Covering Your Reputational Behind
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.
