OOPS - PR /Marketing Mishaps Published February - March 2007 Microsoft’s Vista launch tactics raise questions Microsoft is under the media microscope again following reports by the New York Times that on the eve of the launch of its new Windows Vista product, the software giant sent 90 laptop to influential US bloggers.  The move started a debate as to whether Microsoft is ‘extending the boundaries’ - and whether bloggers should be accepting such gifts (reportedly valued in excess of US$2000 each).  Microsoft explained its move away as simply assisting “bloggers who write about technology and other subjects that could be affected by the release of Windows Vista”.  It’s not known how many bloggers accepted the computers and how many returned them. Unfortunately Microsoft has a history of being perceived - by the media at least - to be trying too hard to ensure the company and its products are seen favourably.  It is asserted that during anti-trust trials letters, purportedly written by members of the public to newspapers across the US, were actually written by Microsoft staff.  The software company has also been allegedly caught creating false endorsements (also see item below).  Sony ‘Flog’ outed Sony admitted it was behind a faked weblog, or flog, promoting its PSP hand-held console after bloggers traced the site to viral marketing firm Zipatoni.  The site included a video of “Cousin Pete” singing a rap song asking for a Playstation Portable (PSP) for Christmas.  Sony later acknowledged the company was behind www.alliwantforxmasisapsp.com and added a ‘clarification’ posting with the site soon after pulled down.  You can read more about it here: http://www.consumerist.com./consumer/blogs/sonys-psp-blog-flog-revealed-221384.php  Multiple names equal multiple confusion in branding strategy Internationally commentators are blaming a weakness in Motorola’s stock price on perceived confusion around its branding strategies. It is said Motorola had enormous success with mobile phone StarTac with the product being named No 6 among the 50 great new gadgets of the past 50 years in one survey. Given the huge amount of positive pr Motorola and Star Tac achieved commentators argue that Motorola had a great platform to work from and should have named the entire phone collection StarTac. Instead they adopted a multiple branding strategy, choosing Slvr and Razr as names for its new mobile phones, only to then change them to MotoRazr and MotoSlvr - all adding to confusion in the marketplace. Of course, this is probably an over simplistic view and in the real world of marketing there are many imperatives to take into account.  But it is food for thought.  US Pickup ad attracts negative coverage Sometimes when the advertising creative people get too clever it can have consequences that the marketer never contemplated.  Such is the case for General Motors in the US which is trying awfully hard to ‘re-connect’ its Chevrolet brand with ordinary Americans. A 60-second music video/commercial for General Motors Chevrolet’s Silverado truck (link here) has garnered a large amount of criticism in the past few months.  The ad mixes photos and news footage from the last century with a John Mellencamp song called ‘Our Country’.  The images are both positive and negative with the World Trade Centre site featured. The ad ’Our Country has come under criticism for capitalising on others miseries (World Trade Centre).  ‘Families of September 11’, an organisation formed by relatives of those who died in the terror attacks,  was enraged, with cofounder Carie Lemack saying:  “Have we become so accustomed to exploiting people’s pain that it is acceptable for a company to make money using images of it?” The ad also came under fire due to its tenuous link between the Silverado heritage and events depicted (the Silverado dates only to the mid 1970s - well after some of the events in the ad). Chevrolet spokeswoman, Melisa Tezanos said: “The reason we can do this with the Chevy Silverado is because the whole spirit of the pickup is to get out there, throw stuff in the back and rebuild things”. Microsoft under fire for Wikipedia editing Microsoft has come under fire after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site. While Wikipedia is a free form publication as it is editable by the public they have blocked public-relations firms and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of interest from posting slanted entries. So paying for Wikipedia copy is considered unethical. Microsoft acknowledged it had approached the writer and offered to pay him for the time it would take to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles on an open-source document standard and a rival format put forward by Microsoft. Bausch & Lomb Crisis In the days of consumer-dominated media there’s more pressure than ever to do everything right - and quickly - and to think through all of an organisation’s vulnerabilities when an issue strikes. When Bausch & Lomb discovered that its ReNu MoistureLoc lens-cleanser brand apparently caused a rare but potentially blinding cornea infection due to the painful fungus known as fusarium keratitis it made the responsible decision to withdraw the product from the market. The problem was that B&L waited three days between the time it suspended shipments of ReNu MoistureLoc and the time it actually withdrew the product from store shelves.  Then it gave consumer advocates - and critics - additional  ammunition by using CEO, Ronald Zarella as company spokesperson after he was allegedly exposed for falsely claiming he head a master’s degree in business administration for NY University. The negative issue gained covered in newspapers, a variety of marketing and pr blogs and even MySpace.  So what B&L thought was ‘doing the right thing’ turned back to bite it showing what a fine margin there is when operating in today’s marketplace.  Volvo Giveaway not so giving A recent Volvo promotion in the US showed that sometimes marketers are so close to their own business that they fail to see that messages they want to give are often perceived differently by consumers. Volvo recently came under fire for its “Who would you give a Volvo to” campaign in the US. While consumers understood the campaign to be a competition where they could win a Volvo, the response on the Volvo FAQ website was: “The campaign is intended to make people think about the safety initiatives Volvo has taken in vehicle development and therefore why they would consider a Volvo for the special individuals in their lives”. Some bloggers say that it is a misleading promotion and comments posted at advertising.about.com about the ad said:  “… the campaign title is deceiving and makes me happy to not give Volvo my time in checking out their website…”  John Maloney, VP Communications for Volvo Cars of North America said “We are comfortable going forward and there is not intent to deceive. It is very clear from the ads that this is about love.  It’s about who do you want to protect in your life”.  Clearly the company’s thought process is not in alignment with their customers.

PR Influences: OOPS – PR /Marketing Mishaps article by Sydney based PR company Network PR specialising in business technology and online pr and media