Today’s oh-so-timely guest blog is authored by Laura West, Peppercomm’s Head of Analytics. Btw, we’d love to know your take on the Nike campaign, so comment at will…

There are any number of ways to evaluate Nike’s Kaepernick campaign. Some call it: “shrewd.” Others say it’s “a bold statement.” The president called it “a terrible message.” Pundits say it’s “a calculated risk.”

Is Nike’s ad a success? What do the facts say? There is always a friendly bit of data pointing at an answer we may like, no matter our political/social opinions:

• Fact: The President of the United States has denounced Nike’s ad
• Also fact: Lebron James has lauded it

• Fact: #NikeBoycott was trending on Twitter on Tuesday
• Also fact: #Nike and #JustDoIt were trending on Wednesday

• Fact: Nike’s stock dropped on Tuesday
• Also fact: so did its competitor’s, Adidas’

As most people in the industry have come to appreciate, it is not an isolated bit of data that leads to true insight. It is contextualized data; not “there were this many mentions” but “there were this many positive/negative mentions.” And not “someone denounced the company” but “X influencer or X% of the target audience denounced the company.” The context is determined by the prioritized goals.

Is the most valuable metric sales? If so, the ad may have been a bad decision (since Morning Consult reports that purchasing consideration is down). Is the most valuable metric the amount of buzz generated? In this case, the move was an unquestionable success (generating more than $43 million worth of media exposure according to Bloomberg).

Morning Consult reported that Nike’s favorability has dropped by double digits since the campaign announcement. However, if Nike cares most about what certain athletes think of the company’s move, then favorability among more general audiences may not be the most important data point, since success would be measured according to this elite audience’s reaction.

So, how would you measure success?

Today’s guest blog is authored by Steve Goodwin, a principal at Brand Foundations, a strategic branding & purpose partner of Peppercomm’s. Enjoy…..

Yet again this week, we’re reminded that a trapped, wounded animal is dangerous. Like an orange pain-riddled bear with his leg hopelessly caught in a snare trap, President Trump lashed out at Google, accusing the search giant of baking the results in favor of liberal media outlets so that a search of “Trump news” always returns negative stories. [An aside: I’d offer the president the same gentle advice I’ve been giving to clients for years: “Uh… you have more control over this than you may think.”] As is far too often the case, the president’s info started as a discredited story being peddled on Fox before it made its way into his never-used-a-computer brain and out his tiny tweeting fingers.

Google, to its credit, responded with a statement within what appeared to be minutes of the nastygram. That statement leads with purpose: “When users type queries into the Google Search bar, our goal is to make sure they receive the most relevant answers in a matter of seconds.” Bam! Pure “north star” stuff that:

• was clearly the result of a thoughtful process;
• was 100% on-brand as a result; and
• enabled a speedy response because Google’s comms team had it at the ready: they didn’t need to create a one-off statement in a panic and then run it up the chain in a frenzied attempt to get agreement on a final version by the end of the day’s news cycle.

It was also a powerful opener and a perfect springboard for the rest of the statement, which went on to refute the president’s charge in greater detail. The statement wouldn’t have been nearly so strong had the order been reversed.

Of course, Trump vows to “look into” the matter, ensuring the story will stay in the news for a bit… as does the fact that the leaders of Facebook, Google and Twitter are slated to appear before a Congressional committee next week to talk about censorship and election interference.

Like the trapped bear striking out in fear at what it can’t comprehend, Trump’s howling at the tech world at least proves that there is no industry he won’t go after. No matter how big, deep-pocketed or popular, no company is safe. And the fact of the matter is that in our current fractured climate of tribalism and corporate reckoning, threats to an organization’s brand and reputation can come from any direction at any time… not just from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or Mar-a-Lago during yet another fitful night.

That’s why smart organizations that play on the national stage are well-advised to proactively undertake a process that identifies, assesses and monitors for enterprise-wide reputational risks and guides the creation of purpose-driven plans and content that allow for taking a reasoned, rational and rapid stand… one that rises above the level of the incoming attacks.

Funny I should mention it, because that’s exactly what StandSmart^SM – a new in-the-works joint offering from Peppercomm and BrandFoundations – is designed to deliver. Stay tuned for details (but reach out now if you want a preview).

