Point to the AP for one of the better headlines I’ve seen recently: “Feds investigate baby bottom complaints”

Now, I’m going to do my best to avoid being too cheeky (1) throughout this post, but I can’t guarantee I have that sort of discipline.

Unfortunately for Procter & Gamble, maker of Pampers, not all is smooth (2) in baby butt land. The article is about the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its investigation to get to the bottom (3) of complaints of “babies and toddlers suffering severe and persistent diaper rashes and blisters that resemble chemical burns” due to a new “Dry Max” diaper Pampers introduced.

Evidently, this whole thing, as many brands are finding out the hard way, got going on Facebook, and found its way into the mainstream media. Both upset parents and Pampers seem to be utilizing the tools available to make their respective cases. When I checked while writing this, the Facebook page serving as the hub of activity – Pampers bring back the OLD CRUISERS/SWADDLERS – had 6,424 fans. Also on the page – the damning evidence! Photos! I would not recommend looking at them though.

Pampers has dismissed these rash (4) claims as it “aimed to contain a public relations threat to its biggest diaper innovation in 25 years,” says Reuters. The company claims, and executives have stated online, that these rumors are false, and they have turned over all safety data to the CPSC.

As we’ve explored on this blog before, parents are a group you do not want to mess with. So, P&G cannot simply ignore it. And it isn’t. P&G is engaging its concerned consumers where they are gathering online.

A lot of self-proclaimed experts, as one quoted by Reuters does, might advocate contrition. But P&G is sticking (rightly, I think) to its guns. The company thinks the facts are on its side – that there is no evidence behind the claims, either presented by others or in its own research. Unfortunately, facts don’t always win the day, and Pampers might do well to at least be open to exploring the issue a bit more rather than making a goofy claim about this being nothing more than some kind of diaper conspiracy among a handful of upset parents.

While this movement against Dry Max might not affect sales or otherwise cause longer-term brand damage, all it takes is a few consumers at a time switching to Huggies.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications, General Corporate, Social Media crisis management, Facebook, P&G, Pampers

Arizona’s recent approval of a draconian new immigration law has unleashed a tsunami of condemnation from President Obama; a long bipartisan list of legislators across the country; Hispanic, civil rights and public interest groups; the Government of Mexico; and late night talk shows among others, along with, as expected, an energized and often entertaining debate in the blogosphere. Arizona has courted such controversy before with its decision for many years not to recognize Martin Luther King Day. That legislative gambit led to a number of boycotts and the cancellation of a host of convention and tourist visits to the state.

While Arizona’s reputation is taking another hit (and there is likely a blog post or several on that topic), the age of social media has created a whole new set of issues for companies based in Arizona or even trading on the Arizona name. Amid the usual and widespread calls for boycotts of Arizona, there is a groundswell of chatter online (being breathlessly covered by the media) concerning the boycotting of Arizona-based companies and their products. U-Haul, Best Western and Cold Stone Creamery are among the Arizona’s corporate citizens being held out for possible retribution, but the antipathy is extending to companies that even have Arizona in their name.

AriZona Beverages, the makers of AriZona Iced Tea has come under attack even though the company was founded and is headquartered in New York. See Helen Kennedy’s piece in the Daily News and Robert Mackey’s Lede Blog in the New York Times.

As both pieces point out, the assault on AriZona Iced Tea appears to have started on the twitter feeds of Travis Nichols, a Chicagoan who posted a tweet suggesting a boycott because “it is the drink of fascists”. Whether comedic or not, Mr. Travis’ tweet has become a media hit and led AriZona Beverages to post a letter on its website assuring consumers that its only ties to Arizona were in its name and touting its bona fides as a family-run American company.

The Company should be applauded for reacting quickly to the online and media onslaught and trying to set the public record straight (its actual messages can be discussed at a later date). In this era of citizen journalism, where blogs and Twitter feeds make and take the place of news, companies are often confused about how and when to react, who to take seriously and how to enter a social media debate. Unfortunately, there are no clear rules of the online road. The efficacy and crafting of the appropriate response must be done on a case by case basis in consultation with a company’s business leaders, communications professionals and outside advisors. AriZona jumped in quickly to try to protect its brand and reputation. We will wait and see how other companies facing these calls for boycotts react.

Richard Tauberman can be reached at rtauberman@mww.com.

rtauberman Crisis Communications, General Corporate, Social Media Arizona, citizen journalism, Social Media

Companies often find themselves in a dilemma that goes something like this: “I want to connect with people through social media but I’m worried about what I can’t control. People may say bad things about us.” So?

Companies that do the right thing have an understanding of their issues and risks and know in their hearts that they are taking appropriate steps to be good corporate citizens have nothing to fear. And, in fact, have an opportunity to tell their story through social media.

