Product Used to Save Lives Gets Brand Recognition

Yet, the company's lukewarm responses give me pause.

"It’s a very complex situation and I just don’t want to go through that again," said Marcelle Shriver of her efforts to send Silly String to his son in Iraq. 80,000 spray-cans to be exact are finally headed to the war zone to help her son and the troops stationed there detect invisible bomb trapwires. As The New York Times reports, the novelty maker benefits as Silly String goes to war, yet they are far from jumping up and down the isle for it.

Mrs. Shriver's efforts began last year as reported by Time magazine, MSNBC, Fox News, CBS News, and USA Today, and wrapped up this past week with a cause for celebration. Maybe I'm reading too little in the NYT story, but Just for Kicks who own the rights to Silly Strings and its parent corporation Car-Freshner Corporation do not seem energized by this brand new attention to the product. Nor did they seem eager to help Mrs. Shriver with her efforts.

The privately held company that manufactures the life saving string seems to be at a loss for words as its product is being used with a military application, which has received moderate attention in the news and I'm sure greater recognition overseas. Maybe I'm not seeing something here?

This is a question for PR professionals and marketers out there. What would you have done differently? Do you agree with the course the company has taken?

[tip of the hat to Anne Libby for the story]

Comments

[Nathania Johnson]

There's three potential issues here.

One is that the company doesn't want to be seen as supporting the war. This would be a weak argument as the string is protecting soldiers - something we all should want no matter what our feelings are about the Iraqi conflict.

Secondly, most companies who provide protection to the troops get lucrative contracts with the government. Perhaps this is where the real issue lies.

Third, the company may not want to guarantee that silly string can protect the troops.

Either way, I think that the company should have been able to resolve any problems they had with the effort.

[Valeria Maltoni]

You bring up some very valid points. Helping a mother help her son is as close as it gets to showing a human side. With your third point I will say that we've become so entangled with contracts, disclaimers and weasel statements it is a wonder we ever get anything done these days.

In most cases, we lose when we stop keeping our eye on the ball. What are the real issues? Maybe the government contracts? Perhaps internal bureaucracy? I'd love to hear what others have to say.

[Carolyn Ann]

The silly string is used to detect tripwires. While it has its uses, it's one more thing the soldier has to carry - and they carry quite a bit, already. And from what I understand, the insurgents have figured this out, and are using more dangerous methods of booby-trapping their bombs.

Maybe the company is simple at a loss on how to respond? The C-levels read the papers, know the approval ratings and don't want to be associated with the military in that way. They make a toy, not a military system!

No, I don't agree the stance the company has taken. They should be front-row, center, supporting the troops. They should be working on different packaging, and selling it to the Pentagon. They might be, and simply don't want to draw attention to that. (I'm not giving any secrets away, here. For one, I don't know them, and for another: the insurgents will have figured it out for themselves. They may be violent, but I'd not argue they're stupid.)

What Mrs Shriver did was exemplary. She should be given some sort of Congressional or Presidential award. Maybe this Administration can see their way to covering the rest of the "supporting our troops" bit. So far, I doubt it.

Carolyn Ann

Disclaimer: I support the troops, but that in no way implies I support their civilian leadership. I don't.

[CK]

Very good points in your post and the comments. Am I missing something...or in the article where it says that "it's been long known to be effective in combat" (I'm paraphrasing)--then why wouldn't the military stockpile this stuff? I must be missing something.

Bless that woman for getting it to her son (and others).

[gianandrea]

Maybe military did not stockpile the stuff because there were no lucrative contract behind.
I'm 100th% against this war which seems to me not resolving the problem with terrorism. But I understand the desire to protect those who serve the nation and, most of all, I understand that woman who only want to see his son again at home.
From a marketing point of view, I agree with Valeria. There must be a way to get some juice from the story.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Carolyn Ann -- I'm hard pressed to think that the company could not come up with a strategy to respond to a story that is almost one year old. I will have to dig up examples of companies that started with a product marketed one way to them discover that customers found other uses... and to honor those (not to mention how lucrative that may be).

@CK -- we must be missing some crucial piece of information. What connects the dots? I agree with Carolyn Ann, the woman should be given a medal for persisting through it.

@Gianandrea -- it seemed like an opportunity to tell a human story. Mrs. Shriver looks like a great testimonial for a "real" campaign.

[gianandrea]

Well, an interesting story about the surprise in marketing is the launch of Sony Playstation in Italy. This is not about a different use of a product but about a different target. The product was targeted to teens, media bought accordingly, distribution as well. Then they discover that product was purchased by adults, 25/30s, single, to play with friends. Reposition then followed.

[Valeria Maltoni]

It proves that there might not have been the right research applied to uses of the product up front. Sometimes a team dreams up a product without testing how the whole market might interact with it. I'm sure they tested their target audience and the new demographic came up as a delightful surprise as no one might have thought of checking. Good thing they did ride the wave ;-)

[Anne Libby]

This story reminded me of how Timberland, Carhartt, etc. didn't really know how to respond when people outside of their (then) target market turned outdoors wear into street fashion.

The internet is great! I remembered an old (11/93)article on the topic, and was able to find it at the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DF133DF934A35752C1A965958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Be well!