Moose Toys finally “got it” by posting a front-page link on their web site to information about the recall of the deadly Bindy’s Beadz. Only took 48 hours … too long.
Meantime, Senate candidate Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, did something people in political life don’t normally do … apologise.
He retracted his comments about “clean coal” being a “furphy”.
Nice of you to say so, Karl – for whatever reason. But I agree with Tim Flannery and still reckon there’s no such thing as clean coal.
Burning coal simply puts rubbish in the environment. When (and if) they get around to clean coal, it will still be pumping carbon into the atmosphere; just a lesser amount.
09 November 2007
07 November 2007
Moose Toys' poor response, poor attitude
In my previous post about Moose Toys’ lame response to deadly toxic beads being swallowed by children, the media writer for The Australian, Amanda Meade, kindly pointed out the company issued a release.
For sure it did, then “hid” it in the “kids” section of its web site, which probably explains why it wasn’t picked up by the media until 24 hours-plus after the hospitalisation of three children. I went to the kids section (http://www.mooseworld.com.au/content/kids2/Home.aspx) and I still couldn’t find it. You’d think it would be under the corporate section, at least.
Apart from hiding the release, some of the language isn’t too encouraging.
Quote: “made this decision in the best interests of the brand and the children who love playing with it”.
I didn’t know you could play with a brand. But “in the best interests of the brand”. They really have their priorities wrong. This type of stuff is amazing in this day and age of supposed corporate responsibility.
In the second paragraph they’re also indirectly blaming children for playing with it incorrectly. Cripes, it’s what kids do … put things in their mouths. But to shift blame on to children (customers).
Then it goes on to say Moose voluntarily recalled the product. So if no one found out and didn’t make them recall it, then they wouldn’t have.
I see the statement is issued by a marketing person, which is why you need communicators to handle things like this.
This company has seriously abrogated its responsibility. It’s reputation is tarnished.
I’ll be teaching this as a case study in how not to do PR for a long time.
For sure it did, then “hid” it in the “kids” section of its web site, which probably explains why it wasn’t picked up by the media until 24 hours-plus after the hospitalisation of three children. I went to the kids section (http://www.mooseworld.com.au/content/kids2/Home.aspx) and I still couldn’t find it. You’d think it would be under the corporate section, at least.
Apart from hiding the release, some of the language isn’t too encouraging.
Quote: “made this decision in the best interests of the brand and the children who love playing with it”.
I didn’t know you could play with a brand. But “in the best interests of the brand”. They really have their priorities wrong. This type of stuff is amazing in this day and age of supposed corporate responsibility.
In the second paragraph they’re also indirectly blaming children for playing with it incorrectly. Cripes, it’s what kids do … put things in their mouths. But to shift blame on to children (customers).
Then it goes on to say Moose voluntarily recalled the product. So if no one found out and didn’t make them recall it, then they wouldn’t have.
I see the statement is issued by a marketing person, which is why you need communicators to handle things like this.
This company has seriously abrogated its responsibility. It’s reputation is tarnished.
I’ll be teaching this as a case study in how not to do PR for a long time.
06 November 2007
Life-threatning but company remains silent
No word from an Australian toy manufacturer about a life-threatening situation for children.
The manufacturer of Bindeez Beads, the Australian Toy of the Year (2007), has not made any statement, despite its product apparently being responsible for the hospitalisation of at least three children who swallowed the beads, which contains an ingredient known as GBH, an ingredient in ecstasy.
The product has been banned in NSW, the ACT, South Australia and Western Australia, after two children suffered seizures.
To show how bad news travels fast, TV New Zealand reported: "Testing by scientists in NSW found the chemical link to the drug gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GHB) - also known as fantasy or Grievous Bodily Harm - which can also cause drowsiness, coma and death."
With the story many hours old, the company responsible, Moose Enterprises, had not taken it from their web site (9.46pm EST). That's outrageous. And still no word from the company.
You'd think in this day and age, companies would be prepared, even with just a statement to express concern.
But to not even take the product down from their web site. Unbelievable.
The manufacturer of Bindeez Beads, the Australian Toy of the Year (2007), has not made any statement, despite its product apparently being responsible for the hospitalisation of at least three children who swallowed the beads, which contains an ingredient known as GBH, an ingredient in ecstasy.
The product has been banned in NSW, the ACT, South Australia and Western Australia, after two children suffered seizures.
To show how bad news travels fast, TV New Zealand reported: "Testing by scientists in NSW found the chemical link to the drug gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GHB) - also known as fantasy or Grievous Bodily Harm - which can also cause drowsiness, coma and death."