Take the recent palm oil debacle Nestle faced. It’s not as if Nestle didn’t know about Greenpeace’s concerns. Nestle and others in its space have been dealing with activist concerns for decades. And Nestle, like others in its space, have taken numerous steps and made active commitments to protect the environment in communities in which they do business. But, activist groups exist to push companies harder and Nestle knows that. So rather than get defensive — even belligerent — over Greenpeace’s use of social media to push Nestle, why didn’t Nestle use it as an opportunity to tell the story of their efforts to do good.

True, the dialogue would have continued and the activists would have critiqued but both sides of the story would have been aired and the story would have lived out its “news cycle”. Instead, by taking on the activists in a defensive manner, Nestle missed an opportunity. Nestle wouldn’t have handled a live encounter without arming themselves with their positive actions and positive messages, nor would they have dealt with a reporter without having the balanced story at hand. Social media is no different.

Establishing a social media policy — just like the media policy most companies use — is one way to avoid such situations while also taking advantage of the opportunity for transparent dialogue that is the primary value of social engagement.

Ame Wadler can be reached at awadler@mww.com.

awadler Crisis Communications, General Corporate, Social Media Greenpeace, Nestle, Social Media

I have resisted and will continue resisting joining the Greek chorus of PR pros who have seized this moment to condemn Tiger Woods not just for his current, uh, troubles, but for the way in which he has dealt with the media and public. Lots of bromides about “controlling the story” and other such pieces of doctrinaire advice that, while certainly applicable in some situations, have little bearing on this specific situation.

I have my thoughts on how Woods should handle this going forward and try to repair his reputation, but I’m more interested in the corporate angle – his sponsors. Fortune, also interested, asks the question: “Will his sponsors stick around?” In the days following his, uh, accident, there has been a real dearth of Tiger Woods as pitchman. His commercials have been yanked from the airwaves.

And though some sponsors, like Nike and Accenture, have offered public support and seem willing to stick with him, Fortune suggests that “observers on deathwatch” are just waiting to see how much the sponsors can endure – with revelation after revelation – before cutting ties.

What does a brand have to gain reputation-wise from sticking by a now, if not reviled, then at least tarnished, athlete? Particularly one that attracted such sponsorships in part because of his good guy image? Well, part of it has to be a bet – a bet that after some time, Woods can begin to repair his image and return to some shade of former glory (and marketability). It might be cynical, but being awesome at sports helps overcome a lot.

The article points out two other considerations for sponsors: If they let Woods go now, competitors might want him, and; they might try to renegotiate his contracts, getting him for cheaper now in light of his, uh, situation.

All are reasonably sound rationale for not dumping him overboard just yet. But like most things reputation, there is a risk. Stick by him too long, and offer too much support if things continue to unravel, and it begins to look like you just haven’t noticed. Or worse, it begins to look to your stakeholders like you care little about their values.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Executive Visibility, Social Media, Uncategorized Crisis Communications, Reputation Management

Today’s Wall Street Journal takes another in a recent series of looks at the way in which digital media is reshaping the way businesses manage their reputation and react and respond to their customers and stakeholders. Seemingly small issues online are combustible PR problems if not attended to properly, we are demonstrably warned over and over, and this article shows some companies doing the digital thing right.

Domino’s learned the lesson the hard way just a few months ago. But, it seems more and more companies are striving to avoid such a fate by ramping up their social media bona fides.

Coca-Cola is taking a step that, I’m guessing, might give other companies’ executives (and maybe PR staff) heartburn. Coke is rolling out a training program that will school marketing, public affairs, and legal staff on social media, allowing them to post to social media sites – in essence, represent the company on Twitter, Facebook and the like – without needing permission to do so. I think that’s smart, within reason.  

It’s smart because it recognizes the greater trend – we are approaching a time when every employee must be responsible to some degree for the reputation of their company. Reputation managers need speed and agility, need to be in a position to actually solve customer/stakeholder problems when warranted, and need to train others throughout their organization on what to look for online and how.

PR departments must empower colleagues to solve minor online complications on their own as they spot them. The digital world simply moves too fast and with too impossible a volume for a small team to mitigate every snag.

However, I do wonder how much is too much. In the race for companies to show how attentive and attune they are, are we forgetting the bigger picture? Does every complaining Tweet  - let’s face it, some can be downright silly – warrant a response? Part of the communications team’s charge is to help shape their company’s message and narrative for all the audiences that matter to them; to tell a unique but strategic story; to draw out into the light those qualities for which their brand wants to be known. Every Tweet must be made with that in mind.

Michael Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com

msacks Social Media Social Media