Filed under: Political, crisis communications | Tags: AP, Associated Press, FDA, FOIA, Food and Drug Administration, Freedom of Information Act, image management, infant formula, media relations, melamine, public relations
Journalists are looking for good stories that dig up malfeasance, obfuscation, irresponsibility and so forth, thereby forcing accountability on one or another entity. This applies to governmental, non-profit, or corporate bodies. It’s an essential component of a healthy republic, and we should applaud their role.
We should also recognize that reporters are human, and will react just like you or me. So if a reporter approaches the Food and Drug Administration and doesn’t get what he’s looking for, his legal recourse is to file a freedom-of-information request. But consider that if you make a reporter go through this process, you have virtually guaranteed that the story is going to abrade your image. Consider the situation behind this story about the FDA’s response to melamine in infant formula:
FDA officials didn’t tell the public they had found melamine in U.S.-made infant formula until after The Associated Press published a story Wednesday based on test results obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
That’s the fourth paragraph of the story, which is pretty high; it signals that the AP wanted us to know that the FDA was reluctant to tell us the news. So what’s the backlash? The story is negative toward the FDA, of course. Here’s the lead:
Federal regulators set a safety threshold Friday for the industrial chemical melamine that is greater than the amount of contamination found so far in U.S.-made infant formula.
In other words, they set the level so that neither they, nor any of the formula companies, have to take action. And even if that’s not what they did, it’s clearly what it looks like, since they had to have the information pried out of them.
Generally, the federal government has some pretty savvy PR people advising about how to conduct successful media relations. However, my experience has been that public relations advice is often overruled by people who are nervous about negative backlash and somehow figure that clamming up will make it go away.
Not in a free country, folks. Cooperate with the media – be the first to tell them bad news, because they get justifiably indignant if they have to make you tell them.
Filed under: Business columns, Customer relations, Political | Tags: advertising, Ben and Jerry's, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Customer relations, marketing, marketing communications, marketing to children, public relations, RBGH, RBGH-free, Susan Linn, toy advertisements
The purpose of this blog is to provide insights and miniature case-studies to those who are interested in public relations and marketing, and although this particular post does contribute to the overall purpose, I must admit up front that I’m emotionally invested in this topic and therefore label some of the players involved as morons.
The story is about a letter-writing campaign by parents who are asking toy manufacturers to stop producing advertisements that appeal directly to children. The title alone (“Parents’ Plea: No More Ads for Toys“) is enough to make me cringe. It pressures companies that make toys to redirect their marketing efforts to audiences that don’t have as much impact on the companies’ bottom line, and more importantly, it shows how completely some parents have abdicated their responsibility to raise discerning kids that have a modicum of self control; in effect, they’ve given up and are asking to be relieved of duty.
When it comes to placing the responsibility for self-control on the advertisers rather than on consumers, this is a disturbing precedent for anyone who wants to communicate with their target audiences. The underlying assumption is that if your communications become really effective, it is somehow predatory and “unfair” (a word actually used by somebody in the story referring to the kid-targeted ads). This passage of the story describes the philosophy behind the ad-ban proponents:
The director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, psychologist Susan Linn, said she and her colleagues don’t expect toy companies to stop advertising — rather, they want the ads directed at parents.
“It’s cruel to dangle irresistible ads for toys and electronics in front of kids — encouraging them to nag for gifts that their parents can’t afford,” she said. “It’s just not fair.”
I studied the psychology of advertising in college, and in fact my bachelor’s degree is in advertising and one of my minors was psychology, so I know that most children lack the cognitive ability to differentiate television ads from television shows. That’s why TV stations for decades have been required by law to delineate when the show has paused for a commercial break (“We’ll be right back after these messages!”), and when the commercials are over and the show has resumed (“And now back to…!”).
But Susan Linn apparently looks at the world as though children are sitting in front of the TV, wads of their parents’ cash in-hand, being ordered by their favorite cartoon characters to spend the mortgage payment and grocery money on a Wii. Nothing can change the fact that advertisements are simply commercial messages. And nothing can change the fact that parents can – if they are indeed worthy of the title “parents” – turn off the TV. Or, if they lack the spine for that simple move, they can – again, if they are indeed parents – tell their kids that getting all those (or even any) expensive toys is simply not possible.
If they can’t take these simple (although possibly difficult) steps, it is absurd to expect advertisers to do what the parents themselves refuse to do.
In the interest of full disclosure, my biases should be clear: I am not only a professional communications consultant, and therefore have a stake in being able to communicate clearly to whichever target audience is most appropriate, but I am also the parent of three kids, and we haven’t had TV in our house for many years. And, when times have been economically tight, we have simply told them that we can’t afford this or that toy. It’s not easy, but it’s our job to do things that are difficult; that’s what parenting requires. I don’t need the CEO of Toys-R-Us to help me exercise self-control, or to pass on that ability to my kids.
For companies or other organizations that wish to communicate to their target audiences, this trend of shifting responsibility away from consumers and onto communicators is potentially dangerous. If, for example, you advertise a product or service to disadvantaged minorities, there are “advocates” like Susan Linn who may well decide that you are being “unfair,” because your ads are so effective that they somehow prompt people to make decisions about their own money that the “advocates” think are detrimental to the consumers’ well-being. In such cases, they may – in the interest of “fairness,” – call for your ads, press releases, speeches or whatever else to be made less persuasive, or to avoid speaking directly to the folks who you want to hear your message.
If they get really riled up about it, they could start advocating legislation that would require you to communicate less effectively. Sounds absurd, I know. However, it was done to tobacco companies. It has also been done to nutritional supplement companies. The producers of recombinant bovine growth hormone are lobbying to do it to dairy product manufacturers, believe it or not. They’re trying to get laws passed that would prohibit Ben and Jerry’s and others from labeling their products as being “RBGH-free” because they don’t think it’s “fair.” Ben and Jerry’s – and many other dairy retailers – know that their customers want to know about RBGH, but it only takes some savvy lobbying by people holding “fairness” up as their goal to ensure that blatantly unfair laws are passed.
Commercial communications are, in my opinion, a matter of free speech. But, when personal responsibility for one’s own spending habits are taken out of the equation, absolutely any kind of restriction on speech is possible in the interest of “fairness.”
