cgm

The Latest Domino to Fall: The YouTube Video Itself

This morning I decided it was my duty as a digial consultant and author of a book about the viral power of complaints (Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3000, Doubleday Business), to take yet another look at that disgusting, now legendary video posted to YouTube by two former (and now being sued) Dominos employees.  Aside from the video itself, the comments are a rich source of insights, ever revealing of brand credibiliy and reputation, and I wanted to give them a good look as well.  Alas, much to my surprise, this infamous video -- this "when bad things happen to brands" case study of the year -- was nowhere to be found.  Instead, YouTube, posted the following curious comment:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Kristy Hammonds.

Kristy Hammonds is one of the former employees in question.  The specific nature of her "copyright claim" is yet to be seen, although it could be related to her prior record. What I do know is that there are going to be a ton of surprised folks over the curious removal of this video.  I also predict a viral rush to any TV news clip (see example here) or non YouTube versions of the clip on the web.  Once the viral Domino-effect starts on the web, it's really tough to remove.  The good news for Dominos is that YouTube version generated the lion's share of exposure, generating so much link-love that the video now ranks #3 against general "Dominos" queries on Google.  Now the highly incriminating video hits a dead-end...for now at least.

Irrespective of the damage control tactics employed by the brand or others, this incident represents yet another sobering wake-up call for brands about the power (and potential ugliness) of consumer expression. My Ad Age column this week focuses on the power and potential of "earned media" versus paid media (Earned Media May Be More Efficient, But Its Far From Free), but it also seeks to temper our social media exubberance by introducing a new term into our vernacular: spurned media (earned media that goes negative).  Indeed, expression cuts both ways.

This incident also underscores, once again, the importance of understanding the relationship between business processes -- product quality, customer service, employee training -- and word-of-mouth.  Much as we bear-hug viral "campaigns," the most viral word-of-mouth emanates from more foundational business processes.  Just think about the Taco Bell "Rats" incident.  Hygiene and cleanliness in particular is one of the most viral issues in the fast food industry, an issue I've come to appreciate in monitoring buzz for Nielsen and earlier in my founding of PlanetFeedback.com. 

Put another way, know thy talk drivers.

Salmonella Meets Social Media: Health & Human Services (HHS) Dept Starts a Social Media Team

The world moves fast in this new age of consumer control and social-media powered agility and responsiveness, even for government.  Earlier this week ConsumerGeneratedMedia.com took a deep dive on the FDA.gov's web and social media strategy in the context of the Peanut Butter & Salmonella issue.  The upshot, reinforced by in technicolor by the comment feed: the FDA is missing key opportunities to reach out to concerned consumers, or to "prime" its site for consumers "seeking" information.  

But again, things move really fast.  Yesterday, I noticed a Twitter message from Andrew P Wilson of the Health and Human Services (HHS) department -- the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is part of HHS -- who wanted to give me a courtesy heads up that HHS was already making progress against many of the issues outlined in my blog post.  More to the point, as of Friday his department just started a social media team, and he personally is now active on Twitter. Is this the government equivalent of Comcast's Frank Eliason twittering with me, or Scott Monty reaching out on behalf of Ford. (Full disclosure: Comcast is a client in my Nielsen job.)  Time will tell, but a cursory review of his Mr. Wilson's twitter messages suggests that he and his department is making a concerted effort to keep folks in the know across all dimensions of the recall.  One can also glean from his follower list that he's looking to stay wired to folks who have consistently offering commentary on the peanut butter recall. Yes, there's always understandable apprehension -- sometimes paranoia -- about goverment entering any type of conversation, but in this context, it feels like a win-win for all, especially concerned and information-hungry consumers. (Follow AndrewPWilson.)

