The images are indelible: A series of mothers, cradling their newborns in their hospital beds while simultaneously devouring a take-out meal from Burger King.
“Delivered at 18:51,” reads one tagline on an image from the campaign, which is known as “Bundles of Joy.” The launch was timed to September 26th, which statistically is the day with the most births in the U.K.
Unsurprisingly, people online had some feelings about this.
We fired up Harris QuestDIY to gauge the sentiments of over 1,000 Americans—about this Burger Campaign specifically, but also about the way brands leverage “personal moments” and controversial angles. Thanks to the platform’s ability to upload imagery and video, respondents were shown three still images from the “Bundles of Joy” campaign before being asked to react to it.
Let’s take a look at what our cohort had to say, 90% of whom said they eat fast food at least once a month.
The slightly grainy, highly intimate photographs used in Burger King’s campaign are designed to evoke emotion. But what emotion, exactly?
With a multi-select question on this topic, the prevailing sentiment was actually “disgust” (27%). Somewhat surprisingly, there was no gender divide here, with both 27% of men and 27% of women feeling disgusted by the campaign (though perhaps for different reasons).
Disgust aside, a third of respondents didn’t find anything “problematic” with the ad campaign itself, though the chief objections among those who did revolved around being “insensitive to new mothers” (34%) and “promoting unhealthy food” (32%).
The latter point was echoed in the framing of critiques online. Consider the headline on an article from one parenting site: “Burger King ‘Bundle of Joy’ Ad Slammed for Pushing Cancer- & Obesity-Causing Foods on New Moms.”
While "Bundles of Joy" was indeed divisive, it would be a mistake to assume that this was a failure for Burger King—it depends on which audiences the brand was actually trying to influence with the campaign. When we break down survey results by age, we start to see interesting trends.
For instance, 33% of those aged 18–24 say the ads would make them either "more likely" or "much more likely" to visit Burger King, as do 32% of 25-to-34 year olds. These figures start to drop as the audience ages. If Burger King was specifically trying to activate an 18-to-34 year old audience, the performance of "Bundles of Joy" starts to look more promising.
Spotlighting (or exploiting) highly personal or moving moments is simply part of advertising. People like stories; a positive emotional hook is seductive, and hopefully some of those emotions spill over onto the product itself.
It’s one thing, of course, to feature imagery of newborns or expectant mothers in a commercial for Pamper’s, and another to use the same imagery in a fast-food context.
When asked which types of personal moments should be off limits in an ad for something that doesn’t have direct relevance to that moment, “death” was the clear winner (54% of respondents), with “births” following not far behind at 36%.
Advertising is a creative industry, full of people trying to impress each other (and, hopefully, sell a few things along the way).
This can doubtlessly lead to a situation in which brands and agencies, eager to attract eyeballs and win awards, launch ad campaigns that are divisive at best, or counterproductive at worst.
Online chatter regarding Burger King’s “Bundles of Joy” was all over the map, but our survey respondents made it clear that they weren’t looking to advertisements for much shock, delight, or surprise.
When asked which type of ad captures their attention more, 49% cited straightforward product/service showcases over ads that are meant to create “buzz” (27%).
Of course, there are various definitions of what would constitute a “buzzy” ad. Some attention-courting ad campaigns take an active stance on a political or social issue, which has proven increasingly fraught in a polarized United States.
Indeed, when we asked respondents to recall a situation where a brand they previously held in high esteem lost their loyalty due to a controversial ad, many of the examples involved recent hot-button issues.
More than a few cited “Bud Light” (ostensibly referring to the company’s collaboration with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney). One mentioned the infamous Pepsi ad featuring Kendall Jenner (although the respondent mis-remembered it as being a Coca-Cola ad), or Nike’s sponsorship of Colin Kaepernick; another noted “McDonald’s support for Israel.”
Perhaps the most evocative open-end response came from a respondent who was clearly fed up with brands showcasing progressive attitudes: “Neckbeards love shooting themselves in the foot and ruining their companies!”
And another cut right to the chase, to the chagrin of all hard-working creatives: “No. Most of the ads are silly and stupid, but if I use and enjoy using the product, no ad that I may or may not pay attention to will change that.”
