Checkmate - Crisis Management

Apple's sour grapes bruises a stellar brand

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:23:00-0400

Even the ultra-cool sometimes just don’t get it.

After a few haughty responses earlier in the week to complaints about its iPhone 4 dropping calls, Apple made a smart move and offered free cases iPhone 4 consumers. The cases will prevent the “death grip” problem that cause the phone’s reception to fade and sometimes drop calls if held a certain way.

But Apple CEO Steve Jobs apparently just couldn’t just hand out the cases and live to fight another day. Standing on a dais in front of an image that said “Antennagate,” he had to show a video illustrating problems with competing phones like the Blackberry. Then he insisted there’s nothing really wrong with the iPhone 4 – that the situation is a media creation.

“We're not feeling right now that we have a giant problem we need to fix,” Jobs said during a press conference at Apple’s Cupertino, Calif. headquarters. “This has been blown so out of proportion that it’s incredible. I know it’s fun to have a story, but it’s less fun when you're on the other end of it.”

Has Jobs grown too accustomed to the rainbows and unicorns he usually gets from the media? I have to wonder if his PR people warned him he’d look like a whiner if he complained about the press because that’s how he came off – defensive. The media did not, as Jobs intimated, create this problem. Apple’s arrogant response to customer complaints did. When customers got the high hat from Apple, they started complaining publicly through social media and the news media picked up on the story.

When are executives going to learn a little humility and contrition go a long way in situations like this? You’d think that coming so soon on the heels of Toyota’s and BP’s PR Armageddons that Apple, normally a PR-savvy company, would have had a response as slick as its products. Considering the vast reservoirs of customer good will it has to draw on, Apple could have snuffed this out before it became a problem. It might have had to eat a little crow by admitting its hot-shot phone had a flaw, but at least it wouldn’t be getting bludgeoned in the press at the same time.

BP triggers dark side for augmented reality

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:46:00-0400

No sooner did brand managers and marketers discover augmented reality (AR) as the next big marketing frontier then did consumers find a way to use AR to voice their own opinions.

AR developers Mark Skwarek and Joseph Hocking are keeping BP’s feet to the fire with a new AR iPhone app that lets users visualize the Deepwater Horizon oil spill at their local BP gas station or wherever they happen to see a BP logo.

Called “the leak in your hometown,” the app transforms the logo into the source of the deep sea gusher. Just point your phone at the logo and your outrage and sense of futility over the unceasing disaster is rekindled.

If you’re new to augmented reality, it’s technology that overlay’s digital information and imagery onto your view of real-world things, typically using a webcam or smartphone camera as the visual conduit.

The BP gusher app is pretty simplistic as far as AR apps go. Yet it’s a brand manager’s nightmare. As the app’s creators describe on their blog …

An important component of the project is that it uses BP’s corporate logo as a marker, to orient the computer-generated 3D graphics. Basically turning their own logo against them. This repurposing of corporate icons will offer future artists and activists a powerful means of expression which will be easily accessible to the masses and at the same time will be safe and nondestructive.

Remember back when brand managers first swooned over the potential of social media as a new direct-to-consumer marketing channel, not yet realizing how the technology gives consumers their own, sometimes critical, voice? With AR, it’s déjà vu all over again. Google ‘augmented reality’ and ‘marketing’ and you'll see what I mean. But the effusive praise by marketers will soon be tempered as they discover that AR can be a double-edged sword, as much a threat to their companies’ corporate reputation as it is a powerful marketing tool.

Next BP victim: 'brand journalism'

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:15:00-0400

The brand journalist is the one of the most compelling marketing concepts I've encountered in a while. Leave it to BP to spoil a good thing.

Read more from our CleanSpeak blog here.

Seven social media lessons from Nestle's reputation crisis

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:03:00-0400

If a company still doesn’t "get" how social media has changed the rules of branding by empowering consumers, look no further than the ongoing Nestle firestorm.

Nestle has been in trouble for awhile, mostly related to its continuing use of palm oil in its products. Palm oil is linked to environmental nastiness, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions and endangered species loss.

