justanotherpr

what do you do if you’re the target of an aggressive lobbying campaign? a case study

30Oct09

This morning I received a tip-off on an interesting development from a company who had been the target of an aggressive, and very public, lobbying campaign by Greenpeace.

This case study, and another one, My Green Apple, have in my opinion displayed the opportunities that a well mitigated crisis communications plan can provide. Instead of running and hiding, which a lot of companies do when faced with a public witch hunt, these two companies listened and responded in a positive and mature corporate way. Let’s look at them.

Timberland stands up to criticism, and ends up looking the hero

Faced with an assault of more than 65,000 template letters from green activists, consumers and members of a genuinely concerned community, Timberland had two options. Run and hide, and don’t respond to the increasingly ferocious lobbying of perhaps the world’s biggest and most trusted green group, Greenpeace, or stand up and listen to the concerns and action them in a mutually beneficial and mature manner. Timberland took the latter option and in turn has proven that a crisis can be a PR dream.

Now, the criticism and resulting public lobbying from Greenpeace was a result of an investigation in which Timberland were implicated as being unwitting contributors to the destruction of the Amazon for cattle farming. Timberland were buying 7 per cent of their leather for their products, from cows who were destroying the world’s most vulnerable forest through grazing.

As a result, Timberland got on the radar of Greenpeace, along with other companies such as Adidas/Reebok and Nike to name a few. This was secondary to the main villains, being the actual cattle farmers Bertin, JBS and Marfrig (interestingly, part-owned by the Brazilian Government).

Taking the road less travelled

It would have been easy for Timberland to play dumb, to cry foul and essentially ignore the brand assault enveloping their operations. Afterall, the PR ’spin’ would have been easy. Can’t you imagine them issuing a media release pleading ignorance and pushing back to their supplier, Bertin, in terms of laying the blame?

Then, behind closed doors, you can picture the discussions with Bertin. “Mate, you have to take this heat. It’s your cows, your farming, your operation. We just buy your leather.”

But Timberland have taken the road less travelled, faced up to the crisis, and in turn, have looked a hero. Why?

Turning the crisis into an opportunity

Timberland have done two things right. They have acknowledged the concerns of the lobbyists and their customers, and have addressed them. Check out their CEO, Jeff Swartz, responding in his blog here.

Not only has Timberland engaged with their supplier, Bertin, to develop a plan that would answer the challenge, but they have managed to respond to the public criticism with a mature corporate tone which places them as the hero. They are using their small leveraging currency to engage with Bertin and other organisations such as Nike, to look at their business operations in the Amazon. In fact, Bertin have just announced they are no longer sourcing cattle from protected areas of the Amazon.

Confronting the crisis head-on

What interests me is the fact they have confronted the crisis head-on. They have facilitated a major organisation to look at the issue, they have facilitated face-to-face meetings with the villain (Bertin) and the agitator (Greenpeace) and they have put the issue on a major stakeholder’s agenda (the Leather Working Group).

In addition, Timberland have created a positive public relations opportunity out of this action. The CEO blog announcing this action, the covering letter distributed to all 65,000 consumers who wrote to Timberland, and the prominent placement in their CSR website, are all big wins.

The tone in the CEO blog is also interesting. A couple of paragraphs I think are spot on include:

So when 65,000 new friends introduce themselves to your e-mailbox in a week, endlessly resending a form letter written by Greenpeace accusing your company of being part of the deforestation of the precious ecosystem called the Amazon rainforest, what would you do?

To understand Greenpeace’s assertion that our business practice directly leads to deforestation in the Amazon, you’ve first got to know that it is cattle ranching that is causing the deforestation — ranchers cutting down the forest in order to allow livestock to graze. That livestock is raised primarily for tailgate hotdogs or your mom’s meatloaf recipe — not for leather.

So in other words, wow you guys are persistent and we’re listening. Oh, and it’s not our fault.

No more leather from Brazil, no more issues with tracing hides which may have come from cows grazing in deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest. We’re only talking about 7% of our production — so cut and run, right?