Reading the Signals and Priming for Action:  How timely is "participation" on this issue? There's no shortage of commentary, and there plenty of fear around this recall issue, and the news just keeps intensifying the apprehension.  If you look at this recent post-recall Nielsen Brand Association Map (BAM), you'll note that once innocent conversation related to a once innocent term like "peanut butter" has taken an alarming turn for the worse.  BAMs reflect the density with which consumers consumers associate certain issues with the core topic. In this particular map, metered across tens of thousands of online messages across multiple expression platforms, you'll note that it's quite difficult to talk about "peanut butter" independent of the term "salmonella."   Whether through BAM maps, free blog search, or other social media tools, the big question is how can businesses and folks like Andrew P Wilson of the Health and Human Services sufficently tuned in so they can serve the unmet needs of concerned consumers and other stakeholders.  Might it impact the nature and tone of messaging, or even the level of empathy one might show toward an issue?  The other day I saw a Google keyword ad purchased by a major food company against the term "Salmonella," and in reviewing the choice of words in the headline, I kept asking myself...how well did they tune into the tenor and tone of the conversation before placing that ad.  Aperture matters!

More Comments from the Field:  It's worth recapping some of the feedback to the original post about what governmental agencies like FDA and HHS should consider in address this recall issue.

Friend and published social media author Dave Evans notes, among other things, that "there is a particularly compelling case for social media around food (and family!) issues given the role of the "Advocate Mom" in her specific online social setting."  He also calls out Wegman's for its use of Twitter to push recall notices. (Follow Dave Evans.) Fred Wilson notes that "open government is coming and it's going to be transformative.) (Follow: Fred Wilson)

Former colleague and first-rate thinker Kate Niederhoffer calls out the FDA.gov site's lack of "social graph credibility."  She notes: "You walk away from the site with the sense that the government thinks this is important, but do your personal friends and trusted advisors? This is where something like Facebook Connect could be an interesting build...anything that socializes the content and lets you know how your social graph is consuming the info, responding to the info, would be helpful." (Follow Kate Niederhoffer.)

Respected social media commentator Peter Kim insists the "FDA needs to transform itself from being a faceless 'administration' and show its composition of passionate and educated public health professionals. Then they'll be able to activate social media and benefit from its expediency, among other things."  He also suggests that the selection of Dr. Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General may well be a positive development. "Most people probably trust WebMD, Wikipedia, or Google search results more than an official government spokesperson these days."  (Follow Peter Kim)

Sam Decker, a WOMMA board colleague, and long-time social media expert who hails from Bazaar Voice and formerly Dell recommends, among other things, that the FDA "enable consumers to share stories of what actions they took and what they learned. Make that accessible to SEO, and share that across other sites on this topic via javascript widgets. Make FDA be the hub, but allow spokes to be distributed throughout blogs and other sites (even ecommerce sites that sell related products)." (Follow Peter Kim)

Social media expert (with lots of corporate experience) Nick Huhn points to the need for "alternative intersections with social media channels might be demonstrated in this case. Why not partner with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, and other daily points of departure to spread the messages a la the Emergency Broadcast System via television? Moreover, dynamically updated information displays should present these notifications to consumers at point of purchase or via email if a retailer knows someone has purchased an affected item from the database of loyalty card transactions."  (Follow Peter Kim)

Lastly, a voice from the younger generation. Chandler Koglmeier, my former brilliant intern (hailing from Middlebury College) who I credit with successfully matriculating me to Facebook three years ago, echoes my point about video but add the following. "Why not post messages from all parts of the supply chain (especially the producer) explaining what is wrong and what is being done to rememdy this situation?  If there is anything to be learned from the Obama team, it's that more information on things which interest the public will be well received and passed around."

Let's keep this conversation going.  Very important!  Very timely!  Relevant to all of us, including our kids. 

