Mistrustcasting: A Tale of Two Brands

One day recently, a high school math class decided to conduct an experiment to ascertain whether Oreo’s Double Stuf cookies actually contain twice the “stuf” – crème filling – as implied by the treat’s name.

The class’s work yielded the faintly damning discovery that the Double Stuf contain only 1.86 more filling than the original incarnation – a shortage of 7 percent. Hardly headline-making news, right? After all, most folks would agree that it’s close enough and simply applaud the teacher’s creative, hand-on approach to this classroom exercise.

And that’s where Oreo should have left it, but they chose not to. Instead, when contacted about the matter by Business Insider, the company issued a formal statement claiming the math class had reached an inaccurate total and that their Double Stuf recipe does indeed include fully twice the amount of filling. So Business Insider put together its own experiment, which came down in favor of the math class.

Oreo’s response made this story bigger than it needed to be, and as a result, the brand’s overall reputation took a hit. After all, if they felt the need to lie about 7 percent of their filling, what else might they be hiding? The cookie controversy served up good fodder for a few days of news bites and morning drive-time humor, but given the public’s lasting love for Oreo, the Double Stuf kerfuffle blew over in short order.

More than filler

The Double Stuf debacle is an entertaining – if relatively innocuous – example of just how easily the integrity of even the most well-known brands can be called into question. That’s why the task of building and maintaining trust in your brand is such serious business. For more evidence, let’s take a closer look at BP and SC Johnson, two huge corporations with very different approaches to brand integrity – and very different reputations.

Both companies deal in products under close scrutiny in today’s increasingly green-minded business and marketing environments. BP is the world’s sixth largest petroleum fuel interest, and SC Johnson is one of the world’s largest producers of household cleaners.

If you look at their advertising and PR, both companies use strikingly similar language, which is logical, given that each company has a vested interest in portraying itself as environmentally responsible and forward-thinking.

But the court of public opinion tells a very different story, making it clear that their efforts to define themselves are yielding drastically different results.

BP’s big problem

More than three years after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is still dealing with the aftermath on many fronts. In addition to the illegal practices which led to the spill, the company has been found guilty of felony for lying in its response to the disaster and has paid out more than $42 billion in clean-up costs, settlements and fines.

BP was found to have engaged in multiple deceptions before, during and after the spill. The company repeatedly refused to disclose accurate or timely information for months after the disaster, which resulted in a far greater impact on the environment than would have happened if the company would have been immediately forthcoming.

A visit to BP’s website shows that the spill still dominates much of the company’s PR efforts. That’s as it should be.

But even as BP touts its gulf clean-up efforts in carefully crafted feature articles, it releases defensive statements whenever its efforts and motives are called into question. For example, in a statement dated August 28, BP responds to recent allegations by the state of Louisiana claiming that BP has not adequately addressed the clean up. Here’s the money quote that leads the statement: "Any suggestion that BP has failed to address the clean up of the Louisiana coastline is both false and irresponsible.”

No acknowledgement of BP’s responsibility, no conciliatory tone indicating that BP is committed to repairing the damage it caused, no apology for all of the suffering. Just a hardline defense, with copy that reads like it was drafted by a stereotypical Hollywood lawyer. This antagonistic tone is at odds with the shiny, happy stories that appear throughout the special section of its site dedicated to the Gulf of Mexico restoration.

This stark discrepancy between rosy PR fluff pieces and sharp legal statements defines the very heart of BP’s brand integrity issue. This is a company whose practices are squarely at odds with the public image it attempts to project.

Start with the logo

Petroleum is hardly a “clean” business; the best any oil company can offer is diligent safety practices and commitment to mitigating its environmental impact.

When BP debuted its green sun logo in 2001, the flowery “helios” mark, it was a clear effort to position the brand as somehow “cleaner” and more environmentally conscious than its competitors. The green sun implies a very different focus than, say, an oil derrick looming over a seascape. Yet in the decade plus since its logo shift, BP has actually decreased its efforts in the arena of solar power, finally announcing plans to shutter them altogether in 2011.

The fact remains that BP is first and foremost an oil concern, with all the environmental risks that such companies encounter. Until BP’s research spending on alternative fuels exceeds the 50 percent mark, that logo is a blatant lie.

Follow the money

Many brands seeking to build trust with the public establish charitable foundations or make contributions to causes. With its image in desperate need of a reboot, BP has made significant donations to gulf cleanup efforts and regional charities that focus on hunger and housing. These are all high-profile, press-release-ready efforts.

It’s certainly better than nothing, and BP does seem to grasp the idea that it needs to spend big to show its concern.

But you won’t find much in the way of marine environmental research on BP’s books or any slowdown whatsoever in the company’s high-risk deepwater drilling projects. No, right along with its more environmentally friendly efforts like wind and biofuels, BP is still using the lion’s share of its research dollars to pursue the same kind of risky drilling that damaged the Gulf of Mexico so dramatically.

