Sharper Image dulled: bad review breaks a company

Think product reviews don't matter much? Try telling that to gizmo retailer Sharper Image, who filed for bankruptcy today due largely to a crippling review of its Ionic Breeze air purifiers in Consumer Reports magazine.

Suckers like me fell for the company's hyper-advertised clean air wonder. But the review showed that the Ionic Breeze not only didn't clean the air, it released harmful ozone, triggering an avalanche of consumer lawsuits.

Don't get me wrong; reviews are an important piece of a successful product launch strategy. No, strike that: they are an absolute must. A recent study from the e-tailing group found that nearly nine out of 10 US online consumers surveyed in February 2008 were influenced by reviews before making a purchase.

Just make sure your product works as designed and doesn't trigger childrens' asthma attacks first.

The Rocket's steady glare

 

Roger Clemens looks directly into the camera and in perfectly earnest tones rebuts the Mitchell report’s accusations that he used steroids to become “The Rocket,” one of baseball’s most durable power pitchers. The video, which Clemens posted on YouTube and his foundation’s Web site, is his first public response to the report’s allegations. Clemens isn’t the first celebrity to use a canned video to speak past the media directly to the public. Michael Jackson self-produced a video to rebut pedophilia allegations years ago. Clemens, however, is among the first besieged celebrities to mix old and new media in a crisis response strategy that takes advantage of both mediums’ strengths.

The punch line of Clemens’ video isn’t the denial itself, it’s Clemens announcing that he will answer the allegations in detail this Sunday (Jan. 6) during a one-on-one interview Mike Wallace on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” This is an innovative strategy because Clemens essentially used social media as a conduit to mainstream broadcasting. He is also avoiding the public sausage grinder also known as the open press conference. Clemens has chosen two controlled environments instead of one uncontrolled environment where he’s more likely to be knocked off balance by questions shot from every compass point. The video gave him 100 percent control over his message. It’s unlikely Clemens can control Mike Wallace; Wallace has been picking his teeth with the bones of guys like Clemens since the black-and-white era. But Clemens has more control over a one-on-one interview – even with a predator like Wallace – than he would with a roomful of reporters each pursuing their own agenda.
 
There are two weak spots in Clemens’ strategy, and it will be interesting to see how they play out. The first is that for all its flaws, the press conference gang fight bestows credibility. After his dalliance with a male prostitute came to light in the early 1990s, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) endured almost two hours of grilling from the Boston and national press corps on live television. It was like getting purified by flame. Frank copped out to what he did wrong, quelled speculation about what he did and didn’t do, and effectively took the steam out of the controversy. He had atoned in the roughest of public arenas, and the voters forgave him. The Wallace interview could exonerate Clemens in the court of public opinion, but it lacks the raw openness of a live press conference. Skeptics will always question whether there were off-camera agreements with “60 Minutes” to soften certain angles. They will speculate on what was edited out – or in.
 
The second weak spot in Clemens’ strategy is the most obvious. If it comes out that he’s not telling the truth, the final public verdict will be much harsher than if he had come clean, as his friend Andy Pettitte did when he was named in the Mitchell Report. If the facts line up against Clemens, the earnest expression and solid eye contact in his video will just be proof of George Burns’ immortal line: “Sincerity. If you can fake it, you’ve got it made.” And if you can’t, no combination of social and mainstream media will help.

Starbuck's hiding the holiday cheer?

Heard about Starbuck's "Cheer Chain" phenomenon? It's when someone spontaneously starts a pay-it-forward chain reaction of goodwill, such as buying coffee for the stranger behind them. 

Cheer Chain stories are suddenly popping up all over media, including Fox News and Good Morning America, which coincidentally happened at the same time as the company’s “Pass the Cheer” ad campaign. To promote the campaign, Starbucks is handing out “cheer passes” of free coffee or gifts to random customers so they pass on the goodwill to others.