Tempting, but not the right thing to do. Disengaging would have solved OUR problem — no more headaches or emails from angry activists — but would do nothing to solve the problem of deforestation. Even as we fumed at the way Greenpeace had approached this issue we asked ourselves, what is the responsible thing to do? Do we walk away and let the beef processors sort this out with Greenpeace, or do we risk further ire, by staying in the conversation and engaging the leather tanner and the beef processor to solve the real environmental challenge? What would you choose to do?

Or, look we are a really small client of Bertin and you have placed us in an untenable position, but…

We decided to stay engaged. We pressed our Brazilian leather supplier, Bertin, for a plan that would answer the challenge posed — demonstrate that the cattle grazing in the field were not contributing to deforestation. Find a way to ensure trace-ability back into the value chain — now.

For its part, Greenpeace has done an outstanding job gathering data, creating a complete and compelling case for the issue, and mobilizing its tens of thousands of supporters to call for action from brands like ours on an issue they care about. Their effort has driven change into the system. We applaud their activism, even as we wish next time—and there will be a next time, in the complex global value chain — they would seek to engage brands like ours before they pull the “let’s confront ‘em” lever.

We’re the hero, and we’re impressed that Greenpeace had the balls to push us. And, finally..

Business can be a force for positive environmental change … collaboration yields more powerful outcomes than the effort of one … learnings reinforced by our experience to date on the Amazon deforestation issue. We’re not closing the book on this topic yet – we’ll continue to monitor progress through regular reports from Bertin and through our work with the LWG and HWG, and we’ll continue to share milestones and challenges with you here on Earthkeepers.

CEO thanks Greenpeace for full frontal email assault? Next thing you know, world leaders will actually come up with a meaningful global agreement at Copenhagen…

So, what are the key insights into this case study?

Timberland have managed to salvage their business relationship with Bertin, by engaging with them, showing them how they can also evoke change in a positive manner, and then credit Bertin in their communications
The CEO, and Timberland as an organisation, have leveraged the crisis as an opportunity to display good corporate citizenship without actually losing any income or business
Timberland have approached the PR crisis with a mature corporate voice, and have responded publicly in a tone which mitigates Greenpeace’s concerns. They have put a human face to the response (CEO) and have managed to communicate some pretty convincing business messages
Instead of an attack on Greenpeace, Timberland have managed to engage with them, and in a side-ways slap, highlighted how they thought it was unfair that Greenpeace targeted them, via the CEO blog
The CEO responded to each and every one of the 65,000 agitators via the same mechanism they lobbied to Timberland – through a personalised email
Greenpeace have commended Timberland’s response and actions, providing a PR win-win. Timberland looks good, and Greenpeace look like a victor.

So, what do you think? Would your company have the balls to confront the PR crisis head-on and come out looking like the hero? And, are you prepared for an assault of this size, by the likes of Greenpeace?

Filed under: PR, issues management | 11 Comments
Tags: case study, greenpeace, PR crisis, timberland

boys can cry: a journey for the perfect gift for a man

27Oct09

Today is an important day.

No, it’s not my birthday, that’s in December if you want to put it in your calendar. This is far more important and in need of your support.

: The Perfect Gift for a Man

You see, today is the launch of The Perfect Gift for a Man.

Back in July of this year, I wrote a post about my brother for #manweek.

Writing the story of my baby brother struggling to find himself, and the impact of his struggles on his loved ones, was one of the hardest things I’ve done.

To put his story, and mine, into words and post it on the world-wide-web was incredibly difficult. Not only did I have a fear of exposing his plight to the strangers and friends who frequent my blog, but the biggest fear was the actual process of writing.

I feared my ability to tell his story. I feared my ability to capture the strength he had. I feared not being able to achieve what, ultimately, I wanted to achieve – to show young men and women, that it can be ok.

It actually didn’t take too long to put the words onto the screen when I drafted the post. Little did I realise, I had the words swimming around my head and heart waiting to fall into prose. Like a classic riff that you know instinctively, typing the story of my brother came with ease.