With the story many hours old, the company responsible, Moose Enterprises, had not taken it from their web site (9.46pm EST). That's outrageous. And still no word from the company.
You'd think in this day and age, companies would be prepared, even with just a statement to express concern.
But to not even take the product down from their web site. Unbelievable.
Targetted PR releases a must
Was Chris Anderson, editor of Wired, correct to "out" PR practitioners who send him unsolicited e-mails?
The "outing" made headlines on 5 November in the New York Times Technology section, after Anderson ripped into the PR people who "can’t be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they’re pitching".
Anderson says he gets more than 300 e-mails a day. Some of these were from the leading public relations firms, including Edelman, Fleishman-Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide and Weber Shandwick. Anderson says they should know better.
The debate is split. Some people believe Anderson breached privacy etiquette. Most, however, are with him.
I agree with Anderson. One of the golden rules, particularly in today's fragmented market, is to research your audience and target only those media that cater for that audience. You would think "professionals" would know this. Obviously not.
It's a good lesson for them, particularly as their addresses have now been harvested by email bots. You've heard about payback, well Anderson is getting some (deserved) "bounceback".
The "outing" made headlines on 5 November in the New York Times Technology section, after Anderson ripped into the PR people who "can’t be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they’re pitching".
Anderson says he gets more than 300 e-mails a day. Some of these were from the leading public relations firms, including Edelman, Fleishman-Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide and Weber Shandwick. Anderson says they should know better.
The debate is split. Some people believe Anderson breached privacy etiquette. Most, however, are with him.
I agree with Anderson. One of the golden rules, particularly in today's fragmented market, is to research your audience and target only those media that cater for that audience. You would think "professionals" would know this. Obviously not.
It's a good lesson for them, particularly as their addresses have now been harvested by email bots. You've heard about payback, well Anderson is getting some (deserved) "bounceback".
03 November 2007
The perception of PR
To paraphrase American singer/songwriter, Jimmy Buffett: “Public relations, public relations, boozing and schmoozing that's what I do ... public relations such hullabaloo ... ego inflation, that's what I do … it’s only public relations, who’s screwing who … just give me some time and I’ll make it come true.” I play it to students in their first tutorial. Mostly they think it’s a nice tune but don’t really listen to the words.
Unfortunately, Buffet’s image of PR reflects the still commonly-held perception of what many practitioners do. And therein lies the problem: the perception of PR.
For a profession that is all about perception, what are professionals doing about it? Not much. If professional bodies such as the PRIA were serious about it, they’d be mounting a PR campaign to counteract the skewed perceptions we suffer. TV shows such as Ab Fab, Absolute Power (to name but two) do nothing to enhance our standing in the business community. It riles me when all students are taught is they must fight to “get a seat at the boardroom table” so they can influence decision-making. Yeah, right.
The accounting profession has adopted a great series of (US) advertisements that push the benefits of having a CPA working for business. What have we got? Zilch, that’s what. Unfortunately, the PRIA’s membership numbers couldn’t afford to subsidise a TV ad campaign. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates there are 11-14,000 people who classify themselves as PR practitioners. The membership of the PRIA is under 3000. That’s another story.
Unfortunately, Buffet’s image of PR reflects the still commonly-held perception of what many practitioners do. And therein lies the problem: the perception of PR.
For a profession that is all about perception, what are professionals doing about it? Not much. If professional bodies such as the PRIA were serious about it, they’d be mounting a PR campaign to counteract the skewed perceptions we suffer. TV shows such as Ab Fab, Absolute Power (to name but two) do nothing to enhance our standing in the business community. It riles me when all students are taught is they must fight to “get a seat at the boardroom table” so they can influence decision-making. Yeah, right.
The accounting profession has adopted a great series of (US) advertisements that push the benefits of having a CPA working for business. What have we got? Zilch, that’s what. Unfortunately, the PRIA’s membership numbers couldn’t afford to subsidise a TV ad campaign. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates there are 11-14,000 people who classify themselves as PR practitioners. The membership of the PRIA is under 3000. That’s another story.
Dr Karl debunks clean coal PR myth
Good to see Dr Karl Kruszelnicki today debunk the government's PR stunt on clean coal. Karl, a physicist, is standing in the election as a Climate Change Coalition candidate for the Senate. Clean coal, along with the government's preference for climate change instead of global warming, are two simple PR tactics of giving something dangerous a more friendly name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
