Mackenzie Financial - Mackenzie Investments

Mackenzie Investments has decided to continue to run ads which state "Can you afford to keep your kids?"

The February 22, 2006 Toronto Star newspaper column by Ellen Roseman titles "Ad humour isn't always funny" reported that Mackenzie Investments pulled their advertisements with the slogan "Can you afford to keep your wife?" because of complains from women.

According to the Star, Mackenzie Investments will continue their ads with the slogans "Can you afford to keep your kids?" and the misandric slogan "Can you afford to keep your husband?"

The Canadian Children's Rights Council agrees with the many parents that have called us to express their views that these advertisement slogans are offensive.

Men and women face some very difficult and often disturbing choices when a woman becomes pregnant. Some must consider abortion or giving up their newborn child to be adopted because they are living in poverty and unable to financially provide for their child.

We urge you to express your complaints to:

Mackenzie Financial Corporation
150 Bloor St. W., Suite M111
Toronto, ON M5S 3B5

E-Mail:
service@mackenziefinancial.com
Phone: 1-800-387-0614 or 416-922-3217 in Toronto
Fax: 1-866-766-6623 or 416-922-5660 in Toronto

Ad humour isn't always funny

RRSP ad insensitive but talk-provoking

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper, by ELLEN ROSEMAN, Feb. 22, 2006


"Can you afford to keep your wife?" "Can you afford to keep your husband?" "Can you afford to keep your kids?"

These are the eye-catching headlines in an RRSP advertising campaign by Mackenzie Investments.

The ads talk about how easy it is for one family member to burn through income and ruin the household's retirement dreams.

But the campaign has offended some of Mackenzie's female investors, such as Mavis Urquhart.

"I find this advertisement inappropriate and foolish," Urquhart told me. "I'd like to know how a large established company (which I am sure has many female investors who are not `kept' whatever that means) could possibly show such bad judgment."

As a result, Mackenzie is no longer running the ad headlined "Can you afford to keep your wife?" while continuing to run the other two ads,

RRSP advertisers tread a delicate tightrope. They have to create concern about long-term saving, while not turning off potential customers.

As this story shows, companies can run into trouble by throwing humour into the mix.

Here is Mackenzie's response to Urquhart's complaint, plus comments from marketing specialists in the academic world and my own take on the ads.

Valerie Shaw, marketing vice-president, Mackenzie Investments: In research conducted by our company in the fall of 2005, 60 per cent of Canadians stated they were not saving enough for their retirement. In 2005, the Canadian savings rate went negative for the first time in recent memory (from positive 12 per cent only 13 years earlier). For the 2004 tax year, in aggregate Canadians used only 8 per cent of total earned RRSP room.

As a firm close to Canadians' retirement planning, we are growing increasingly alarmed at what we see as a looming crisis. Our "Can you afford ... ?" campaign headlines featuring husbands, wives, kids and more are simply the doorway to the discussion of spending, savings and the choices people make in their financial planning.

While I appreciate your concerns, Canadians across the country, in our pre-program research and since the campaign began, have repeatedly stated that these messages are real and important.

The slight "tongue-in-cheek" tone of the series has no doubt brought many more readers to the core messages of the campaign and that is the goal.

We have no plans to run this ad again.

Mandeep Malik, De Groote School of Business, McMaster University: The dilemma advertisers constantly face is, "How do we get consumer attention in an overcrowded, over-managed, over-messaged marketplace?" Often agencies become "creative" and resort to attention-grabbing headlines sometimes making poor judgments along the way, and, as in this case, hurting the values of the very consumers they were trying to attract.

It's interesting that a financial institution wouldn't have thought about the repercussions of this ad while developing it. Withdrawing it now makes me question the decision they made and how it was made.

When we as consumers take our money to institutions, we're doing so because they generated trust and showed us they're responsible and will make good judgments about where to invest our money for the best return. Such "perceived as irresponsible" advertising creates consumer mistrust around the values of the seller.

And while such advertising creates chatter about the advertising, it's not necessarily positive chatter. More importantly, it's not about the attributes of Mackenzie's products and services or competitive advantages.

So, in essence, the company may not be heading toward its goals.

Richard Powers, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto: The media are flooded with RRSP ads. Companies must recognize this is a very serious decision for customers and they have to be serious, too.

Tongue in cheek just doesn't cut it with the demographic they're after. Trying to throw some fluff into it doesn't work.

The exception to the rule is when you're trying to differentiate yourself in the marketplace. Nevertheless, people want to feel their money is handled in a serious manner.

Ellen Roseman, Star columnist and Mackenzie investor: I don't like "the latte factor," an idea put forward by U.S. author David Bach that you can retire rich simply by skipping your daily coffee. It's too simple.

Mackenzie's campaign builds on this theme, asking you to focus on what you and your family are spending for lifestyle purchases. There's a Burn Rate calculator, which quantifies the results if you stop burning through cash and start saving for the future.

Stereotypes tend to creep in when financial advertisers talk about money wasted by family members (golf clubs for him, Oriental carpets for her, cafeteria lunches for the kids).

They run the risk of turning off their target market, or making potential customers feel guilty and resentful.

I agree Mackenzie showed insensitivity with this headline. But it did get noticed and provoked enough interest to generate this column.