It was the draft post staring at me on the screen that I had the most trouble with. It’s amazing the sea of guilt and apprehension one feels when they have left themselves so bare. Guilt because my brother’s story is nothing special. We know 1 in 4 young Australians will experience a mental health issue in the next twelve months.

And my apprehension was actually my selfishness. Selfishness that I didn’t want to be judged. I didn’t want my brother to be judged.

As a woman, I fear we take the men in our lives for granted. We take the line that boys don’t cry. Men shouldn’t show weakness, and emotional troubles are weaknesses.

But as a woman, I implore you to reject this notion. We can make a difference to the tragedy that is suicide in this country. We can help.

Speak to your brother, your husband, your son or your father. Ask them how they are. Let them know that it is ok to cry. Buy this book and give it to the man or men in your life. Show them the stories of every day people who have taken the courage to share their journey.

But most importantly, show them that there is help available, and it doesn’t make them any less of a man to ask. In fact in my eyes, in yours and in theirs, it makes them more of a man.

You can read my brother’s story, and 29 other brave and amazing stories in the Perfect Gift for a Man

This book, The Perfect Gift for a Man, is written about men, for men. And as such, we wanted to reflect the life of a man – the good, the difficult, the challenging and the astounding.

The amazing thing is, that without any particular orchestration on our part, the topics chosen by our authors fell into the various stages that we experience as we grow and age – Becoming a Man, Respect (gaining and giving), Fragility, Fatherhood and Loss. The table of contents can be seen below, along with some of the book’s preliminary pages.

We believe that these stories will get under your skin – just as they did with us. We trust that they will be stories you will want to share with the men in your life – with your brothers, uncles, fathers and sons. With your friends and family. The book will be available for purchase on Wednesday, October 26, 2009.

Check out the social media release here. And importantly, go buy the book here.

Why The Perfect Gift for a Man is so important

In Australia, young men commit suicide at more than three times the rate of women of the same age. Further, mental illness and drug and alcohol dependency is severely affecting men aged 16-24.

In mid-2009, The Inspire Foundation launched the #Manweek campaign to raise awareness of these issues. A number of Australian bloggers supported this campaign, sharing their thoughts, challenges and experiences with their readers.

Each of these stories was a gift – sometimes painful to write, always astounding to read. They got under our skin, and as the campaign ended, we felt that the campaign had only just scratched the surface. We wanted to take these stories and share them with others – with our brothers, fathers and uncles.

With our friends and families.

This book is the result. Please buy it for the men in your life.

All proceeds go to The Inspire Foundation.

We think it is the perfect gift.

And I do too. Check it. And buy it.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: becoming a man, brother, help, inspire, manweek, mental health, suicide

60 seconds and a bit of dirty talk: choosing a gym

20Oct09

What’s the difference between two female-only gym’s marketing point of differences (POD)? 60 seconds. Oh and a bit of dirty talk.

I am currently researching options to get fit in my new suburb (yes stalkers, I now live in Richmond) and came across two promising chick gyms.

Now I’ve heard horror stories on Fitness First, and I’ve heard bad things about Genesis. I’ve also got a complex about being exposed to massively ripped beefcakes sitting in front of the mirror pumping iron. Mainly because I really don’t think I’ll get anything done. I’d be too distracted and there is a potential for injury. So I want to feel comfortable while sweating, you know, leave my dignity at the door and be safe?

Two options are available for me in Richmond and they both sound, look and smell the same. We have Contours in the right corner and Curves in the left. Both offer female-only, comfortable and non-confrontational ways to get fit. Tick and tick.

But amusingly, they both also offer a very specific type of workout. A timed, cross circuit strength and cardio workout. Awesome I think to myself. This is sounding like something I can cope with.

Even more amusingly, they both don’t like each other and have entered into that little marketing war, that as Tim points out, is a little like Something about Mary in “Hitchhiker: “You heard of this thing the 8 minute abs?” Ted: “Yeah, sure 8 minute abs yeah, the exercise video.” Hitchhiker: “Yeah, well this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this, 7 minute abs.”