With trapped animals as with trapped presidents, the only predictable thing is their unpredictability. And as Google and countless other companies have learned, you don’t need to pick a fight in order to find yourself in one. Stand ready. Stand strong. Stand smart.

I had the distinct pleasure of working with Chris Tennyson at Hill & Knowlton at a time in history when H&K was considered the Tiffany’s of the PR universe. There was H&K, and then there was everyone else.

But, that was then and this is now.  

After leaving H&K in the mid-1980s, Chris went on to build a formidable career on both the corporate and agency sides of our business.

Today’s guest blog is excerpted from his upcoming book, “The Crisis Preparedness Quotient – Measuring Your Readiness to Weather a Reputational Storm.” 

The excerpt, just like the book itself, is a MUST read for anyone counseling a CCO, CMO or CEO. Enjoy!

This week the Nabisco division of Mondelez International unveiled a newsworthy packaging redesign of its Barnum’s Animals cookies. Since 1902, small boxes of America’s favorite brand of animal crackers have been adorned with images of circus animals caged in boxcars. Not anymore. The majestic lion, elephant, zebra, giraffe and gorilla on the updated packages now roam free.

Great move by Mondelez to keep an iconic brand in step with the times – and avoid a crisis.

In Chapter 3 of my book, The Crisis Preparedness Quotient – Measuring Your Company’s Readiness to Weather a Reputational Storm, I discuss nine common sources of crises. They all start with the letter “P”: people, products, priorities, policies, performance, politics, procrastination, privacy, and past. “Packaging” didn’t make the list, but I believe the Barnum’s Animals redesign provides an excellent example of a company knowing when it’s time to address a problematic “policy.”

According to an article in the August 21, 2018, USA Today (“Nabisco uncages its animal crackers after 116 years”), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals first called for a change in what they considered insensitive packaging back in April 2016. Commenting on the redesign, Modelez’s Chief Marketing Officer Jason Levine explained, “When PETA reached out about Barnum’s, we saw this as another great opportunity to continue to keep this brand modern and contemporary.”

Good move. The new art in no way diminishes the appeal of the product (the brand’s distinctive yellow and red color palette and fun illustration style have been maintained to draw in customers of all ages). And the folks at PETA are happy. The group’s Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman confirmed, “PETA is celebrating this redesign.”

No shaming, no boycott, no crisis.

Smart policy updates should not be seen as any less heroic just because they were made in response to outside pressure. CVS discontinuing sale of all tobacco products, SeaWorld ending its controversial orca whale breeding program, and the Miss America organization’s elimination of the swim suit competition are examples of corporate decisions, generally well-received, influenced at least in part by looming reputational threats.

Timing is important. Slow response to changing mores contributed to Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus folding its tent for good in 2016, just a year after begrudgingly announcing that it would phase out elephant acts. So, the responsive cookie brand survives, while the stubborn institution it was named after no longer exists.

There’s a valuable lesson in that scenario for marketers and communicators wanting to improve their crisis preparedness quotient.

*Animal Crackers in My Soup was a hit song performed by child star Shirley Temple in the 1935 film Curly Top (it’s probably not on your playlist).

Fact: The Cleveland Browns lost every single game last season. They hold the distinction of being one of the few NFL franchises to ever record such a dubious accomplishment.

Fact: Bud Light is one of three or four mega beer brands that routinely spends hundreds of millions of dollars to convince the NFL faithful to sip their suds while lounging on couches and channel surfing from one game to another.

Fact: The two organizations partnered to shine the spotlight on Cleveland’s horrific team AND create a brilliant, breakthrough campaign that has this blogger shaking his head and thinking, “How come I didn’t come up with something this smart and strategic?”

Then I remember that my personal and professional motto is: “Expect Less.” That comforting reminder enables me to de-stress.

But I digress.

In case you don’t want to read the article link, here’s the gist of the campaign:

If, and when, the Cleveland Browns win their first game of the season, free beer will be made available in multiple locations in the “Mistake by the Lake” thanks to Bud Light’s “Victory Fridges.”

The specialty-designed fridges, painted brown, chock full of Bud Light beer AND chained shut will be unlocked by smart technology as soon as the game ends.

The football team’s official Twitter site announced the campaign with the following: “You’ve stood by us through it all. We love you for it and so does @budlight.”

FYI, the chained fridges will open regardless of whether the Browns win at home or on the road.