BlogWorld Notebook: Re-Engaging With My Inner Blogger

I feel like a bit of an imposter here at BlogWorld.  I talk about blogs every day -- interpret them, offer strategy to companies about how to create and manage them - but in many respects I've lost touch a bit with "individual" blogging.  The reality is that I'm only updating my ConsumerGeneratedMedia site one every week or so (sometimes longer), and many of the issues or tips or "deep thoughts" I ordinarily would toss on my blog have been cannibalized by Twitter, Facebook, Yammer (internal twitter), and the bi-weekly "marketing meets service" column I now write for Advertising Age. I'm also increasingly self-conscious that if I don't stay diligent, and ever attentive, I'll continue getting lapped by far wiser and prescient marketing industry bloggers.  There are many, and they keep me on my toes.

Still, few experiences have so motivated me to think differently about consumer-generated media (or conversations, or social media...) as my own personal blogging (whether this one or my own family blogs like DosBebes or HybridBuzz) and I'm eager to rediscover some of the blog-love while here at the BlogWorld Expo in Las Vegas.  So in addition to participating on a panel dedicated to one of my favorite topics, Defensive Branding, which builds on my of the themes in my book, I hope to put on my consumer cap and soak in some fresh ideas and inspiration.  As I look across the hundreds of individuals intently listening to the keynote address here, delivered by TypePads Anil Dash and Chris Alden, there's an unmistakable level of passion, commitment, and personal pride in the development of the blogosphere. At times it borders on romantic "blogs will solve all" naivette, but that's overshadowed by the unmistakable reality that these are the new media creators and content curators of the marketspace. From traditional media companies who increasingly connect with readers using blog publishing tools to corporations seeking to dial up a greater sense of authenticity and transparency with consumers or customers, everyone, it seems, is borrowing lessons and insights from the folks in this room.  So perhaps this is where insight begins -- perhaps!  We'll see.  I'll keep taking notes. #bwe08

Business Week on Consumer Vigilantes: Customer Service, Emotion, and CGM in Focus

Business Week's 3/3 edition (available online now) features a very important cover story by Jena McGregor entitled Consumer Vigilantes: Fighting for truth, justice, and the right to speak to a manager. The issue also includes an annual ranking of "Customer Service Champs" -- many of whom, interestingly, have been profiled in either this blog or my forthcoming book, "Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3000!"  -- as well as a provocative (and spot-on) op-ed by Jeff Jarvis entitled "Love the Customers Who Hate You".  Importantly, McGregor writes:

"The sting of a bad experience can cut so deep that it transforms an upset customer into an activist no longer interested in just a refund." 

As we've probed many times in this blog (see tagged links), and in nearly a dozen ClickZ columns, marketers and business executives have yet to internalize the critical symbiotic relationship between brand/service "experiences" and "media" output (and I'm not talking about paid media). McGregor's piece helps make that connection more obvious and transparent.  The propensity to speak out (hence generate CGM or social media) is inextricably tied to depth of consumer loyalty or disloyalty, and its powered by the web's growing arsenal of megaphones that seem to get even more powerful every day thanks to the advent of multi-media (e.g. video, audio, photos) as well as "I second that emotion" community and social-networking capability.    The upside of extreme loyalty and brand emotion might be found in places like Facebook's 40,000+ member Southwest Airlines group or the nearly 70,000 member "Addicted to Starbucks" group (more perspective here). The downside of extreme disloyalty and boiling emotion -- what McGregor describes as "venom-spewed tales of woe" -- can be found in tens of thousands of places on the web's digital trail, from message boards to blogs to YouTube.  (As Jarvis suggests, just go to Google and add the word "sucks" to a brand query.)

So What Next?  Business Week does a great job diagnosing the problem, and the "winners" part shines light on a host of best practices (Fairmont, Lexus, Trader Joe's, Lands End, Enterprise), but I still worry whether there's a big missing piece of the conversation around "what next."  Importantly, are the marketing leaders -- the owners of the biggest discretionary budget, and arguably the most influential drivers of change in large enterprises-- internalizing the message, and translating these new insights around consumer behavior into better "media" models.  If "service is the new marketing," as they say, what's the blueprint for re-engineering the marketing department along these lines?  How should the CMO -- or the constellation of communications agencies (media planning, advertising, PR, digital) -- be incented to move in this direction?  And will there be rewards and recognition for the mostly undervalued (and typically non-strategic "cost center") owners of the call-center, email feedback, and more?   

