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.)

Comments

[maxkalehoff]

Yes. Seeing is believing! We all know words too often are sanitized by communications professionals and lawyers -- and it usually shows because any sense of mission or passion is sucked dry. Wrongly or rightly, video emits additional and important queues, including emotional, which humans factor into their interpretation of an argument in cases like this.

[Jonathan Trenn]

But seeing is not believing. Changing is what will cause belieiving. The use of a short video - while definitely the right thing to do - will be useless in the end if Eckert's pledges are hollow. His three point plan SOUNDS like it make sense, but we don't know the standards or the inspections or how often they monitor their vendors.

What would be needed is a follow up series of video of how progress is being made. Otherwise, this becomes a video form of a full page ad.