Analyzing this campaign from a strategic communications standpoint, I feel compelled to point out the following:

• This would NEVER have happened if the Browns hadn’t embraced their vulnerability. That tells me they have wise, humble ownership (a rare commodity in any business).
• In one fell swoop, Bud Light outflanked every one of its competitors vying for market share in BrownTown. Critically, though, they also connected with NFL and beer fans alike by “rooting for the underdog.” I’m not a Browns fan and I don’t drink Bud Light, but you can bet your last glass of Sancerre that I will be closely following the Browns’ exploits and maybe, just maybe, will buy a six-pack of Bud Light to join the celebration.

The latter is called “consideration” by marketing types and it’s the currency of the realm. If ANY marketer can disrupt my typical buying (or viewing) pattern AND get me to consider their product in my selection process, then they’ve completed the sales equivalent of a Hail Mary pass.

I wish the Browns well, salute their willingness to embrace vulnerability and lift my wine glass to the brilliant marketers at Bud Light.

In our tumultuous scandal-riddled, societal crises-driven landscape, organizational vulnerability has never been more fragile. And the role of the CCO/CMO has never been under greater stress.

But, for those who anticipate, plan, test and re-test the societal crisis response systems, the opportunity to rise above the fray and bring clarity to the fog of war has never been more readily available.

Ah, but one needs to know where to look, determine what constitutes a brand threat, assure your response will align with the organization’s higher purpose AND then decide if, how and when to respond.

I had the amazing opportunity to co-host an IPR-sponsored webinar (playback available next week) yesterday with Linda Rutherford, SVP and Chief Communications Officer of Southwest Airlines. We were simultaneously addressing the best practices IPR and Peppercomm, my firm, had gleaned from in-depth interviews with 50 leading CCO/CMOs.

I enumerated the top-line research findings (doing my best to intersperse such late-breaking crises as):

• The war of words between POTUS and Harley-Davidson
• The latest revelations about Roman Catholic Church priests running amok in Pennsylvania
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s baffling remark that, “America was never great.”

(Note: I made the editorial decision that the Donald/Omarosa nonsense didn’t warrant any more attention).

Linda went way above-and-beyond the call of duty to share the inner workings of SW’s iterative, rapid response model using such examples as the Texas Bathroom Bill to explain how each and every facet functioned.

Our central themes were two-fold:

• The days of remaining silent as social crisis after social crisis unfolds outside your corner office are over.
• The social issues crisis you overlook is the one that will put you on the front page of The New York Times faster than you can say Gail Collins.

To wit, we briefly addressed a recently-released list of 15 U. S. organizations with high-priced, long-term contracts with the controversial government agency I.C.E. (Think: separation of children from their parents along our country’s Southern borders).

To my knowledge, only two of the 15 have been savaged by internal constituents for “apparently” endorsing human misery. And only one has found itself a front-page story in the Times: Deloitte.

I have no idea if Thomson Reuters, Dell or the other mega players playing with I.C.E. (Or F.I.R.E., if you prefer), have issued statements clarifying why they continue their relationships but they better do so soon.

Any crisis counselor, whether old school or new, knows the best way to manage a highly politicized crisis is get out in front of it. Explain why you’re in bed with I.C.E.

Follow Deloitte’s lead in explaining that NONE of your contracts have anything whatsoever to do with separating children from parents or detaining the kids in medieval holding pens and double down on your higher purpose and guiding principles.

I hope yesterday’s webinar attendees grasped the immediacy of the situation and the need to overhaul whatever crisis plan their global agency may have created back in 2003. Those work plans are about as relevant as a Blackberry in today’s workplace.

If I need to scare you even more, consider this: the mid-term elections are just a few months away. If your organization is headquartered in a state holding Congressional elections, you better be prepared for employees (and, perhaps, board members) to insist your CEO speak up on everything from gun control and tariff wars to Russian hacking and NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem.

And, if you should happen to find yourself on the receiving end of a vicious attack by President Trump, you better have already decided whether to respond, if an employee and dealer-only e-mail a la Harley’s strategy is sufficient as well as how your multiple constituent audiences will respond.

It seems to me the days of sticking one’s head in the sand are gone with the wind (and trust me, when the wind hits your company, it will probably carry the wallop of a Force 5 Hurricane).