Caroline McCarthy of CNET News shared a balanced post about the Nestle brand crisis, triggered by ticked off consumers on Facebook. Nestle was clueless about the power shift enabled by social media and acted in an old-school authoritarian “we own the brand” way. It not only didn’t work, it backfired.

There are vital lessons from the Nestle debacle for professional communicators advising their execs or clients:

1. Before diving into social media, make sure key decision makers who think they want to go social media truly “get” how the game is played. It’s not a press release.

2. Make sure they understand how Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. aren’t one way vehicles (where the brand dominates the message), but an invitation to a never ending dance with constantly changing partners, some of whom are never your friend and may only want to dance if they can slap your ego and try to make you a better dancer.

3. Don’t go social media unless the brand is willing to take the risk of jumping off the cliff, giving up control to customers and consumers who will express their viewpoints, both positive and negative.

4. If your company or client wants to control the message, then social media isn’t for them. Look at how Nestle tried to tell people not to post their logos. It will incur a wrath not unlike "It’s not OK for people to use altered versions of your logos but it’s OK for you to alter the face of Indonesian rainforests? Wow!"

5. Creating LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter accounts is just the first step. The goal isn’t to tweet or post, it’s to build an active community and an authentic two-way relationship based on trust. It’s easy to get started in social media, but time-consuming and challenging to remain engaged and build a following.

6. Remember that even if your company or client decides not to engage in social media, this won’t stop rants, rebellion and revolution. People will find a way to express themselves and let it be known they’re disturbed, upset, confused, disappointed or whatever the view. The train has left the station, so be prepared.

7. As we’ve learned from Nestle (and so many others), people don’t want to be scammed, ignored or mistreated. It will come back to bite you. So if your exec or client wants social media to become a positive tool, the brand must be a concerned good listener prepared to take action to correct situations that aren’t right.

Toyota should meet recall questions with big doses of transparency

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:59:00-0400

Until a few days ago, who didn’t want to be Toyota? They had it all. A sterling reputation for quality. The world’s most popular hybrid car. Insanely loyal customers. And in 2009, to crown it all, Toyota ended General Motors’ 77-year run as the world’s largest automaker.

It probably would have been nice for Toyota if it could have had some time to celebrate being top dog, but that wasn’t meant to be. The company is playing defense over recalls affecting 9 million of its vehicles worldwide. The news that gas pedal assemblies on its top models can cause sudden acceleration strikes at the most durable part Toyota’s brand image – its reputation for quality. Toyota got great by making quality cars that people could afford. It built that reputation one solid, reliable Corolla, Camry and Prius at a time. Even though competitors like Honda and Nissan were rated just as highly, Toyota was to quality what Volvo was to safety – first among equals and better than everyone else.

Now the auto company that could once do no wrong has shut down production lines and instructed dealers not to sell some of its most popular models. The New York Times reported that Toyota knew about the acceleration problems two years before it issued the recall. Rep. Henry Waxman, one of Congress’ most persistent consumer watchdogs, announced he will hold hearings to investigate the sudden acceleration problem next month.

What’s unfolding is the next great case study on the value of openness and transparency. Toyota has already said it welcomes the chance to address the issue head-on and publicly at Waxman’s hearings. The company has already started a pre-emptive media campaign. Toyota issued statements saying it started working on a solution this fall, when it learned how pervasive the problem was. Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda issued a public apology from the World Economic Conference in Davos. Toyota USA President Jim Lentz faced Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. The company announced over the weekend that it has rushed millions of repair kits to dealers.

So the court of public opinion is convened. How will the Toyota brand come out the other end? It depends how the company’s mea culpas resonate with the public. If Toyota is perceived as earnest and sincere, history has shown that the public will forgive it and continue to see it as a brand synonymous with quality. If it is perceived as elusive and defensive, then the Toyota brand could become just another name in the pack.

Social media & Haiti

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:16:00-0400

Thanks to social media, the word got out of ravaged Haiti immediately, people mobilized and money was raised instantly.

While this isn’t the first time it’s been a vital link in a crisis, it’s invigorating how social media has woven itself into the fabric of traditional media.

