Some excerpts on my take Saturday on the Lowe's debacle as written up for Muslim matters.org:
Some further thoughts:
Their decision aside, what's been astounding is their PR failure throughout in trying to backpedal and spin their decision.
The inadequate Facebook response -- which comes off as being written by an inexperienced social media intern with no corporate oversight and hastily approved by a lawyer not too happy to be bothered on a weekend -- is an inelegant (notice the typo) way of offering an apology of sorts, while spinning their original cave to pressure. It rallies those who support their position, but does little to indicate a sincere re-evaluation of the ethics behind their choice and shirks any responsibility to pull themselves out of the fray they created:
That they've let their Facebook comments go completely unchecked , allowing some truly repulsive and vulgar comments to appear (even from both camps), flies in the face of their alleged claim of "We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers."
Most corporations with a sound understanding of social media and community management will reign in the most egregious comments but allow a fairly wide berth. That Lowe's is unwilling or unable to do so -- and in the end, sending a signal that such customers are whom they wish to build their community around -- reveals either Lowe's true colors, its communications ineptitude, or both.
That's a shame, as a real opportunity to build some dialogue went unsupported, letting the most extreme voices control their page and tone (I personally participated on their page late Saturday night and into Sunday morning, and had good, genuine dialogue with some opposition that was respectful and open).
There is some odd logic in the FB response itself. In an email from a Lowe’s representative posted on the Florida group’s page, a Lowe’s rep states "there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention."
Without access to those guidelines -- which they've yet to produce -- it’s not possible to verify the "lighting [sic] rod" reason they offer up on Facebook. It also begs the question why they bought the ads in the first place if the show doesn't meet the mysterious "guidelines." A "buy ads now, review show later" doesn't seem to be good business practice.
Which all points to a frantic, ill-conceived scramble to cover up a poor ethical choice. But consumers also have a choice where to shop.
With high-profile influencers such as California Sen. Ted Lieu, Russell Simmons and Kal Penn calling out the company for their decision and mainstream media coverage on the debacle increasing, Lowe's will need to make their next decisions with much better business skill (and hopefully ethics) than they've shown to date.
UPDATE, Friday 12/16. Lowe's continued to opt for the silent option for most of the week - a bewildering choice from a business point of view. Hoping your crisis will just go away is an elementary faux - pas in crisis communications, especially when it's reached this level.
They did kill their Facebook page on Wednesday after 28,000 comments went unchecked. However, by then the damage had been done. As stated above, but better put here by Ed Cone at Bottom Line :
Here, the other long term consequence is that the extreme nature of some of the comments prvided enough impetus for them to be screen grabbed and reposted (AdWeek, Global Bearings , and others) - meaning there is now a permanent record of bigotry and racism linked to the brand.
The only other visible action to date was the deletion of their 'we never stop Tweeting" blurb -- appropriate since they haven't tweeted since Dec. 10.
These measures are bandages late in the game, but could hardly be construed as aggressively getting out in front of a crisis.
I can determine at least 10 personnel listed as having PR positions with Lowe's . So I'm wondering, what did this 10 member PR team do all week? Killing a FB thread and taking out a slogan should not take 10 people three days.
Other PR and marketing folk are taking stock of what I think will be one of the biggest PR corporate failures of the year. Sulemaan Ahmed at the Canadian Marketing Blog sums up the implications nicely:
but it sidesteps the issue of their moral choice to 'honor its objections' in the first place -- which is the core of the whole debacle. Without a forceful , clear apology and turnaround on this point, it will still feel like weak spin. It won't be enough at this stage.
Meanwhile, public pressure and media attention mounts daily and Lowe's remains quiet. I guess they are busy building poor ethical decisions and communications incompetence.
Update, Tuesday, 12/20. As the debacle enters its second week, Lowe's continues its silent treatment. Meanwhile, demonstrations at various Lowe's stores over the weekend made national news on several major outlets. With plenty of newsreel footage of the demonstrations to go with their brand, I'm not sure the 'any publicity is good publicity' concept applies here.
Mainstream media aren't the only ones providing video. Here are some creative takes on the issue:
Updated Lowe's Customer care line spoof
by: measmeil
Spoofs aside, here's something no company wants to see go viral -- a video of a customer returning $2,600.00 worth of merchandise:
See my follow up post here.
From a professional public relations perspective, Lowe’s public response indicates a lack of a good crisis communications plan. Without detailing the chinks in their armour — as I have no desire to strengthen their strategy at this stage — that lack of planning does indicate a certain corporate vulnerability. Also noteworthy is the fact that the company succumbed easily to pressure from the Florida group, which indicates some corporate attention to consumer buying power and interests — so continued and increasing pressure should yield results.
The key will be in numbers: the objective will be to show Lowes management that those outraged over the company’s decision far exceed the constituency that called for the ad pull.
Some further thoughts:
Their decision aside, what's been astounding is their PR failure throughout in trying to backpedal and spin their decision.