As John Bell writes in Forbes Magazine, “BP’s talk about caring for the environment was for naught, as its actions failed to match its message.” Small wonder that a site like boycottbp.com is still growing strong. Or that the brand ranked at number seven in MarketWatch’s 2013 poll of companies with the worst reputations.

SC Johnson’s evolving transparency

While SC Johnson certainly faces environmental concerns, it does have an inherent advantage over a company like BP. After all, a Gulf-scale tragedy is highly unlikely in the arena of household cleaners.

But this field carries its own set of risks. Many of SC Johnson’s products – insect repellents, cleaners and baby shampoo, to name a few – are used by families on a daily basis. And in the last decade, concerns have increased about how these types of products impact not only the health of customers but the greater environment as a whole.

In large part, SC Johnson has responded to such concerns with a careful trust-building approach that includes admission of mistakes and a proactive willingness to change corporate policy and behavior. While there have been a few bumps in the road, even their response to setbacks has been characterized by a tone that emphasizes responsibility over defensiveness.

Open policies

One major area of concern with consumers about household products is the ingredients. Many cleaners and air fresheners tout a natural, organic identity while their labels contain a long list of unpronounceable components unfamiliar to anyone lacking a degree in chemical engineering. In an effort to counteract this, SC Johnson launched its "What’s Inside SC Johnson" website in early 2009, where it has published complete ingredients lists for almost all of its products.

However, the company’s track record is not perfect. Its “Greenlist” label, featured on Windex and other products SC Johnson claimed passed its highest environmental standards, was the subject of several consumer-advocate lawsuits. Because the label closely resembled other third-party designations for independently vetted products, the suits rightly called into question the legitimacy of SC Johnson practice of promoting its own – potentially misleading – self-proclaimed green standard.

Response to criticism

One of the ways in which SC Johnson has been most successful in upholding the integrity of its brand is in its response to controversy. The company trades heavily on its identity as a family-owned business, something that can be difficult to buy given its global scope and multi-billion-dollar annual sales numbers. But when issues arise, it is not a corporate lawyer that does the talking for SC Johnson; it’s Fisk Johnson, CEO and true blood family representative.

In the case of the Greenlist issue, Johnson reiterated the company’s commitment to the environment, but admitted its misstep. “When you're out in front of an issue like this, it means that you're not always going to get it completely right, as was the case with this particular issue," he said.

SC Johnson has also demonstrated a willingness to change its formulas and policies ahead of any legal mandate – and also ahead of many competitors. The company has reduced its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 42 percent since 2000, and it has installed two wind turbines at its largest global manufacturing facility, enabling that facility to produce most of its electrical energy onsite.

Integrity gets results

All of this earnest effort is certainly paying off for SC Johnson. In 2012, the United Nations Foundation for Social Change honored the company as a global Leader of Change, and in 2013, the company received an EPA Climate Leadership Award for Aggressive Goal Setting.

SC Johnson’s mix of staying true to its family roots, increasing transparency with customers and demonstrating a willingness to change combines to reinforce its reputation as a brand that operates with integrity. While the company isn’t perfect, its actions maintain consistency with its image. By any measure of consumer confidence, that’s a powerful – and to borrow from BP’s ill-used lexicon – sustainable strategy.

---

Keep it Social

Human communication is complex. The words that you use, the tone and volume of your voice as well as your body language and facial expressions all play a role in how your message is received by those that you are communicating with. A poorly chosen phrase or a simple misstep in your body language can steer a conversation into unexpected, and unintended, territory. In an age when so much of our communication has now become digital, the challenges have become even greater. Many of the social cues present in face-to-face interactions are all but impossible to convey. Body language and facial expressions are a non‐factor, and tone is as hard to express as it is easy to misinterpret. As a result, when communicating online, achieving clear understanding of meaning and intention comes down to the words that you use and how you use them.

Social communication

In today’s Digital Age, social media plays a pivotal role in the way companies communicate with their customers. But with the proliferation of social platforms – from standard bearers like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+ to niche sites like Pinterest, Instagram, Flickr and Foursquare – it’s easy to become overwhelmed by the task of managing your brand’s social presence. As a result, it’s tempting to find ways to automate this communication in order to save time and resources. This is exactly the solution that I discussed recently with a vendor who was promoting a platform that would automatically broadcast updates to dozens of social media sites each time a blog post, news release or similar content was published to our website. Rather than spending the time to post this content to each of our social profiles individually, this tool would do it all for us in one quick shot. While this may sound like a dream come true, the problem is that it is a blunt instrument-style approach to communication: every profile gets exactly the same update at the same time. But the reality is that not all social media sites are the same, and neither are the audiences that use them. The way you communicate with connections on LinkedIn should differ from how you do so on Facebook. Similarly, the content you’d publish on photo-sharing sites like Instagram, Pinterest or Flickr is completely different from the updates you’d post to a micro‐blogging site like Twitter. Each site has a syntax specific to that particular social media platform, and ignoring that syntax greatly compromises the effectiveness your communication. You absolutely have something to lose – the opportunity to connect with your audience in a meaningful way. Some might argue that since the posts are automated, you’ve got nothing to lose by trying this approach, but that is incorrect. You absolutely have something to lose – the opportunity to connect with your audience in a meaningful way. And that lost opportunity could cost you dearly if the tailored messages of your competitors reach your potential customers where your robotic, automated communications miss the mark or, even worse, alienate your followers. In the end, while automation will save you time, it does so by taking away your ability to customize your message for specific audiences and platforms.