There was a time, not long ago, when major news organizations relied primarily on its own news gatherers to shape the story. Now an increasing number of media is open to – and relying on – citizen journalists to tell their tales.

With buildings crumbled, roads blocked, power out and land-lines dead, mainstream U.S. media relied heavily – especially on Tuesday and early Wednesday - on testimony accumulated from social media from Haitians and Americans. Cell phones, satellite broadband systems and Skype worked. Twitterfeeds provided a real time view of what was unfolding. Blogs like Troy Livesay’s and Carel Pedre got the word out. Images were sent on Twitpic, Facebook and Flickr. YouTube had hundreds of videos posted by Wednesday.

CNN is the poster child of this blending of social media and traditional news gathering. While they reportedly have at least seven reporters on the ground in Haiti, they’ve filed highly compelling stories constructed from social media sources. Check out “What we’re hearing via social media.” 80% of this story is shaped by attributed quotes from Twitter users and bloggers in Haiti. CNN’s citizen-filmed iReports spread the word in a personal way.

Meanwhile, organizations like Red Cross leveraged their presence on Facebook, Twitter, and their own blog to communicate. Their 90999 mobile “insta campaign” is urging cell phone users to text the message “Haiti” to that number to make an instant $10 donation. Twitter users retweeted #HelpHaiti.

Many other organizations got involved and sent out their own fund raising tweets. Daily Finance reported that $5 million has been raised so far via text messages.

Citizen journalists are re-shaping the news business. Social media is no longer an adolescent finding its way; it’s become deeply embedded, viable and in instances like Haiti, a fresh, objective, needed voice shaping the story. It’s a reinvention of media – an improvement of media - that’s deeper, wider, more personal and much more real time.

Why Tiger Woods, companies and governors can't hide any more

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:16:00-0400

I don’t know if Tiger Woods cheated on Elin with Rachel Uchitel, is a reckless operator, was having an argument, was in a hurry to get out of his house around 2 a.m. or just wanted a new SUV.

And I really don’t care.

What bugs me in what I thought was an era of growing transparency for all brands (companies, organizations, governments, people) is a still remarkably frequent hesitancy to come clean publicly.

At the time of this writing, Tiger still hasn’t spoken with law enforcement authorities, choosing instead to post a statement on his Web site saying, “This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way.”

When you’re a billion dollar brand, this course gets a little dicey.

Tiger isn’t the first case of failing to come clean fast in 2009; we’ve seen this many times this year.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has denied doing anything wrong for months. He disappeared for days this summer, reappearing to finally admit to an extramarital affair with his Argentinian “soul mate.” Facing 37 ethics charges related to campaign money and airline travel, Sanford still isn’t coming clean.

Balloon boy’s Dad, Richard Heene cried crocodile tears, set up a box for reporter questions and told the world his son’s disappearance was “absolutely no hoax.” There were lots of statements and press interviews before the kid climbed down from his attic perch above his garage in Fort Collins, CO and spilled the beans by saying “you had said that we did this for a show.”

Apple got pressure when it continued to not disclose what was going on with Steve Jobs’ “hormonal imbalance” weight loss issue, the prevalent angle before his liver transplant disclosure in June. People were upset because boards of public companies need to comply with disclosure laws protecting shareholders when CEO illnesses keep them away from work.

It happened again last month when Lazard Ltd.’s CEO Bruce Wasserstein was hospitalized for heart problems. A lot of people were upset because they felt there wasn’t enough transparency around the prominent investment banker’s eight week absence and health disclosure in 2006.

Say what you want about David Letterman, but the guy got in front of it.

I agree with social media guru Chris Brogan. In his new book, Trust Agents, he said, “Those who are active on the Web now realize that they need to embrace this new transparency, that all things will now eventually be known. Companies can no longer hide behind a veneer of a shiny branding campaign, because customers are one Google search away from the truth. Further, they join activist groups to stay informed about new practices, so they are often one step ahead of the people trying to profit from them. Companies must acknowledge that they are as naked on the Web as individuals are."

Let’s transparently toast to a more transparent 2010.

H1N1 vaccine distribution = bad PR for Obama

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:22:00-0400

I’m struggling to make sense of this. Let me see if I get this right.