The inadequate Facebook response -- which comes off as being written by an inexperienced social media intern with no corporate oversight and hastily approved by a lawyer not too happy to be bothered on a weekend -- is an inelegant (notice the typo) way of offering an apology of sorts, while spinning their original cave to pressure. It rallies those who support their position, but does little to indicate a sincere re-evaluation of the ethics behind their choice and shirks any responsibility to pull themselves out of the fray they created:
It appears that we managed to step into a hotly contested debate with strong views from virtually every angle and perspective – social, political and otherwise – and we’ve managed to make some people very unhappy. We are sincerely sorry. We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers, and we’re proud of that longstanding commitment.
Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.
We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize.
Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position.
That they've let their Facebook comments go completely unchecked , allowing some truly repulsive and vulgar comments to appear (even from both camps), flies in the face of their alleged claim of "We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers."
Most corporations with a sound understanding of social media and community management will reign in the most egregious comments but allow a fairly wide berth. That Lowe's is unwilling or unable to do so -- and in the end, sending a signal that such customers are whom they wish to build their community around -- reveals either Lowe's true colors, its communications ineptitude, or both.
That's a shame, as a real opportunity to build some dialogue went unsupported, letting the most extreme voices control their page and tone (I personally participated on their page late Saturday night and into Sunday morning, and had good, genuine dialogue with some opposition that was respectful and open).
There is some odd logic in the FB response itself. In an email from a Lowe’s representative posted on the Florida group’s page, a Lowe’s rep states "there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention."
Without access to those guidelines -- which they've yet to produce -- it’s not possible to verify the "lighting [sic] rod" reason they offer up on Facebook. It also begs the question why they bought the ads in the first place if the show doesn't meet the mysterious "guidelines." A "buy ads now, review show later" doesn't seem to be good business practice.
Which all points to a frantic, ill-conceived scramble to cover up a poor ethical choice. But consumers also have a choice where to shop.
With high-profile influencers such as California Sen. Ted Lieu, Russell Simmons and Kal Penn calling out the company for their decision and mainstream media coverage on the debacle increasing, Lowe's will need to make their next decisions with much better business skill (and hopefully ethics) than they've shown to date.
UPDATE, Friday 12/16. Lowe's continued to opt for the silent option for most of the week - a bewildering choice from a business point of view. Hoping your crisis will just go away is an elementary faux - pas in crisis communications, especially when it's reached this level.
They did kill their Facebook page on Wednesday after 28,000 comments went unchecked. However, by then the damage had been done. As stated above, but better put here by Ed Cone at Bottom Line :
Didn't anyone at Lowe's HQ consider the possibility that the namby-pamby verbiage of the official statement would be shouted down by its own supporters, and that those supporters would, fairly or not, be heard as a de facto voice of the corporation on this matter?While you need to let your customer online community have its autonomy, never forget that by affiliating with your brand, your online community is an extension of it -- and no business wants to lose control of their brand.
Here, the other long term consequence is that the extreme nature of some of the comments prvided enough impetus for them to be screen grabbed and reposted (AdWeek, Global Bearings , and others) - meaning there is now a permanent record of bigotry and racism linked to the brand.
The only other visible action to date was the deletion of their 'we never stop Tweeting" blurb -- appropriate since they haven't tweeted since Dec. 10.
These measures are bandages late in the game, but could hardly be construed as aggressively getting out in front of a crisis.
I can determine at least 10 personnel listed as having PR positions with Lowe's . So I'm wondering, what did this 10 member PR team do all week? Killing a FB thread and taking out a slogan should not take 10 people three days.
Other PR and marketing folk are taking stock of what I think will be one of the biggest PR corporate failures of the year. Sulemaan Ahmed at the Canadian Marketing Blog sums up the implications nicely:
But the bigger issue for marketers and brands is this - if this can happen to Lowe's could it happen to you? Are you or your agency prepared for this kind of situation? Do you have contingency/engagement/crisis plans in place? If so, are they good enough? If you make decisions, is digital and social media considered as it relates to them? Can you be held hostage to the agenda of a specific interest group? If you were Lowe's what would you have done differently to avoid being caught in the midst of a public relations firestorm? If you make a decision are you prepared to stand by it and not backtrack even when it impacts your reputation/bottom line?Greg Sargent offers an interesting way out for Lowe's on Washington Post:
the company can say something like: “In light of the news that the Florida Family Association has apparently misled people about whether other companies are boycotting the show, we have decided that we no longer need to honor its objections, and we will resume advertising.”
but it sidesteps the issue of their moral choice to 'honor its objections' in the first place -- which is the core of the whole debacle. Without a forceful , clear apology and turnaround on this point, it will still feel like weak spin. It won't be enough at this stage.
Meanwhile, public pressure and media attention mounts daily and Lowe's remains quiet. I guess they are busy building poor ethical decisions and communications incompetence.
Update, Tuesday, 12/20. As the debacle enters its second week, Lowe's continues its silent treatment. Meanwhile, demonstrations at various Lowe's stores over the weekend made national news on several major outlets. With plenty of newsreel footage of the demonstrations to go with their brand, I'm not sure the 'any publicity is good publicity' concept applies here.
Mainstream media aren't the only ones providing video. Here are some creative takes on the issue:
Updated Lowe's Customer care line spoof
by: measmeil
Spoofs aside, here's something no company wants to see go viral -- a video of a customer returning $2,600.00 worth of merchandise:
No comments:
Post a Comment