First Things First: Since 2000, I've attended over a dozen conferences of the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals, one of the largest industry group's representing corporations and brands that own the "listening pipe." While not nearly as glamorous as the "new media" or Web 2.0 confabs and conferences, these SOCAP events always hit me like a refreshing cold-shower because they are grounded in the real nuts and bolts of listening, training the front-lines, adapting to an increasingly diverse (e.g. Spanish speakers) and demanding consumers, developing fair and consistent methods for responding to consumers, and navigating impenetrably complex legal barriers (and fear).  I have also learned that this department is consistently underfunded and under-resourced, and mostly divorced from marketing.  As boring and mundane as their work seems, it's hard not to conclude that if a company can't nail the "basics" of consumer listening they'll never get it right, or be credible, in the far more vexing and volatile social media zone. (Remember, most of the vigilantes Business Week's McGregor highlights initially reached out the company, but those experiences were poorly managed and only made the situation worse.)  So you have to start with the source.  That said, like the CMO, the consumer affairs and customer relations leaders also need to step up to the plate, a point I underscored last fall in a SOCAP keynote entitled "Wake Up and Listen to Consumer 2.0."  If they want more budget, more respect, more leeway to nurture meaningful consumer loyalty -- and hence positive word-of-mouth and CGM creation -- they need to make their case, and do so now at a time when the resource-rich marketers are dotting every third word in speeches and memos with the word "conversation."  My book lays out a host of strategies for making such a case, but short of even reading a book (or Business Week's story) business leaders simply need to take a long, hard stare at today's consumer and negotiate a new relationship.  The good news is that there's a growing laundry list of best practices in this area I like to refer to as Listening-Centered Marketing, from Dell's Ideastorm to the 800-number-all-over-the-place Zappos.com.  We're also seeing new metrics and measurement protocols (this is part of what I do in my day job) that make it far easier for brands to understand and act upon varying degrees of consumer emotion (the building block of consumer loyalty or even defection) flowing across the CGM landscape.

Final Question: And so I end this post with a simple question: how do we shift from consumer-powered "vigilantism" to company-powered "service vigilance."  Business Week's piece fires up that conversation, and I really hope it continues down the right path.

Search and Reputation: Your Brand Standing Is Your Shelf Landing

My most recent ClickZ article, entitled Search & Reputation: Your Brand Standing is Your Shelf Landing, insists that "search and brand reputation share an inseparable, symbiotic relationship, and CGM is the dominant, if not final, arbiter of that marriage. That puts the exercise of managing brand equity on the thin, precarious line between control and capitulation." Further:

"In both pleasant and unsettling ways, companies are quickly learning their brand equity and credibility is the sum total, and composition of their search results. They're also beginning to internalize (usually the hard way) that CGM is now the fastest-growing source of indexed content in search results....That means, in essence, we're all hostage to the conversation."

This issue is a key theme in my upcoming book, and it powers one of my "six drivers of brand credibility" -- affirmation.  Brand credibility and reputation heavily rests on how well search results "affirm" brand attributes.  For example, after hearing a "we solve all your problems" ad pitch from a particular brand, a consumer might conduct a bit of extra due diligence on a search engine, or even Wikipedia. In some categories such as wireless, search results often "affirm" negative -- not positive -- experiences with the brand, hence eroding credibility. Every brand stakeholder needs to be attentive to these dynamics.   Again, here's the article.  If you want to dig deeper, John Battelle, not surprisingly, has written a fair amount about this topic.

Type in Pete Blackshaw into Google and

Official 2008 Buzzword Forecast

Must admit, I had more fun writing this last ClickZarticle ("The Official 2008 Web 2.0 Buzzword Forecast") than just about anything I've written this year.  And based on some early feedback, I vow to keep it growing.  If I am claiming credit for anything that's already been circulating in popular Web 2.0 vernacular, by all means let it out!  Here are the highlights.  Enjoy!