Goldman Sachs received over $1billion from taxpayer bailouts and was the biggest recipient of taxpayer moolah in AIG’s bailout. Yes, they repaid their $10 billion loan with interest, but people in the know are predicting they might pay out as much as $16 billion in bonuses this year.

Next in line is Citigroup. They got $45 billion in TARP money plus another $300 billion in FDIC guarantees. All this on top of three previous government bailouts according to Slate.

Now comes the H1N1 debacle.

Goldman Sachs received 200 doses and Citgroup got 1,200. The New York City Department of Health figured this distribution strategy somehow made sense despite the fact the vaccine continues to be in very short supply. Many high-risk groups – little kids, young people, health care workers, pregnant women, etc. – haven’t been vaccinated. Lots of clinics and hospitals still don’t have their hands on it. People around the country wait in long lines to get it.

But Goldman Sachs took it. They received as much vaccine as was allotted to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. Citigroup took it too, receiving five times more than Goldman Sachs.

True public relations practice is supposed to be focused on doing the right thing for society, right, not just one company’s employees? This week’s H1N1 action (and inaction) not only raises reputational management issues, but ethical ones as well.

On the heels of a still-lasting nasty taste in the public’s mouth, it seems these two firms may have been better served – reputationally and ethically – by being bigger picture ponderers, transparent and giving it back.

These vaccine distribution blunders may also create a negative ripple effect for the Obama administration. Arguably, a large segment of the American public may instinctively leap to a “who’s ultimately in charge here?” connection.

Morgan Stanley presumably learned a lesson from its financial brethren and did the right thing when it turned over its entire supply of 1,000 doses to local hospitals. Good for them, but especially for all the people who need it most.

It’s a textbook Bad PR, Good PR lesson for our time.

How to handle a crisis - 11 communications tips

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:46:00-0400

You don’t have to work for AIG, GM or Peanut Corp. of America to face a crisis. Every company – no matter what size, whether public or private – faces them. While the scale may be different compared to these corporate giants, crises happen all the time.

The CEO who leaves unexpectedly. The earnings disclosure that surprises. The sexual harassment claim that comes out of the blue. The VC funding that isn’t banked. The major customer that leaves your company’s fold and goes to your beaming competitor. The company founder who says something inappropriate and gets quoted. The product that doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to, triggering irate customers in the blogosphere.

Crises are all around us. Is your company prepared to handle one?

Tip # 1 – have a crisis plan ready to go. Rather than scurrying about when a crisis hits, it makes a lot more sense to have a game plan in place ahead of time. Start by determining what can happen (make lists of scenarios) and then assume it will. Crises fall into two categories: (1) uncontrolled crises (fire, employee injury, deaths) and (2) controlled crises (layoffs, takeovers, major product changes). Decide what you will need to do; frame the action items. Create a crisis portfolio and think through what events could set them off. Align the action you will take with the crisis level. When the crisis hits, work the plan.

Tip # 2 – build the crisis support infrastructure. Assign authority and responsibility ahead of time. Build the crisis response team; get an adequate number of professionals involved. Prepare content. Identify all your organization’s publics, not just the obvious ones. Figure out how and where you’ll establish information centers. Identify the chain of communication for crisis notification. Predetermine the way you’ll assemble the team. Constantly train the team by simulating various crises; practice the plan once or twice a year and modify as needed; change scenarios each time. Look for things that don’t work; refine the process.

Tip # 3 – speak with one voice. When a crisis hits, you can’t have 10 different people running around speaking on behalf of the company. This is a formula for a damaged reputation. Instead, identify one central spokesperson – at the highest possible level – and make certain this individual has the knowledge, sensitivity, interpersonal skills, authority and public demeanor to speak on your company’s behalf. Make sure this person is very accessible. Strive for consistency in what is said and how it is said. Make sure there’s a clear chain of command.

Tip # 4 – be prepared before you talk. Invest the time – proactively - to anticipate key questions before they get asked. Know the details. Understand what you can, and cannot, say. Deal honestly with all your publics, but only divulge what’s required. Don’t volunteer damaging information. Only use confirmed facts; don’t speculate.