This is the marketing POD from Curves:

Dedicated to women’s fitness, Curves offers a proven 30-minute workout that combines strength training and sustained cardiovascular activity through safe and effective hydraulic resistance.

This is the marketing POD from Contours:

// Our innovative exercise workout takes just 29 minutes from start to finish, including warm up and stretching. So you’re in and out in no time. And unlike some other gyms, we use real weights, so you’ll see real results.

So how is a girl to choose? That one minute makes all the difference. Really it does.

But, instead of agonising over 60 seconds, I might let their customer experience dictate who I eventually sign up with. After all, it’s not what happens in 60 seconds, it’s about how good it was.. right?

Filed under: marketing | 1 Comment
Tags: 60 seconds, chicks, get fit, gym, marketing, marketing war

strategy is the most important part of communications

20Oct09

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about strategy vs tactics and planning vs doing. It amazes me that there is an argument about why a strategy is not needed, or is just for show. It seems that there are two schools of people in our industry. The thinkers. Let’s call them the Le Penseur’s. And the doers. Or let’s call them the Privates.

This post is my attempt to prove the Le Penseur is the more important.

Strategy is the most important part of any communications and here’s why

Whether it is public relations or marketing, advertising or communications you need a strategy. And, not just any strategy, but a guiding framework which seeks to identify your goals, your audiences, your messages and finally, your tactics. This guiding framework also acts as your benchmark and your means of measurement. Who gives a fuck about measurement I can hear you say. Well, your clients for one. And your peers.

A conversation with Ben Phillips today, further solidified in my mind that people still aren’t valuing strategy enough. Too often we allow ourselves to skip over our planning and dive straight into the fun part – the creative (for marketing or advertising) or the media release (for media relations). But you see, an advertisement or a media release is not a strategy or a campaign. It’s a tactic. And a tactic that needs to relate back to a goal, an audience and message.

It’s no use trying to fit a square peg through a round hole. But if you had a strategy which identified two or three solutions such as using a round peg, using a smaller square peg or indeed not using the peg at all, you are on your way to achieving your goal, yes?

Value thought before execution

Ok, I rarely quote Seth Godin (actually, I think this quote pops my Seth cherry), but this post seems to capture where I’m heading. He says:

Most of us are afraid of strategy, because we don’t feel confident outlining one unless we’re sure it’s going to work. And the ‘work’ part is all tactical, so we focus on that. (Tactics are easy to outline, because we say, “I’m going to post this.” If we post it, we succeed. Strategy is scary to outline, because we describe results, not actions, and that means opportunity for failure.)

In my experience, people get obsessed about tactical detail before they embrace a strategy… and as a result, when a tactic fails, they begin to question the strategy that they never really embraced in the first place.

Without the strategy, you’re merely doing

A good strategy seeks to preempt your tactical failures. It should act as the means to understand what is the point of difference for your organisation, your client or your message. It should provide the guide to respond in case a tactic fails or something or someone comes from left field. Your strategy should form a cohesive platform for its stakeholders. In that it should bring your client, your team (whether they are media relations, digital, creative, public affairs, production) and your ethos together.

So why is it that we aren’t all singing the praises of the strategist? Is it because we fear our clients won’t want to invest the time and money in the planning before they see the sexy creative? Or perhaps it’s because the skills aren’t there, we don’t have the pool of strategists at hand like we do the rest of the team?

My thoughts are that people just simply don’t understand the true value of a strategy. They don’t understand how a strategy is developed and they don’t understand the currency that strategic planning holds over the marketing mix. That is until something goes wrong, and shit hits the fan.

If we were to sell one benefit of the role of strategy, it should be this. A strategy should enable you to prove your success. And not just tactical success, but a holistic win which secures further investment from your client and perhaps even a couple of EFFIES for your mantle piece.

What do you think? Where does strategy fit in your mix? Are you a Private or a Le Penseur?

Filed under: public relations | 6 Comments
Tags: communications, doer, seth godin, strategy, thinking

google wave reminds me of the cool kids at school

13Oct09

Google Wave’s marketing is making me feel like I’m back in primary school all over again. All the cool kids have the shiny new toy, and I don’t. I don’t even know what the shiny new toy does exactly, but that doesn’t matter. They have it, and I want it.