Starbucks claims the sudden spike in media coverage is unsolicited. Just the media doing their job, reporting on holiday goodwill stories this time of year, they argue. The cynics, such as The Consumerist Blog, are challenging that claim, calling it a lame PR stunt.

So I called a friend who works for one of Starbuck’s marketing agencies to get the inside scoop. He said he did partake in a guerilla marketing campaign, handing out cheer passes and other goodwill gestures to strangers in the streets and stores in an effort to ignite a cheer chain. When asked if Starbucks PR was actively pitching these so-called “phenomenon” stories to media, he pleaded the Fifth, but did say Starbuck’s PR agency was involved in the campaign in some undisclosed way.

My take is, what’s the big deal? It’s not like Starbucks is being less than transparent in the intent of the cheer pass campaign. Whether the phenomenon starts organically or is the result of street-level marketing manipulation, who cares? The resulting goodwill is the same. And who would fault Starbucks PR for shopping the story around to media? If it’s true the company is planting stories but denying it, why? What do they have to lose by pretending cheer chain stories are self seeding?

 

BONUS: To put you in the holiday spirit, check out  this parody blog post of celebrity chef Ramsay Clark boasting how he broke the Starbucks cheer chain.  (Contains profanity)

 
 

 


Disaster ketchup

The Consumerist blog shows how lame and cliche' it is when corporate wonks use the good ol' "We're taking the issue very seriously" response to a PR crisis.

Bonus: a rap sheet of recent perps.

 

Oprah's lesson

Oprah's school for African girlsAndy Beaupre blogged in September that caring consistency is Apple’s #1 brand-building weapon.
 
Oprah’s performance last week in South Africa (read, watch) epitomized the principle. It was a tour de force of caring, and oh, what a brand she has built. Her press conference on the child abuse scandal that broke Nov. 5 at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls was an object lesson in crisis management. I never dreamed I could sympathize with a billionaire.
 
Rather than go underground with her legal team, she contacted authorities, launched her own investigation, looked students and parents in the eye, apologized, and laid everything she could out for the media – at the earliest possible opportunity.
 
The day the accused dorm mother appeared in court, Oprah stood at a podium flanked by local authorities and stared into the barrel of the global press corps. She detailed the timeline and the facts, starting with the first inkling of a problem. She was the first to utter the explosive words “sexual abuse.” She publicly acknowledged the gravity of the situation, accepted her share of responsibility as founder, took hard questions, and expressed true emotion: “This has been one of the most devastating, if not the most devastating experience, of my life.”
 
No stonewalling. None.
 
Oprah, who earns $260 million a year and has a net worth of $1.5 billion, made the kind of statements and took the kind of actions that would make any plaintiff’s lawyer drool. She had urged students to come forward if they’d been harmed. More girls had come forward, which under the circumstances, was good: “No one ever, ever abuses just one child,” she declared.
 
Oprah was more than accountable; she was inspiring. The debacle could have closed the school, snuffed out hope for its students, and emptied the talk show empress’s deep pockets. Whether it was spin, courage or both, her on-the-record statement was authentic:
 
“I’m happy for the attention because it is one of my goals in life to put child abusers, whether they be in my home, whether they be in my workplace, or in this case, in the academy, to put them where they belong. And that is behind bars.”
 
The students who came forward, she said, represent “the new generation of youth in South Africa who fearlessly take back their voices to speak up about their concern for their fellow classmates. This is really what we’re trying to teach.”
 
And if there was any doubt about her resolve in light of the crisis, she added: “I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls becomes the safe, the nurturing and enriched setting that I had envisioned.”
 
This was refreshing, uplifting and rather straight talk (especially during presidential campaign season).
 
The Principled Profit blog hailed the appearance as a shining example of “How a Class Act Accepts Responsibility.”
 
All of this is in line with Oprah’s established (and quite credible) persona of caring consistency: This is how a beloved brand endures.

Powered By: BlogCFC via Ray Camden.    Design By: Harbour Light Strategic Marketing      Privacy policy    Terms and conditions