"Search moptimization": Yes, that's "mop," as in to clean up. This is the increasingly common, if not essential, brand practice of attempting to clean up negative search results against general or specific brand-related queries. For many brands, particularly in the consumer electronics category, hostile CGM is beginning to fill, even dominate, the organic search shelf, a zone that we all know has an unmistakable impact on the awareness and trial of new products. For many brands, the mopping process can take two to three years (often longer) and heavily depends on operational and product, rather than marketing, decisions. Dell, for example, still has lots of "search moptimization" to clean up Jeff Jarvis's two-year-old mess, though it's worth noting its customer service blog and IdeaStorm initiatives have already helped mop up or reroute some of the venom.

"Wombagging": This exercise tries to protect, or sandbag, your brand from negative or undesirable word of mouth (WOM). This could include anything everything from buying negative keywords on search engines to putting videos on your Web site featuring your CEO begging for patience and forgiveness. For some companies, wombagging might even include employing staffers in defense of bad buzz. But again, all this falls into the defensive branding arena, not outright promotion.

"Friendiligence": This will become very popular in 2008. It involves the extra layer of due diligence on friend requests on Facebook, MySpace, and all the me-too social networks popping up here and there. Friendiligence will also dial up as marketers oversaturate the social networking space with fan sites and more. Is this a real friend offer, or is it spam? Trust me, we'll all ask harder questions, and some friend lists will start to shrink.

"Converstations": Brands now have multiple entry points for meaningful dialogues or conversations with consumers. These are essentially converstations. Brands fully immersed in CGM or social media may have dozens of conversations, from the consumer affairs interfaces and toll-free numbers to the corporate blog. They all matter, and every brand manager should know his or her converstations.

"Social mediation": This is the process of rethinking or renegotiating certain advertising, marketing, and communications practices as a result of user backlash. What took place with the Facebook privacy backlash was essentially social mediation, and Facebook's own groups served as the third-party arbitrator between disgruntled users and Facebook (the company and policymaker)

"We-bargaining": A close cousin of social mediation, this is a bit more centered on brands and companies seeking peace, appeasement, or a lesser sentence with consumers when they screw up (particularly with viral, WOM, or CGM campaigns). It's a tough exercise, because it typically pits a brand against the wisdom of the crowds. Richard Edelman did a very good job of we-bargaining after the controversial Wal-Mart blog incident last year. He was open, forthright, contrite, and resolved to fix the issue.. So, too, was the CEO of JetBlue when he posted his apology to YouTube.

"Greenlashing": Woe to the marketer who over-claims or over-promises benefits on the green front. The market's just too transparent. Sites like TreeHugger, now owned by Discovery, are part of mainstream consciousness these days, and smaller green skeptics will vet out a green imposter faster than you can say "carbon neutral." As the number of do-good green blogs increases, you can expect even more greenlashing about brand missteps in this area. Mya Frazier of Ad Age deserves credit for firing the first big warning shot against marketers' bows on what she calls "greenwashing."

"Shamsparency": Don't get busted buying shills or engaging in unsavory activity. Just don't do it, or the forces of shamsparency will catch up with you. It happens all the time, and firms in the CGM monitoring space (like my own) make it easier to uncover the imposters. My recommendation: avoid this term at all costs, and write the WOMMA ethics code on the whiteboard 30 times.

"Credlining": Credlining is when consumers sift the good from the bad, the credible from the discreditable, and publish a scorecard accordingly. When protesters of Facebook's Beacon feed effort started posting lists of Facebook's advertising partners, credlining was in play.

"Facelifting": This is the process of taking a hard look at traditional conversational touch points ("contact us" pages, feedback forms, surveys), and slapping on a friendlier, more empowering face that the usual run-at-all-cost one. Brands must think harder about the sincerity and believability of the invitation. How do you make consumers feel important and valued?