I’ve been following Google Wave’s impact on Twitter on and off.

Continue reading ‘google wave reminds me of the cool kids at school’

Filed under: marketing | 6 Comments
Tags: google, google wave, marketing, school yar, word of mouth

social media: what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

07Oct09

An interesting question was posed last night on Twitter during a conversation between James Duthie, Brett Nicholson and myself.

The discussion evolved after a great blog post by Brett here, titled “Why you shouldn’t hire a social media strategist”.

Ooh, I hear you say. Controversial. And, just to clarify, we’re not talking about gurus, evangelists, experts or any other self-prescribed social media quack. We’re talking about what comes first, the adoption or the strategy?

Or, as Brett said:

when PR and marketing strategy collide

In the blue corner, public relations (the egg) argued by myself.

It’s the age-old question, what comes first the chicken or the egg? Now, one could write an analogy on the theory about evolution but I won’t. Instead, I’ll keep it simple.

The egg must come first.

Or, in other words, social media adoption in an organisation must come before the strategy. In fact, we know from the regular statistics, that social media adoption is already in an organisation, and more and more employees, consumers and stakeholders are already online. And, perhaps more significantly, they’re already talking about you and your brand.

What does this mean?

You need to embrace this culture, and nurture and empower the employees and consumers to start embodying your brand’s currency before you develop your strategy.

Two points why:

Companies need staff that embody their brand, create the conversations and embrace a culture of openness and engagement within the company (both internally and externally). And, social media can be the catalyst for this.
At some point, I think this can be a risk for saturation and dissolving of the objective for the company. Thus, where a strategy (and perhaps) external direction could assist. At this point, social media for an organisation does need dedicated resources as well as widespread adoption with the employees, in order to steer the ship.

So, instead of bringing in the social media strategist to come and develop some organisational goals and tactics for your social media presence, embrace your brand’s existing conversations internally and externally. Create the cultural shift of empowering your employees to act as hundreds of brand advocates for you (build your community blocks), then leverage this goodwill by creating the strategy for achieving your business objectives in social media.

There’s no point coming in with a strategy and objectives, and then trying to get your biggest allies on board after the fact. You will most likely find the resistance will be significant. Instead, understand your current reach, and build your influence and ripple around that.

In the red corner, marketing (the chicken) argued by James and Brett.

From Online Marketing Banter’s James Duthie:

Employees are 100% your most important asset in executing and maintaining an ongoing social media presence. Without empowered and motivated employees on the coal face, a company is going to struggle to effectively implement any social initiative.

But… I don’t believe in letting employees loose without a defined strategy. To me, without a strategy they’re essentially sailing a ship without a destination. And that ship is your brand. Employees tend to focus on tools and tactics rather than clear business objectives.

It’s the role of the strategy to ensure that the work they do has a defined outcome that will benefit the business. The strategy doesn’t have to be comprehensive or cumbersome. “Structured experimentation” is a term a colleague is fond of. But the idea is that some direction exists to guide employee participation.

On the matter of culture, I also see this being driven from the top (by the person who develops the strategy) rather than the groundswell. Ultimately, it is the role of the strategist to convince key business leaders of the need to embrace a socially savvy culture.

While some employees may be able to do this, many will lack the persuasive skills. And ultimately culture is embraced and driven from the top, as evidenced by the likes of Scott Monty (Ford), Frank Eliason (Comcast) and Tony Hsieh (Zappos).

And from Digital Oz’s Brett Nicholson:

Companies are seeing the amazing impact Social Media can have, and see the potential of it.

Unfortunately what many fail to see is the forethought and culture that fosters a successful Social Media strategy. If you recognize the need to be involved and are looking to avoid the #fail meme agencies and consultants are the place to start. They have access to industry knowledge, tools, case studies that most businesses don’t. They also bring a fresh perspective which can assist the culture change that is probably taking place.

Which comes first strategy or culture…? Succeeding in Social Media is about achieving business objectives – like any communications tactic.