Tip # 5 – remember social media. Twitter is a phenomenal real-time communication channel, and a great way to keep people informed, make alerts and be continually proactive. Facebook is an excellent two-way medium to monitor what people are thinking and post frequent updates from your company.

Tip # 6 – be there. When a crisis strikes, you can’t maneuver your way through it in your office. Get out there. Be at the scene. Be visible and available. Don’t allow information voids; keep communication flowing. Never surprise anyone. Deal with rumors quickly. Minimize speculation.

Tip # 7 – fall on your sword. This is the # 1 mistake companies, organizations and even venerable institutions consistently make… despite decades of “how not to do it” examples. Don’t fall into this trap because it’s the most debilitating of all. Nothing damages a reputation more quickly than stalling, deceit and bamboozling. Acknowledge the problem. Express concern. Take responsibility. Express a sincere desire to cooperate with others to solve the problem. Be human.

Tip # 8 – protect the record. Monitor everything that’s said and written including social media. Have a system in place to correct incorrect facts to avoid recirculation of erroneous information. Make sure your organization gets public credit for positive actions taken to address the crisis.

Tip # 9 – keep reading the situation. If a crisis becomes extended, continually measure changes in public opinion. This real-time monitoring will enable you to modify your crisis plan and communication as needed.

Tip # 10 – don’t go quiet. If nothing new has occurred, don’t fall into a black hole. Keep communicating even if the status quo is unchanged. Be proactive in your communication. Always be concerned about the reputation of your company, organization or institution.

Tip # 11 – learn & tweak. After the dust settles, get your crisis team together in person and dissect your organization’s crisis response. What worked? What didn’t? What lessons were learned? What can you improve next time?

Hesitation kills reputations

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:36:00-0400

There’s been a lot of hesitation lately.

Companies hesitated. Media hesitated. Governments hesitated.

Hesitation – and the impact of slow movement – profoundly affects brand reputation and public relations effectiveness.

Recent hesitation examples include:

SIRIS Radio and XM took too long to merge and are now on the brink of bankruptcy.
Newspapers across the country, including The New York Times, took too long to adapt their business model to the realities of the Internet and are now in peril of extinction.
Circuit City fired a majority of its higher-paid staff and replaced them with lower-paid employees; customer service took a serious nose dive; they didn’t act fast enough to rectify the mistake.
Electric-car maker Tesla failed to get its electric car into mass production on schedule and is now praying for a government bailout to stay afloat.
Apple hesitated to offer a DRM-free music option on iTunes, enabling Amazon to jump in with its own DRM-free offering and take away serious market share.
The FDA didn’t move quickly enough in the peanut butter paste crisis, causing 1,000+ products to be recalled, 600+ people sickened by salmonella and nine deaths.
The government didn’t act swiftly to penalize corporate excess and demand precise accountability for tax payer loans to corporations.

What’s the impact of all this hesitation from a public relations perspective? (Note: when I say “public relations” I’m talking about the real intended purpose of PR which is aligning organizations with the public good, not acting against it).

In addition to inflicting suffering and even loss of life, hesitation also affects:

An organization’s relationship with consumers
The steadfastness of its brand
The top and bottom line
Institutional reputation

When corporations fail to make swift, voluntary recalls; when they are forced to act; and when thousands of consumers are personally affected, the corporations themselves also suffer because former allies become adversaries. Profits and revenue are impacted when people think twice and stop buying or when products are pulled off the shelves.

When government doesn’t respond quickly enough to help people in need, it inevitably loses the trust of its own citizens.

While attorneys and political advisors typically err on the side of “no comment and give it time,” governments and corporations can directly benefit by putting in place a counter-balancing perspective that errs on the side of swifter action.

Caring for others and acting faster improves an organization’s lot in life. It can make popularities soar. Revenues and profits climb. Consumers more brand loyal. And grow reputations positively.

Not a bad trade-off for less indecision.

Greening the grid: Big Brother or big savings?

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:17:00-0400

Homeowners tend to cast a cold eye on their electric utilities, particularly when it’s time to pay the bill or when the power fails. So it’s no wonder that a new clean technology initiative from the utility industry called Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) has consumer advocates suspicious with some calling it a Big Brother-like intrusion into folks’ homes.