"Blog groveling": This is the already-getting-old process of sucking up to bloggers and key influencers to try, test, or sample your new product or service. Usually it involves hokey headlines, repetitive phrases, and an unmistakable hint of desperation.

"World War 2.0": Face it, the battle lines are calcifying around Web 2.0. Ambiguity reins supreme on "Who owns the conversation?" and "Who owns the influencer?" Sure, we all talk a mean game of cross-functional harmony, but war's already erupting between the brand and IT departments, the PR agency and the digital agency, and, most important, consumer affairs and everyone else. Did I forget to mention legal? Top executives, meanwhile, fancy pitting one against the other in the impatient name of just getting it done. Expect to hear much more about World War 2.0 in 2008.

"MicroTubing": This is what's happening in TV and video development. New content forms are proliferating and appealing to smaller audiences. Small publishers, even mom-and-pop players, will continue to make inroads into the video publishing zone, many getting snatched up by brands and publishers for ongoing content.

"Lipsmacking": This is process of talking trash about brands, services, or goods, usually with a digital trail

Ten Important Takeaways From Steve Jobs' iPhone Pricing Apology

What an incredible year to watch and learn from CEO-level behavior in times of crisis and difficulty.  First we had Jet Blue, faced with an impossibly difficult situation, take to the airwaves on YouTube, apologize profusely, and announce a new passenger bill of rights.  While Menu Foods practically hid their CEO during the pet recall issue, Mattel put their CEO, Bob Eckert, on the website video airwaves to nurture trust and confidence in the wake of the toy recall (a still-in-progress case study).  Now we have Steve Jobs, who just wrote and posted the most remarkable letter in response to concerns about iPhone’s recent price decrease. He coupled an apology with a $100 Apple credit for all early-buyers of the iPhone.  This is classic Defensive Branding.  I predict it will be one of the most discussed, debated, and linked-to letters of the year, and so far I've already counted over 800 unique blog postings referencing his letter since 6 PM last night.  I'd thought I'd dissect the letter, and draw out key "takeaways."

Exact Text From CEO Steve Jobs Letter

I have received hundreds of emails from iPhone customers who are upset about Apple dropping the price of iPhone by $200 two months after it went on sale.

1. The Power of Listening: He read his mail, and he understands the core issue. Most CEOs wait for the formal report from the consumer affairs department.

After reading every one of these emails, I have some observations and conclusions.

2. The Power of Responsiveness He has listened, and now he is responding. 

First, I am sure that we are making the correct decision to lower the price of the 8GB iPhone from $599 to $399, and that now is the right time to do it. iPhone is a breakthrough product, and we have the chance to 'go for it' this holiday season. iPhone is so far ahead of the competition, and now it will be affordable by even more customers. It benefits both Apple and every iPhone user to get as many new customers as possible in the iPhone 'tent'. We strongly believe the $399 price will help us do just that this holiday season.

3. The Power of Restating the Rationale: He’s re-affirming excitement around the product, as well as rationalizing Apple’s core decision to lower iPhone price. He’s doing so confidently and rationally, and as a build up to his eventual apology.

Second, being in technology for 30+ years I can attest to the fact that the technology road is bumpy. There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever. This is life in the technology lane. If you always wait for the next price cut or to buy the new improved model, you'll never buy any technology product because there is always something better and less expensive on the horizon.

4. The Power of Empathy: Jobs is attempting to show empathy and understanding for those who have a tendency to buy products as soon as they hit the market. These are the coveted early adopters and enthusiasts, and they represent to sweet spot of the “new” marketing.  These are also the same consumers who ranted to loudest when Job's announced, barely 24 hours earlier, a 33% price slash. They are the influentials. 

The good news is that if you buy products from companies that support them well, like Apple tries to do, you will receive years of useful and satisfying service from them even as newer models are introduced.

