ban made national headlines, appearing on the evening news broadcasts and morning shows, around-the-clock on cable news, and on the front pages of many newspapers.
It was also manna for late night comedians: Jon Stewart searingly said it would “combine the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect,” while Stephen Colbert comically assassinated a man dressed as a Big Gulp.
Despite the mocking headlines and negative press, Michael Bloomberg may actually be a PR genius who has outsmarted the media.
More than half of NYC’s residents are overweight or obese, costing the City an estimated four billion dollars in public funds each year.
In 2009, New York State proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary drinks; the plan was later abandoned. That same year, New York City launched a massive anti-soda advertising campaign with posters that asked “Are You Pouring On The Pounds?” That campaign, while visually powerful and memorable, failed to reverse the City’s obesity statistics.
Bloomberg needed a game changer. So here’s a plausible theory: What if, when he announced the soda ban last week, Mr. Bloomberg knew he wouldn’t be able to implement it? What if that wasn’t even his goal?
What if his main goal, from the very start, was to help consumers forge a strong connection between sugary drinks and obesity, using the media to help carry his message? What if he wanted millions of people – in New York City and around the country – to become more aware of the connection between Coca Cola and fat? What if he wanted news organizations to report that a 16 ounce soda has the equivalent of a jaw-dropping 20 sugar cubes?
Mayor Bloomberg may have already won. If his main goal was to reverse obesity rates by arming millions of people with the information they need to make better choices, he may have succeeded. He doesn’t need his plan to become law in order to achieve that. And he probably knew that all along.
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Share this article
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email
I agree with you about Bloomberg’s proposed sugary soda ban, Brad. Did you see the Tweets Mashable gathered and put out on Storify? It was a collection of the best reactions, on Twitter, to the plan. And it was a riot! I Tweeted it here. http://twy.la/Kkard6
It would be a genius move on his part if that was his strategy from the get-go. However, how many people honestly don’t know how fattening and unhealthy soda is? Assuming that most do (I would hope that most are not that ignorant as to not to) would they simply be infuriated with this strategic move and continue their unhealthy habits once the law doesn’t pass? In which case, in the eyes of those who choose soda over their own health, will Mayor Bloomberg’s reputation be on the line?
Melissa,
Thanks for your comment!
According to many health officials, there is a HUGE disconnect between soda and juice consumption and the effects on obesity. For example, even if people know that sodas are bad for them, they probably don’t know that each 16 ounce soda has the equivalent of 20 sugar cubes. They might not know that juice is almost as bad for you as soda, with ten or more teaspoons of sugar in every serving.
Given that one in every three children born today will develop diabetes and that one in two black and Hispanic children will, I’d argue that this type of public education is absolutely critical.
In terms of changing habits, it’s happened before. Consider the (relatively) short-lived margarine craze. It was considered “healthier” for a few decades, until scientists realized that hydrogenated fats might be worse than saturated fats – then, the public shifted right back to the “healthier” butter.
Thanks for commenting. This is an important issue!
Best,
Brad
While from a pure strategy standpoint it is genius, I think a potential message is you dont know what’s best for you, “We do”. Fits right in with the “We’re from the government; we’re here to help” saying. It is difficult to believe that the majority of people aren’t aware that sugar is fattening. So from that standpoint, it screams big brother vs. individual responsibility regardless of intent.
You make a great point – sometimes awareness and publicity are more important than passing the actual law (whether or not intentional). I can absolutely confirm that while I know how bad these drinks are, the sheer reminder through the media on this issue this week has led me to turn down a pop or two (and I rarely drink pop).