Culture is really important, and there needs to be at least the beginnings of a paradigm shift by understanding that Social Media has its opportunities and the limitations. It’s at this point strategy can dedicate a clear direction to enact the shift in thinking. From here on in both the chicken and egg need to adjust and evolve as required.

I like David Meerman Scott’s analogy of Social Media as venture capitalism, prepare to fail and learn – a lot.

So, what do you think? We would love your comments and thoughts on what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

This post marks the 6 month anniversary of my blog, just another pr. Thank you for your wonderful participation and discussion over the last 6 months, and I am looking forward to much more discussion and interaction on all things public relations, marketing, advertising and life. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this blog, please email me karalee.evans@gmail.com

Filed under: marketing, public relations, social media | 6 Comments
Tags: adoption, chicken, culture, digital, egg, employees, marketing, public relations, social media, strategy

advertisers: ten things you can learn from this charity TVC

04Oct09

I’ve seen this television commercial (TVC) so many times, and each time it makes me smile and think. Literally think. About the message. About my behaviour. And about the people in it. So, from an advertisers point of view it worked on me. What about you?

So here are ten things advertisers can learn from this nonprofit’s Community Service Announcement.

KISS: Keep it simple stupid. This advertisement is simple, has a simple call to action and a simple look and feel. No special overlays, no special effects, no celebrities (except the rock gods Radiohead) and no art-house camera angles. This is one reason I think it works so beautifully.
One message: “See the person, not the disability”. Such a powerful message and so simple that the audience can actually consume it, process it and action it. So whether you are looking at changing consumer’s attitudes or selling a product, enable your target audience to process and action your message.
Longevity: This TVC was produced back in 2005 by Leo Burnett. It is still on rotation in Victoria in 2009. And it doesn’t look a day over new. So what’s the lesson? We know charities don’t have massive advertising or production budgets. Therefore, there needs to be fiscal responsibility when developing a campaign like this. What’s the ROI? They have had more than 4 years life out of this TVC, and will have many more. Why? Because Radiohead are timeless, and the message and delivery are also timeless. No references to one-hit wonders or ‘of the moment’ memes (think iSnack 2.0).
Appeal: You would have to be pretty cold not to have had an emotional reaction to this ad. The empathy it insights at the end, with the simple storyline of a man who is just like any other Radiohead fan, singing along at a train station, is gold. You can imagine yourself as the young woman, wondering what the fuck the man in the wheelchair is doing. Bet you are even wondering if that person with a disability you saw the other day was just singing along to their favourite band too?
Authenticity: The product in this TVC is Joel Barraud, from Ringwood Victoria. He is an actual client of Scope. No actors, no trickery, Joel is real and sells the story.
Continuity: Scope have now launched the next phase of their integrated campaign ‘See the person, not the disability’ with radio advertisements and ambient media. Again, featuring Joel and reinforcing the tone and brand of Scope. It would be tempting to roll out a myriad of scenarios and messages given the success of the first TVC. But they have stuck to the campaign’s winning formula while avoiding campaign fatigue.
Cross media: Normally I wouldn’t recommend simply uploading your TVC’s onto YouTube to make them viral. And happily Scope didn’t do this. The TVC was uploaded by a consumer, and has since had more than 43,000 views. Not bad for a state-based nonprofit! But, what it does show is that a) someone was moved enough to upload and promote the ad; b) the TVC has had an impact online as well as via the airwaves.
Client/agency trust: Scope and Leo Burnett have had a pro-bono relationship for more than ten years. Good for Scope, in that they are getting great campaigns for free, and great for Leo Burnett as they are getting creative freedom and awards. But, at the end of the day the trust and understanding that must have been built up between client and agency would be significant. No churning and burning, no fatigue, just great advertisements and an insight into the ‘how to make a good advertisement’ formula. Client trusts creative, creative understands client. Win. Win.
Point of difference: This TVC is not shock and awe. It’s not a tear jerker. It’s funny and heart warming. That’s the point of difference for Scope in this TVC. There are no others like it, and it stands out because of it. Does yours?
Get results: Advertisers, just like corporates with sales figures, nonprofits have targets. For Scope, it’s obviously awareness and attitudes. This TVC has been attributed to some pretty good results:

So what do you think? Do you like the TVC? And what do you think it can teach advertisers and corporates in communication?

