soulati.com

Digital Marketing Strategy, PR and Messaging

Soulati-'TUDE!

Word of Mouth Marketing and Diapers

By

My diaper-buying days are over (until 100 years from now when I’m a grandma, perhaps). But, when I did buy dipes, I bought Pampers, just like a gazillion moms today and tomorrow. And, that’s why Proctor & Gamble is having such a hard time convincing moms there’s nothing wrong with its latest innovation in diapers called Swaddlers Dry Max.

Irate mothers launched a Facebook page, “Bring Back the Pampers Cruisers, Dump Dry Max” claiming the new diapers cause chemical burns. They very well may in spite of the 50 mommy bloggers who tested the product prior to launch. If my beloved newborn had heat rash beyond normal, I’d point a finger at the diaper, too.

On May 16, the Facebook page had 1,052 “likes.” In the scheme of things, that’s a paltry figure compared to the population of diaper-buying families. But it’s enough to warrant positioning in a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal’s “Marketplace” section, on blogs across the country, and in conversation from mommies’ mouths to other mommies’ ears. In a quick run through the blogosphere, the story is growing with a thousand+ views at this post on Gather, for example. 

So, what gives?

It’s the power of word of mouth marketing and the influence mommies have on product success. This is another fascinating study (marketing classes are very busy watching corporate America struggle with negative case studies in word of mouth marketing) about the influence of viral social media.

An extremely tiny proportion of customers have taken action against a behemoth, and they’re being heard. Could there be a diaper recall? Some are suggesting so.  If I were a diaper-buying mom, I’d be watching my kid’s behind closer than usual, too.

The question becomes…why do companies believe they must fix something that’s not broken in the name of innovation? If you’ve got a good thing going, don’t mess with what works…no complaints are a really good thing P&G.

Moms and Dads, care to weigh in?

Word-of-Mouth, Toyota and Me

By

I did a bit of word-of-mouth (WOM) marketing yesterday asking my tweet stream for opinions in re my Toyota dilemma — buy my Toyota Highlander off lease, turn it in, buy another Toyota, or purchase a new brand altogether?

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal pushed me one step closer to the latter. I’m a fiercely brand loyal consumer; yet, all the news of voluntary recalls across the spectrum of Toyota vehicles has me increasingly nervous. In Toyota’s defense, my 2007 vehicle escaped floor mat and brake pedal recall, although the engine did rev while in park in the driveway.

A Twitter pal suggested I look at the Ford Freestyle and Volvo 90. So, I did and was impressed with both from the looks of Web marketing collateral. A family member has suggested the Chevy Traverse.

Then, I read McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal April 2010 article, “A New Way to Measure Word-of-Mouth Marketing,” and it got me thinking. Several statements are worth noting:

  • “WOM is the primary factor behind 20 to 25 percent of all purchasing decisions. Its influence is greatest when consumers are buying a product for the first time or when products are relatively expensive.”
  • “Consumers are overloaded and skeptical about traditional company-driven marketing and advertising and increasingly prefer to make purchasing decisions largely independent of what companies tell them.”

For anyone engaged in WOM marketing, Toyota owners (me included) are a classic audience for this channel of communication. I’ve already engaged with reliable sources within social media, and as a blogger, I’m asking for other opinions from readers which I’ll weigh and consider heavily. My trust in Toyota is waning, sadly, which means I’m seeking new information during a lengthy research phase that will influence my purchase.

Was Toyota transparent? No. Did it used to be trustworthy? Yes. Is it now? No. Does it deserve another chance? Not sure, and that’s where WOM comes in to play.

How has WOM affected your purchasing decisions of late? Is this truly a form of viable marketing, or is it just another label for something we consumers have been doing for years? Please, join the conversation!

Social Media Groundswell Tipping Point and Nestle’

By

Nestle’ SA is suffering a groundswell of negative social media commentary that began March 17 when Greenpeace International released a report about Nestle’s purchase and use of palm oil. Greenpeace alleges the palm oil comes from an Indonesian company that cleared rain forests to build palm plantations.

The Twitterosphere has been abuzz about this story, and the Nestle’ Facebook fan page (with more than 96,000 fans) has thousands of negative hits from activists, environmentalists, Greenpeace, animal rights supporters, and the like.

In the March 29, 2010 Wall Street Journal, the backlash against the company is reported as global and devastating (if you’re Nestle). This situation, more than the Domino’s Pizza incident I watched unfold on Twitter last year, is global viral. It’s buoyed by the digitally savvy who’ve used social media effectively to push a viral message that Nestle is killing orangutans.

If you sat in the corporate communications department of Nestle, what would you recommend as public relations strategy? And, to those of you who do do crisis communications, is this considered a crisis, in your opinion?

  • Nestle is an iconic global brand targeting audiences across the spectrum of age groups who consume infant formula, cereal, pet food, bottled water, energy foods, cocoa, chocolates, and more. Millions of brand-loyal people touch Nestle products. Similar to Toyota, apology and/or clarifications about the company’s products and stance on the environment should be immediately shared. On the Nestle Web site, there is a statement about the palm oil situation (see above link).
  • Executives should avail themselves to the consumer public in a Web forum to field questions. Digg features such forums for high-level executives (the Toyota U.S. CEO was interviewed on Digg).
  • Groundswell is a fabulous read. Ms. Li and co-author Josh Bernoff of Forrester Research suggest “groundswell thinking is like any other complex skill — it takes knowledge, experience, and eventually, enlightenment to get there.” In an early chapter of the book on strategies for tapping the groundswell, the authors offer “five strategies companies can pursue in the groundswell, and these include listening, talking, energizing, supporting, embracing.” (These are exactly what Nestle’ needs to be doing.)
  • I asked my Chicago colleague Christine Esposito of Terracom Public Relations, a 20-year-old environmental public relations firm, to weigh in on this discussion. I wanted Christine’s take on Greenpeace and what it might do (besides rejoice at the success of its global viral campaign).
  • Christine suggested Greenpeace could benefit its edgy activist image by recruiting more mainstream NGOs that are similarly concerned about palm oil production. They should sit together at the boardroom table with Nestle to spell out the allegations, listen to how the corporation responds, and hammer out a resolution. (Hmm, this sounds like mediation, and perhaps it’s very similar.)
  • Another thought is immediate elevation by Nestle of its cause-related marketing efforts. Whatever programs Nestle’ corporate communications has had in place, boost them up to engage with environmentalists and show the company does care about Indonesia’s rain forests, among other protected habitats and animals.
  • To round out its team of experts, Nestle’ should hire Paul Rand and his team at Chicago’s hot word-of-mouth marketing agency Zocalo Group. Paul is president of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, and he is a high-level influencer in brand evangelism. (I worked with and for Paul in my Chicago agency days and respect his intelligence and ability to deliver in such situations.)

Nestle did not dally in its response to this situation. Regardless, it’s difficult to control the Tipping Point. As a teachable moment, this case study is one for the books, and it’s still unfolding. Once the first domino was tickled, the rest just fell into place.

What strategies would you offer Nestle and/or Greenpeace International to push this situation to resolution and repair a damaged brand?