5. The Power of Service as Brand: He’s underscoring Apple’s historic legacy of providing value and exceptional service, no matter when and how consumers buying the product.  (Caveat: a smart statement, but not 100% accurate. Apple still has service blemishes.)

Third, even though we are making the right decision to lower the price of iPhone, and even though the technology road is bumpy, we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price.

6. The Power of Accountability: In essence he’s taking accountability for not being sufficiently sensitive to these coveted early customers. He's also expressing resolve to right the wrong.  Key message: we can't afford to lose you!

Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these.

7. The Power of Nurturing Trust: Job's is openly underscoring the undeniable role of trust in the relationship between the brand and the consumer.  Indeed, trust is what makes the world go around, and it’s one of most important drivers of credibility.

Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store

8. The Power of Walking the Talk!  Jobs is putting a real, tangible value on consumer value. If you were there for us early on, we will credit you $100.

Details are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website next week. Stay tuned.

9. The Power of Imperfect Timeliness: Jobs didn’t have all the detailed worked out but he clearly saw the upside in communicating the basic concept as quickly as possible

We want to do the right thing for our valued iPhone customers. We apologize for disappointing some of you, and we are doing our best to live up to your high expectations of Apple.

10. The Power of Forgiveness: In the end, he is offering a sincere apology, but also advertising the degree to which Apple consumers expect and demand more.  In essence, his apology is reaffirming the power of the Apple brand. Here it's also important to note that saying you are sorry is a "consumer bonding" moment. It cements emotional connections.

Let's keep this case study alive.  And to that point, what promises to be an excellent thread has just started on WOMMA's Facebook thread.  My very smart WOMMA colleague Rick Murray of Edelman has fired off the first comment, suggesting that "entire episode was avoidable had Mr. Jobs done one thing: reach out to and listen to his most ardent fans.

Defensive Branding & Video: Keeping Trust During a Crisis

Well, you read about it here first, but I dedicated this morning's lead ClickZ article (Keeping Trust During a Crisis) to a more extended discussion about the use of video in crisis communication.  Mattel, J&J, and Menu Foods are cited.  In terms of "actionability," I suggest that brands should "aggressively think about how to leverage interactive capabilities and platforms, especially video, to drive deeper emotional connections and trust with consumers."  Tough situations, I add, are the best place to start.   

Video response within site search results. Brands have a long way to go in shoring up basic site search, but one opportunity is to use video-based responses against the query. If a consumer types in "ford safety," the results page should link directly to a trusted voice from the brand walking through the company's commitment to safety. It doesn't need to be the CEO; it could be the product manager or some other trust figure.

FAQ databases. Similarly, FAQ databases should make better use of video responses. Right now, virtually all FAQ databases on corporate sites are grounded in text.

Feedback forms. Should every feedback form or "contact us" link have a video of the head of customer relations talking about how sincere she is about getting the forms back? Think about how the Kashi brand conveys a "we're listening" mindset.

External search. If consumers type in a directionally negative term on the major search engines, brands should buy text ads that link directly to a video response.

Mattel vs Menu Foods: Is Video A Better Way to Show Empathy?

At what point does "sight, sound, and motion" make a difference when trying to connect with consumers during a crisis?  Well, let's start with everything we as marketers picked up in TV copy Training 101.  TV ads work well because they drive or reinforce emotional connections; they enable "benefit" visualizations, and they typically have some form of dramatic effect you don't find in other forms of advertising.  Which is a long way of saying that I think Mattel's use of online video featuring it's CEO reaching out to consumers on the toy recall issue is right on the mark.  It works far better than a letter, a newspaper ad, a website button, or a downloadable PDF file (the curious, impossible-to-share format of choice in crisis management these days -- e.g. pet recall). 