Filed under: advertising | Leave a Comment
Tags: advertisers, advertising, CSA, leo burnett, lessons, radiohead, scope, TVC

not all publicity is good publicity and isnack needs a 2.1 response

28Sep09

You know by now, Kraft’s Vegemite stablemate, the softer-cheesy-combined-not-really-vegemite product has a new name care of a naming competition. isnack 2.0

: the full page ad in Sunday’s Herald Sun

Yup. isnack 2.0

Now, personal opinions about the choice of name aside, Kraft had more than 16,000 unique names to choose from. Yup, 16,000. They received a total of more than 48,000 submissions, which for a user generated competition, is pretty darn good. Those 48,000 submissions represent 35,000 people who felt compelled enough to enter the naming competition.

So, from a brand management and a public relations perspective, this is a windfall. Kraft had generated a large database of engaged consumers all vying for the kudos of naming the new product.

With the announcement on Saturday of the new product’s name during the AFL Grand Final, which mUmBRELLA reports as having a whopping Melbourne audience share of 95.6 per cent, this was a PR dream. Millions of Australians witnessed the announcement, and Kraft had a captured audience.

Until the name was actually announced that is.

Now I’m not going to dissect the name. Or the reactions. Plenty of people and online publications have done this already. From Ruth Brown over at Crikey, to mUmBRELLA, to a poll running on news.com.au there are a lot of online opinions on how and where the name went wrong. And, what the extent of the reactions has been from a Twitter hashtag created through to Facebook groups and even a blog.

But what I’m particularly interested in, is how Kraft react to this public relations issue which is unfolding to become a crisis.

Recently, it emerged that 25 per cent of consumers will boycott a product after a negative social media comment. So, to put it simply, people trust what they read in social networks. Perhaps even as much as what we traditionally see as the ‘trust’ factor with editorial in heritage media.

Here are the statistics quoted in the article:

One in four Australians are boycotting a product after reading negative comments on social networking sites
60% of consumers say they want a response from the corporate in social media.

Another quote which Kraft need to listen to is:

Social media was emerging as an important space where companies could be as effective in repairing relationships with consumers as angry customers were in dismantling them.

Some 60 per cent of Australians said if they posted a negative comment about an organisation on a social networking site they would welcome contact from that organisation to try and resolve the issue.

Companies should look for clusters of similar complaints rather than handling grievances on a one-to-one basis.

Now this equates to a major public relations issue for Kraft. Just a simple Google search shows roughly 10,000 conversations about how crap the name isnack 2.0 is.

Coupled with the audience reach of the Grand Final TV announcement, full page newspaper ads and now an integrated marketing campaign, Kraft are promoting this name like it is on steroids.

What is interesting is that they haven’t responded to the negative backlash. mUmBRELLA hasn’t got a comment, Crikey hasn’t got a comment, Twitter is quiet and Kraft are deafeningly silent. First rule of public relations? Don’t ignore an issue. In fact, I posted here some learnings from an online crisis.

And no people. Not all publicity is good publicity.

If Kraft are going to stick by their name, they need to respond and mitigate this negative PR immediately. They need to come out via the channels that are quickly undermining their brand, and communicate the reasoning behind the decision.

They need to appear empathetic to their loyal customers who are threatening to boycott the new product. Even if only 25 per cent of these threats are actually carried out, this still represents a large amount of income lost.

Fingers crossed Kraft don’t wait until tomorrow to issue a press release in response, hoping for heritage media to pick up their messages. Hopefully their public relations team are listening to the online banter, and are in the midst of responding… today.

What do you think? What does Kraft need to do to mitigate this PR disaster? Can they?

Update: Kraft obviously didn’t anticipate the breadth of negative response online. Nor did they have the foresight to reserve the Twitter handle @isnack20. Check out the account here. More negative PR in the making?