So, get thee prepared. Now!

I’m impressed by the actions of Fallon, Olson Engage and Initiative to step up, stand out and fire their client Papa John’s in the aftermath of the N-word controversy.

Skeptics could argue that, by firing Papa John’s, each agency will now attract new, and more reputable, clients as a result. One could also surmise such a move will motivate existing employees to stay put while attracting recruits with a desire to work for an agency with ethics.

Perhaps.

But I can tell you as an owner of a 22-year-old firm, it’s very tough to walk away from guaranteed billings. Very tough indeed.

Setting aside higher purpose for a moment, the owners of Fallon, Olson Engage and Initiative also have a payroll to meet. And, that’s when an entrepreneur has to stop and think about the implications of firing a quasi blue-chip client like Papa John’s.

Sure, your Millennials will love telling their peers you did the right thing, and they work for an agency that places ethics above profits. And, in your mind, you HAVE done the right thing.

But then your CFO strolls into your office and says, “I truly respect your decision to deep-six Papa John’s, but it’s put us in a real bind. We either reconsider or reduce our workforce by 10 percent or put an indefinite freeze on raises and bonuses.”

And that, my friend, is why it’s so lonely at the top.

I’ve fired quite a few clients during my tenure as Peppercomm’s CEO. But, none were a result of what I’d call a societal crisis a la Papa John’s N word debacle.

I’ve deep-sixed clients because:

– They were beyond abusive to our account teams (I’d rather keep good people than uncouth clients).

– They poached a key employee without first extending the courtesy of asking my permission (a clear breach of ANY client-agency letter of agreement).

– They were actively interviewing other agencies while we were under contract and none the wiser to their Machiavellian machinations.

– They demanded too much for too little.

Having the spine to fire a client sends a strong message to one’s employees and reinforces the organization’s higher purpose. But, it’s a decision that carries serious financial implications as well (which I doubt the average account manager appreciates).

Firing Papa John’s would have been a no-brainer for me (regardless of the billings).

It’s the gray areas that keep turning what little hair I have left even grayer.

Today’s guest blog is authored by Scottie Ellis, who doubles as a superstar and our lone employee in Louisville, Kentucky. Like many of you, Scottie is an avid fan of The Handmaid’s Tale and, like many of you, was beyond insulted at what might have been the worst brand extension idea in many a moon.

Here’s her take on the wine that died on the vine…..

Developing a line of ‘seductive’ wines based off of women stripped of their rights and freedom, who are enslaved for rape and reproduction? All in the name of commodity.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you are likely aware of Hulu’s Golden Globe winning series The Handmaid’s Tale, based off of Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel. The story has found new life, not only thanks to the show led by Elizabeth Moss, but also, unfortunately, due to our current political state. Audiences have found themselves relating to the story of a futuristic totalitarian state (The Republic of Gilead), which has overthrown the United States government and stripped women completely of their rights thanks to the Trump-era rhetoric, which has become the new norm.

The story takes an extreme stance by designating some women as ‘Handmaids,’ forced to live with a family and reproduce on their behalf due to the family’s inability.  To be more frank, the women are raped on a regular basis, and then forced to give up their children to their rapist and his wife. To further degrade the women, the leaders also strip them of their identities through mandatory uniforms and new names.

Horrified at the thought of wine being developed around these characters? Well prepare to need a glass of something strong as you read the disturbing product description:

“Completely stripped of her rights and freedom, Offred must rely on the one weapon she has left to stay in control — her feminine wiles. This French Pinot Noir is similarly seductive, its dark berry fruit and cassis aromatics so beguiling it seems almost forbidden to taste. But it’s useless to resist the wine’s smooth and appealingly earthy profile, so you may as well give in.”

Not only does this copy transform rape into marketing, it also sexualizes and promotes tactics rape survivors often must use to get through their experience alive – and how they must process following their attack. The final statement reads, “you may as well give in?” Well, as a woman, that reads as I have no say or rights when it comes to my body – one of the things I fear most.

Dramatic? Noting that Trump, our president, who has sexually harassed women with no consequences, is working to take away our access to birth control and our right of choice, I see my rights dwindling before my eyes. For women, ‘under his eye’ is becoming more realistic day by day.

Should I drink to that? I’d rather be ordered to the Colonies.