Out of the Woods?  This isn't to suggest Mattel is out of the woods, or even close.  Indeed, the consumer fear factor around this issue, reflected in just about every form of CGM, is just warming up.  My wife and I, parents of twins who reign over countless toys of every shape and size, were just talking up this issue yesterday.  But the video works, and represents a smart first step.  It connects emotionally, demonstrates empathy, and appeals to the highest "trust" figure in the organization.   Here it's hard not to recall Jim Burke, CEO at Johnson & Johnson during the Tylenol crisis, who in an case-study codified interview (I watched it a dozen times my first year at Harvard Business School), used compassion, sincerity, and "I'd be upset too" empathy to address an impossibly difficult issue. In fact, many would argue that that poignant moment turned the corner for J&J.  Even then, well before the online video age, no print ad could compare to seeing the eyes, and hearing the voice, of Burke talking about the issue. 

Mattel Vs Menu Foods:  Now, compare this to the near lifeless approach of Menu Foods in addressing the recent pet food recall. Yes, there's were words of concern, even compassion, from the Menu Foods CEO, but the message is carried in words only.  And you don't even feel like he's talking to everyday pet owners.  The one document posted with CEO commentary on the matter reflects formal remarks at the "Menu Foods Annual Meeting." The content of the message is right -- "As pet owners ourselves, we have been saddened by the events of the last four months," he notes -- but you just wonder whether he'll get even 10% of the credit for those words given his choice of communication formats.  At the end of the day, half the equation in crisis management or defensive branding is appearing real and accessible. 

The Consumer-Fortified Media (CFM) Effect:  There's no guarantee of anything in a crisis, but companies that strike the right emotional connection with consumers typically get rewarded in the CGM currents.  We saw that clearly in the then Jet Blue CEO David Neeleman's well received (and appreciated) video apology posted on YouTube (arguably an even bolder than Mattel's effort).  Consumers fortified the brand generated media with their own commentary, reactions, opinions, and, fortunately for Jet Blue, reinforcing views. I like to refer to this as Consumer-Fortified Media (CFM), and you'll recall earlier ClickZ and blog commentary on this.  Of course, you can't take any of these tactics for granted. If the gesture doesn't appear real or authentic, or if it comes across as a spin-job, you won't get anywhere!  Looking ahead, brands need to invest more energy in carefully thinking through how they can leverage the interactive platforms -- upon which on-demand video now practically falls in the "add water and stir" category -- to drive deeper emotional connections and trust with consumers.   (I talk more about all these things in a more official capacity in a recent For Immediate Release podcast with Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson on Defensive Branding.)

Defensive Branding 101

Defensive branding is the process of preparing and protecting your brand from the volatile ups and downs of today's never predictable marketing environment.  In the age of consumer control, a good defense may be a brand's only realistic option.  As I noted in a podcast interview today with always-engaging Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz, the hosts of For Immediate Release, it's too simple to say this is merely about PR  2.0.   Defensive branding requires a host of holistic communications strategies -- all anchored, of course, to active listening. On Friday, I'm co-hosting a webinar on this topic entitled "Defensive Branding: Trouble Shooting Your Brand in the Age of Consumer Control."   It's free and you can sign up here.  Joining me will be John Giacobetti, VP of Brands for Comcast, and moderator Dan Mechem, former BuzzMetrics VP and FoxNews correspondent.

Let's put all this in perspective.  corporations and brands it’s harder than ever to defend your credibility. The time available to respond to a crisis, rumor, problem, or embarrassing gaffe is a fraction of what it was in other years. For most corporations, speed is the enemy. This is one unmistakable reality in the age of consumer-generated media.  Suspected bad news flies at the speed of sound, and the old rules of “let’s wait until the morning” simply no longer apply. That said, all is not lost for major brands. There are a host of steps to defend and protect – and perhaps even grab the offensive – in a major crisis.  From the brand website or blog to consumer affairs to how you buy keywords on Google against less flattering consumer searches, there are a host of tactics brands can apply to "defend" the brand.  I've written about this extensively in this blog, and here's a link to some of that commentary..