BrandSimple | BrandDigital: The Blog

It was about 25 years ago that Johnson & Johnson suffered one of the worst nightmares a consumer products company can face. Seven people died from ingesting Extra Strength Tylenol capsules that had been laced with cyanide. It was the first known case of death caused by deliberate product tampering. This incident recently came to mind after a number of people (too young to remember the Tylenol scare) asked me if brands suffer permanent damage when there’s a consumer product quality problem like the recent Mattel situation where it was discovered that many of its popular toy brands were manufactured with toxic components. My answer to their question is “no, not if.” Brands can actually come out stronger if they do two things very well.

The first thing a brand must do to save its good name is to react really, really fast – jump in and quickly address the situation frankly and honestly. Now, reacting really, really fast these days is really, really hard. Given the Internet and its finger-happy bloggers, the whole world knows what’s going on within seconds of its happening. To stay ahead of the busily pointing fingers, brand organizations have to be closely connected to what’s going on in the blogosphere. Good companies have teams in place to monitor and listen to the incessant online chatter about their brands. They have contingency plans in place and people empowered to act promptly and aggressively should the need arise. Seemingly nanoseconds after news of Mattel hit Wi-Fi networks, for example, its CEO issued a statement that the company would immediately recall millions of toys from retailers’ shelves along with put into place significant new manufacturing procedures. While this will cost the brand millions of dollars near term, these instantaneous actions should help mitigate brand fallout in the long term.

The second thing a brand should do in challenging times is to do more than consumers expect it to do. In the case of J&J’s Tylenol, this meant not only an instant recall of the product but the development of new tamper-resistant bottles along with the development of tamper-resistant caplets. While the company’s share price and its share of market took an immediate plunge right after the scare, its more-than-expected actions helped it regain its number one brand position by the end of the year. It remains the top-selling analgesic in the country.

Stuff happens. There are all sorts of potentially damaging situations a consumer product brand can face in its lifetime. Whether it allows itself to be defeated by the situation depends on how quickly the brand reacts and if it does more than people expect it to. While it may be an expensive proposition, saving a strong brand name - whatever the cost - is priceless.

The only recent news story that may have gotten more press coverage than the release of Apple’s iPhone is the release of Paris Hilton. I’m not here to weigh in on that particular item. Rather, I would like to toss a brand question into the ring regarding the iPhone. What happens when one brand bets its future on the performance of another? By choosing AT&T as its exclusive carrier for the next two years Apple may be doing just that. Apple selected AT&T in part because the company allowed it to change everything people hated about cell phones. The problem is, one of the biggest things people hate about cell phones is still in AT&T’s arena: Its network and its reputation for inconsistent signals. While AT&T is working hard on next generation technology to remedy this, the brand’s reputation relative to call quality could have a negative effect on Apple’s grade-A reputation as a brand. The incredibly positive aura associated with the Apple brand could be diminished if the calling experience with the iPhone is less than Apple grade.

Now, generally, no one blames problems with their cell phone on the hardware. If there’s a problem, they assume it’s the carrier. This may mitigate any fallout to the Apple brand should the call experience with the iPhone be less than wonderful. While any brand partnership is a challenge, what remains to be seen in this case is whether Apple loyalists will be any less loyal if every aspect of the iPhone experience doesn’t live up to their expectations. Apple is, in a way, releasing the product with one hand tied behind its back.

And although the iPhone can be used one-handed, the brand may need both to defend itself against any less than stellar performance on its partner’s part. Stay tuned.

It was a classic example of how the simplest brand ideas lend themselves to the most brilliant executions. In this case, the simple idea was a secret. More specifically, it was Fisher-Price’s brilliant branding decision to generate gotta-have fever around its T.M.X. Elmo launch by getting fifty carefully selected people to keep a secret. The simple idea was to create the kind of mystery usually associated with product launches in the highly competitive high-tech industry. And mystery was an understatement. The spectacular execution of the idea had folks at Fisher-Price, a unit of Mattel, laughing – all the way to the bank. It was a coup of immense proportion considering first, the huge and fickle market of character-based toys and, second, the fact that Elmo was not even a new character. His enormous success ten years ago was no guarantee customers would storm the stores once again.

Why was the simplicity of the idea key to the coup? Simple. It’s easier for people to understand something simple. Give them an idea they can immediately “get” and they’ll immediately be able to come up with a hundred wonderful ways to bring it to life. In Elmo’s case it was “Let’s get the people we share the secret with to sign a confidentiality agreement that playfully threatens drastic repercussions for exposure.” “Let’s hold off shooting the launch commercials until the day of the launch.” Let’s keep the furry little guy locked in a silver case.” (Is Elmo an animal? Should I call the ASPCA?) Perhaps most incredible, “Let’s get toy retailers to make space for the new Elmo, sight unseen, an entire month before his secret identity is revealed.” The idea and the way it was carried out was infectious. People got it – and they wanted to play. Everyone in on the secret kept it. Retailers made room on the shelves. Even the snarkiest of bloggers had no clue what to write about. Instead of trying to generate interest by way of borrowed interest, promotions, or hyperbole-filled sales material, Fisher-Price generated not merely interest, but genuine excitement. The secret was tickle me simple and the execution was a hoot.