PepperDigital

Baby Einstein? Uh, Make That Baby Average...

By Dawn Lauer, PepperDigital

“If you don’t want to see it in print, don’t say it.” When imparting the basics of giving a “good interview,” this is an old media relations adage that we PR folk prescribe. It is a valuable rule of thumb for the traditional media landscape, and the concept is equally important for corporations to adhere to when operating in the current online and social media worlds. Due to the laid-back nature of the online community, it’s easy to forget that you can still be held accountable for any online claims about your company, products or assets.  In some extreme cases, being too blasé about this concept can damage or destroy years of hard work put into a company’s reputation.  

The latest to find trouble is the Disney-owned Baby Einstein company. I’ve been following the controversy over the company’s claims to enhance brain development and the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood’s (CCFC) and FTC’s attack against them, citing medical research that indicates children under two years should not be exposed to television or videos no matter what the content. As a mother of two, and avid collector of Baby Einstein videos (my first child lived off them, but that is another point altogether), I don’t get too rattled by these types of disputes, or the CCFC’s statement that Disney must be admitting fault through its offer to refund the videos. Having spent over a decade in the world of PR, I can navigate the ins-and-outs of customer service and attempts at squashing a story.  

However, from a digital perspective, it never ceases to amaze me that companies so often forget or perhaps simply ignore the fact that whatever they put in print, no matter what the venue, that print may just come back to haunt them. For years since the pressure from the FTC began, Disney’s marketing has employed an evolutionary change in the videos’ promises to parents on its Web site. From such widespread claims including how the videos prevented neuron brain death in children years ago, now the site simply points to the “enriching learning experience” the products provide.  However, Internet sites like the ones used to chart the progression of the marketing claims are available and can be used to prove that such corporate speak once existed.  This may just prove to be a big contributor to the CCFC’s case against Disney.  

So while all corporations have the right to evolve and change, just be careful about what vehicles you use to market that change.  And, most importantly, remember that the advent of the Internet has made hiding nearly impossible in almost all cases. For customers, that’s a good thing.  For corporations that aren’t equipped to navigate this brave new world, it can be another.

Is Twitter the Next Arena of Free Speech Regulation?

Amanda Bonnen is being sued for a Tweet she made about an apartment she was renting from Horizon Realty, a property management company in Chicago. The offending Tweet: “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.”

Horizon Realty’s considers the Tweet libelous and has filed a $50,000 lawsuit against @abonnen because they believe the Tweet is damaging to their reputation. In an article in the Chicago Sun Times, Horizon Realty’s Jeffrey Michael claims the Tweet is “obviously false” and that his company is a “sue first, ask questions later” organization.

This case raises two issues:

1. Where is the line drawn between opinion and libel in social media?

True statements are legal to publish. Libel is anything that is a blatant lie or is written with the intent to defame or injure someone’s reputation. The safest course in Tweeting about a brand is to be factual in your communications. Consumers need to be aware that although Twitter is free, and that we are a nation of free speech, there are limitations to what you can say. Just like you don’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater unless there really is a fire, you don’t defame someone on Twitter just because you don’t agree with their approach to customer service.

2. How can companies manage their brands and customer service better in social media (notably Twitter) spheres?

Any brand manager knows a consumer’s voice is powerful. A customer’s voice on Twitter adds volume to the message.  A company concerned with brand reputation doesn’t “sue first and ask questions later.” That approach has a more damning effect to a reputation and brand than a single Tweet about a problem with an apartment. Especially from @abonnen, who only had 20 followers—most likely friends and family members. This situation could have been handled much better by Horizon through keeping a close eye on customer opinion and resolving the issue. Perhaps resolving the mold issue would have resulted in a positive Tweet commending Horizon’s handling the issue so promptly. We see this everyday on Twitter. A perfect example of brand management via Twitter is JetBlue’s handling of an issue my colleague Rob Longert had earlier this year.

The increased popularity of Twitter this year requires brands to listen more diligently and attentively to consumers. The power of the 140-character Tweet can spark wildfire-like discussions. Brands and consumers need to realize this potential, both parties need to be prepared for the consequences of their actions. For consumers, the simple rule of thumb is are you prepared to post a Tweet that you would also be willing to post your message on a busy highway billboard with your name, picture and email address visible to everyone. For brands, how you respond to a Tweet can have a more powerful effect on your image and reputation than the “offending” Tweet.