Be social, be specific

Stepping back from social media for a moment, think about human communication in general. We change the way that we speak and the messages that we send depending on who our audience is. You speak to your friends differently than you speak to your family. You communicate with co‐workers and peers differently than with clients and customers. Effective interpersonal communication requires an understanding of how best to convey your desired message to those you are speaking with. This is not something you could ever automate; it requires a human touch. When it comes to communicating via social media, the medium and the methods may be different, but the basic underlying principal remains the same: to be effective, your message must be tailored to the audience that will receive it. Although the channels themselves may be digital, you can’t eliminate the human element. For an example of how different messages should be tailored to different platforms – and why not every update is right for every social media profile you manage – let’s take a look at how my company shares our news and announcements. When we acquire a new certification or receive recognition that’s worthy of a press release, we promote that accomplishment on sites like Linkedin, Twitter and Facebook where followers naturally expect to see updates about what’s going on with our company. In each case, we use the specific syntax and conventions of that site – such as hashtags on Twitter – to make sure those updates are in a format that audiences are familiar with and can easily find. We do not, however, share content like this on sites like Flickr or dribbble because those platforms are visual in nature, and these particular announcements have no meaningful visual component to them. If instead we are publishing an update about a new website project that we are launching for a client, we will again post that announcement to Linkedin, Twitter and Facebook, but we will also add updates to social media sites that are more visual in nature because, for this update, we do have good image-based content (i.e., a screenshot of the new design) that can accompany the post. Each time we post an update to social media, we consider the nature of the content to decide which sites are most appropriate for those updates. Additionally, each social media post that we make uses the specific syntax of that social media platform.

Forget trying to do it all; focus on doing it right

The concept of automating your social media communication is only an attractive option if you are trying to publish content to so many social media sites that doing so has become unmanageable drain on your time. If this is the case, the solution isn’t to find a way to automate the work; it’s to streamline your activities to include only those sites that are a good fit for your needs. Trying to use every single social media site available to post as much content as possible is not a sound strategy. Why? Because social media platforms are overrun with self-promotional content that is irrelevant to audiences, and users of these platforms are quickly becoming conditioned to tune out this static. Sending automated updates to dozens of sites at once, without ever considering whether or not those updates are appropriate for those sites, just adds to this problem. Is that how you want your company’s news and announcements to be perceived – as part of the useless glut of social media updates? So if taking the time to individually update dozens of social media profiles for your company is not the answer, and automating those updates is also a no‐go, then how can you use social media to effectively communicate your organization’s message? The first step is to speak with a professional team that can help you establish an appropriate social media strategy – one that suits your brand and fits into your overall marketing plan. That team can help you identify which social media sites your audience is actually using and what types of updates you should send to each platform. They can also help you develop a rhythm for social media updates – one that you will be comfortable executing on a regular basis. By identifying the right sites for your organization and understanding how to use those sites effectively, you can capitalize on the power of social media to grow your brand and your business.

Case in point: KLR

KLR is a large accounting and business consulting firm headquartered in New England. In developing their social media strategy, they realized that while their target audience does likely use Facebook (after all, who doesn’t at this point?), they do not use that platform to search for the types of high‐end accounting and business planning services that the firm offers. As a result, promoting their services to that audience on that platform would be inappropriate, and their content would fall on deaf ears. Instead, KLR uses sites like LinkedIn and Twitter, where they have built a network of business connections that recognize them as thought leaders in their industry, to promote their services. Does this mean they turned away from Facebook altogether? Not at all; rather, they determined a more effective use for the platform: communicating with current and prospective employees, including interns whom they were looking to attract to the firm. Recognizing that college-age students would absolutely be using Facebook to research potential employers and positions, KLR decided to use their Facebook profile to showcase their company culture and their standing as a “Best Place to Work” for eight years running. By evaluating different social media sites, which segments of their audience (if any) are using those sites, and how they can most effectively convey their messages across that landscape, KLR has made the most out of the time they spend managing their social media presence.

A final word

Social media can be invaluable in its role as an open line of communication between your company and its customers. However, it can also be one of the surest ways to waste time and resources if you don’t have the right strategy in place. Make sure you’re getting the most from your efforts by contacting a digital marketing specialist to discuss your company’s needs. Together, you’ll be able to define your company’s voice and bring a human touch to your social media strategy.

---