In a nutshell, AMI aims to help conserve energy by enabling two-way communications between the home and the utility through a wireless network of smart meters and smart devices in the home. Picture a smart air conditioner that the utility can turn down remotely when an over-extended power grid starts straining.

AMI will let consumers and utilities work together to conserve energy consumption in the home during peak energy demand periods. It will also let homeowners see when, how and why they’re sucking down kilowatts so that they can make smarter, greener lifestyle decisions. Consumers benefit by saving energy and getting discount rates for playing ball with the utilities. Utilities benefit by avoiding brown-outs and black-outs during demand response periods.

Despite the obvious merits, it’s a potentially huge PR challenge that the utility industry has yet to take seriously, which is unfortunate because the critics are on the wrong side of the debate this time, IMO.

What’s not to like? Opponents claim it's a waste of ratepayer money that hasn't proven it will reduce electricity usage. They say that fluctuating time-of-day pricing will give utilities the opportunity to raise, not lower, prices. And they don’t like the idea of giving the power company the power to reach in and have their way with your home. Ratepayer advocates such as TURN, The Utility Reform Network, have already launched aggressive legal and political campaigns against the initiative in California and elsewhere.

As a skeptic who never likes to pass up an opportunity to stick it to The Man, I should be wary too. But homes and buildings are worse polluters and energy guzzlers than cars. And ever-growing energy demand, wars for oil and climate change are just a few good reasons for taking risks on new technologies that stand to conserve energy in homes. It will be interesting to see how well the utility industry can counter the ratepayer backlash and rally support for its new initiative.

{Disclosure: Beaupre client, Ember, makes wireless chips that enable AMI applications}

---

UPDATE: Celeste LeCompte at GigaOM covers the issue from the home appliance perspective.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal also weighs in.

Greenwashers versus mob rule

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:19:00-0400

An interesting battle is being waged through social media channels between General Motors and electric vehicle (EV)enthusiasts, who believe GM’s recent embrace of hybrid cars is just another disingenuous attempt to greenwash its image. It’s a great example of how social media has not only given the little guy a voice against corporate interests, but how the little guy can now drown out the big guy, sometimes to a tyrannical extent.

The EVs cite as evidence the Sony Pictures documentary Who Killed The Electric Car? It chronicles a sinister collusion between auto makers, Big Oil and Big Brother to terminate the fledgling electric car industry before it could take hold. Beyond its theatrical and DVD release, the movie got even wider distribution as a viral video via YouTube, social networks and blogs. And it didn’t help GM's cause when general manager Bob Lutz was widely quoted throughout the blogosphere saying “Global warming is a total crock of sh*t.”

Conspiracy theories and impassioned rants soon followed on social nets and forums such as the Yahoo!Groups electric vehicle group. EV activists descended on auto shows, policy making events and GM press conferences. An EV movement was born.

GM countered with social sites like gmnext, where people were encouraged to submit media and comments to help GM answer questions like “How can we best address global energy issues we’ll face for the next 100 years?”

Nice try. But the Rainforest Action Network, which called it “one of the biggest and most ambitious online corporate greenwashing campaigns,” quickly rallied its supporters to post photos and comments. GM was forced to kill “the conversation” on the site immediately.

The on-going debate has been fascinating. GM argues they can’t win with the EVs … that they’re investing billons developing the Chevy Volt by 2010. Yet skeptics say it’s red herring vaporware. The activists counter with the fact that GM built a perfectly good electric car a decade ago, so what’s the hold up?

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I haven’t ~~forgiven~~ trusted GM since I bought my ~~sh*t box~~ Chevy Citation back in the 80s. Nor do I suffer well the tinfoil hat fringe of community activism. That’s what’s great about the web. Activists can help keep The Man honest, conspiracy theories can forment, and everyone has a voice. But is this always a good thing, or sometimes tyranny of the majority?

Sharper Image dulled: bad review breaks a company

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:52:00-0400

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

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:52:00-0400

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?

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:27:00-0400

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)