Good Customer Service = Good PR

by Carl Foster

In case anyone needed reminding, good customer service equals good PR and bad customer service can morph into an unstoppable PR disaster. The latest lesson comes from United Airlines, whose baggage handlers damaged the guitar of Canadian country singer, Dave Carroll. Not heard of Dave Carroll? Well 3.5 million people on YouTube have, because that is how many people have viewed his video chastising United Airlines for damaging his guitar and their subsequent lack of interest in dealing with the problem.

In what has become Dave Carroll’s biggest hit, ‘United Breaks Guitars’ is a funny little song and video about Dave’s experience at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. Some media reports, such as this one, imply that the video has led to a share price drop of 10%, or $180 million. That is a lot of money compared to the compensation Dave has been offered, albeit a full nine months after the incident occurred. In an interview with the BBC this morning, Dave says he has written more songs inspired by the incident, including one about his conversations with United’s customer services department.

So while airlines such as Southwest benefit from excellent viral videos such as this one, and Jet Blue Tweets its way to a positive word of mouth experience for passengers, United Airlines looks set for more bad online PR. If I was to counsel United Airlines I would suggest they capitalise on the momentum this has built up online and turn it to their advantage. Maybe make a humorous video that includes Dave and shows they can laugh at themselves? Maybe make Dave the headline act at a free concert for passengers at O’Hare, or a concert under a tailfin in a hanger to repay hardworking employees? Whatever the case, United have an opportunity to do more than just pay Dave some compensation to make the problem go away.

Taking On the Scalpers

By Dawn Lauer

 TicketMaster is going to great lengths to stop scalpers in their tracks with a new “ticketless” system.   

The experiment begins with Miley Cyrus’ upcoming tour, and ticket buyers will need to show photo ID and the credit card they used to purchase the tickets prior to gaining entrance into the event.  Other efforts to thwart scalping include a restriction of four tickets per buyer, and entire parties must be present in order to be seated. 

Will this really limit scalping activity?  The answer is yet to be seen, however I can confidently surmise that the new “system” will be responsible for a lot of angry show-goers due to massive lines, confusion and complaints.  And by the way, isn’t it TicketMaster that has the Tickets Now subsidiary, where its entire business model is dependent on online scalping?  (See previous blog post by Jackie Kolek)

The digital route is often the most efficient, however in this case, I’m not quite sure TicketMaster has it figured out.  While I don’t have the answer, perhaps the company should take a cue from the airlines.  I’m sure before e-ticketing became mainstream, the airlines had a couple of challenges to overcome.  While security remains a nightmare, the system on the whole works.  It should be interesting to watch this one unfold.  I just hope their CTO is ready to make some adjustments.  

Netflix’s Only Flaw

By Lauren Begley, PepperDigital

I have been a satisfied Netflix customer for the past five years. I have fond memories of curling up on the futon with friends in college and watching Playing by Heart or Empire Records—two of the most underrated movies of all time. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the recommendations the “Movies You’ll Love” feature generates, and I had an excellent experience with their customer service department when the fourth disk of  Season Five failed to show up after more than three days. 

But I wouldn’t give Netflix a perfect score.

Despite the excitement I still feel when I open my mailbox and see one of those little red envelopes, the company does one thing that really gets on my nerves: pop-up advertising. So many times, I have been scrolling through the day’s news when suddenly a large Netflix window pops up on my screen. Total buzz kill.

In 2009, why use pop-up ads? Pop-up ads are dated and turn consumers off. Most of us would agree they are annoying and are usually peddling a sleazy diet pill or contest (‘Click here for your chance to win a FREE cruise!’). They hardly represent companies with strong brand awareness or a large consumer base already in existence—two qualities I would associate with Netflix overall.

This is basic brand inconsistency, and Netflix is not using its digital presence to its full advantage. Netflix has already developed a loyal consumer base that sees the company as cool, innovative and respectable. But the use of this form of advertising is damaging to their overall reputation, rather than supplementing its key messages and brand identity.

Would anyone disagree?