Critics claim the chain’s appeal is blatantly sexist, from its name (slang for breasts) to the showcasing of its waitresses, called “Hooter Girls” and dressed in skimpy revealing uniforms. Critics accuse the chain of fostering a climate in which sexual harassment can thrive. “The name should be changed because of the derogatory references to human anatomy,” says the leader of a Fairfax, Virginia, group founded to protest the opening of a Hooters outlet.
Big profits can still be made from sexism, and were in the 1990’s. From its birth in 1983 in Clearwater, Florida, Hooters has grown into a nationwide network of 68 casual eateries in sixteen states. It expected to reach 200 restaurants by the end of 1994. In fact, as of October 2000, there are over 250 Hooters franchised locations in 40 states, Asia, Aruba, Canada, England, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, Bahamas and Puerto Rico. Typical Hooters restaurants serve an average of 500 customers a day, with waiting lines at lunch and dinner. System wide sales, in company-owned units and outlets owned by fifteen franchisees, totaled $100 million in 1991. Though not publicly available, Hooters system-wide sales could be estimated to be around $500 million for 1999.
Hooters uses every opportunity to flaunt its naughty name. The chain annually sells about $5 million worth of Hooters T-shirts, hats, calendars, and other items. The controversial Hooter Girl uniform consists of running shoes, bright orange running shorts, and a cut-off T-shirt with the company’s logo - an owl with two very large, saucer-shaped eyes - and the motto “More than a mouthful.” (A company executive insists that the motto refers to Hooters’ hamburgers.)
Company officials say the chain’s approach to sex is no different from that of Sports Illustrated magazine, which publishes an annual “Swimsuit” issue. The magazine’s readers “aren’t checking out those girl’s SAT scores,” says the company’s marketing vice president, adding that Hooters “doesn’t cross the line of what the majority of people think is acceptable.” Patrons claim the Hooter Girl uniform is no different from what you might see on someone in the mall or at the park.
All the same, at a time when national concern over men’s sexual behavior has reached fever pitch, the chain’s “Boys will be boys” attitude outrages feminists. The executive vice president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) says Hooters “contributes to an atmosphere of sexual harassment.” She further contends that Hooters resembles a nightclub or strip joint more than a neighborhood cafe.
Protests focusing on Hooters’ image have picked up as the chain has begun aggressive expansion beyond its Sunbelt base. In Fairfax, Virginia, a group that included the mayor and city council members collected 200 signatures on an anti-Hooters petition. In addition to requesting that the restaurant change its name, the group said employees should be allowed to wear uniforms “reflective of a basic family atmosphere.” As it turned out, the outcry and attendant publicity helped attract a standing-room-only crowd to the restaurant’s opening.
In 1995, Hooters faced more troubles until the EEOC, a federal agency, ended its four-year sexual-discrimination probe of the Hooters restaurant chain that sought to force the chain to hire waiters and not just waitresses.
In July, 2000, A federal jury has ordered a Hooters restaurant to pay $275,000 to a former waitress who claimed she was the target of unwanted sexual advances and demeaning behavior. [click here]
Recent trends in advertising seem to reveal a backlash against sensitivity regarding sexism. Hooters advertisements have blatantly promoted their sexist image. This “politically incorrect” approach appears to be working quite well, but the question remains: Can the restaurant continue to grow without a change in the hostile environment?
For more about Hooter’s history and positioning. . . go to http://www.originalhooters.com/Saga/ and http://www.hootersofamerica.com/newpages/info.html
References Carlson, Eugene, “Restaurant Chain Tries to Cater to Two Types of Taste,” The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 1992, p. B2. Cortez, John P. and Ira Teinowitz, “More Trouble Brews for Stroh Bikini Team,” Advertising Age, December 9 , 1991, p.45. www.originalhooters.com, Oct. 10, 2000. www.hootersofamerica.com, Oct. 10, 2000.
Analysis
Your Name:
1. Do you feel Hooters should be more socially responsible in its marketing techniques? |-- select --| Yes No
If "yes", why. If "no", why not?
2. Hooters seems to be doing quite well despite charges that it promotes sexual harassment. Why do think this is so?
3. If you were the marketing vice president of Hooters, how would you address criticism of your marketing approach??