Press Statement Misses Target

I admit it, I have a hard time piling on communications staff in corporate America. I have been there, I am still. Every year, every quarter, you are asked to do more with less and you are serving the needs of everyone in the organization, while each of them sees themselves as the only customer you have. Still, we need to become more intelligent at conversing with the marketplace.

More than two weeks after issuing a message to Shaping Youth Founder and Executive Director Amy Jussell -- who also happens to blog -- a message that to be kind we will call unfortunate, they are at it again. And they miss the target. Ms. Jussell's inquiry stemmed from finding an image used for a 20' x 20' billboard ad suggestive. From her blog post, I imagine her request for an explanation was quite clear in its intent. It was about the provocative nature of the ad imagery.

The message she received in response however, as reported by Albert Maruggi, was less than helpful in answering the question. It did not address it at all. I know we have no time to deal with everything that comes at us during a regular day. Yet, I cannot help but wonder. See for yourself:

Good Morning Amy,

Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.

Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.

That was already a response. Someone was dealing with it. Why not direct the energy to be more personal, empathetic, human? I shop at Target, many of my friends do. And I publish online. The two are not mutually exclusive these days anymore.

PRWeek had the opportunity to catch up with Amy von Walter, senior manager of communications at Target. Ms von Walter points the arrows in her quiver at scarce resources. I sympathize with them, I really do. Could this response have been stimulated by the story in New York Times? Target Tells a Blogger to Go Away sounds harsh. And it was the NYT, main stream media. We are seeing many examples of how new media influences journalists. This was not the first story that leaped from blogs or Twitter onto the digital pages of a MSM publication.

Blame it on lack of staff, she said -- this still doesn't address the incident at all.

Von Walter said the statement was meant not to denigrate blogs, but to highlight its policy of not interacting with trade publications, therefore focusing its resources on publications that frame stories specific to its customers.

“Our response policy [was] due to the limited number of resources we've had previously…,” von Walter said. “We recognize that blogs are increasing in number, and that our core guests,” are writing and reading blogs.

She added: “We will be reviewing that blog policy going forward. We just don't want to make any decisions we can't follow up on.”

How about having a canned message being posted on dozens of blogs? It's not a matter of making decisions on the inside out, the discussions are already happening, with or without you. Tell me about the ad. Even if I wear the corporate hat for a moment, I know there was no response to the reason that prompted the inquiry.

It's rather difficult to make recommendations and influence policy when the people on the inside do not see the damage in brand reputation. Building a reputation is still viewed very much as a matter of advertising, merchandising, direct marketing, investor relations, all the activities that form the baseline and the foundation of a solid communications and marketing program. How many hours do you have in a day? Many more than you used to.

The answer does not lie in starting a blog, having a social media program -- canned responses do not work when they are not sincere. The answer really is to address the question. But maybe, just maybe, Target's communications department might want to:

• add Google Alerts to their online queries, it includes mentions on blogs. This will be a good way to see what people are writing about the company. Have the courage to read the articles and posts, think about a response, write it down. Practice using a human voice. How would you respond (not react) to a fan? Yes, I advocate the constructive and productive way.

• read blogs on a regular basis -- pick a RSS reader and start looking at blogs that cover retail, data mining, you figure it out. There are many industry-specific and niche bogs that are really good. I read a handful that apply to my day job regularly.

• listen to what is going on vis-a-vis social media -- if they are talking about a company, how is that company acting. Are they? Do a delta -- what they did well (in your opinion), what they can improve.

• prepare to act fast -- we area talking hours, not days. We have become much more resistant to waiting, two weeks is an eternity and your silence is deafening. How about saying?

Good Morning Amy,

Thank you for bringing the issue of the billboard ad in NY Times Square to our attention. We are sincerely sorry that we missed how suggestive the photography would be to a person. I am reporting your inquiry and my response to our managers with a recommendation to act on it as swiftly as we can. And I will be following up on it. I apologize for not being able to offer you more at this time. I may not be able to offer anything later. Know this -- I am listening and I hear you.

Once again thank you for being interested enough to want to talk with us.

What do you think? Does it sound reasonable? The response needs to address the question up front. I was trying to put myself in the shoes of the person writing this from the inside. It's possible that anything more might get him fired. It's possible that this might already be risky as not on policy. I do not know what Target's corporate culture is like.

I can guarantee you that communications managers and staff will need to begin to make alliances inside organizations at the highest levels to fulfill their charter -- to promote goodwill in relationships between the organization and its publics. My suggestion is to call in favors, and put good deeds in your company karma bank, because you will need all of it. In many cases, you may have to start proposing that the company act a bit out of character/policy. Congratulations, social media has just become part of your curriculum.

Comments

[Tammy Lenski]

Hi, Valeria -

I like your list of things that Target and other companies can do to improve their reactions in these kinds of situations. And I'd add one more:

Help your communications staff get more comfortable with conflict.

In my work I see too many minor events blossom into larger events -- like this one -- because the person charged with responding was so avoidant of the issue and the conflict that their response actually escalated annoyance levels. Just like in your story.

Vanilla responses rarely achieve much. Just as your excellent sample reply suggested, it's possible to be nice AND direct at the same time.

Tammy

[Shaping Youth]

Excellent suggestions for Target's boilerplate responses AND a hint of human interaction, Valeria. As I wrote on Shaping Youth, it was never about 'one ad' but about raising the bar on media messages universally, and not 'adding' to the cacophony of crud.

Target normally does a GREAT/clever job with their ads, design, branding, etc., but being both a shopper and an advertising media analyst on the kids' front, I simply wanted to let them know this was 'off target' in quality control and I'd hoped it wouldn't be the new 'standard' joining the ranks of retails using MUCH more overt objectification. (in other words, I hold Target to a higher standard than say Abercrombie or VS)

Thanks for giving solution based ideas and reiterating the need to delve deeper into the real story to answer the questions.

In fact, if you want to read the verbatim responses for context that I sent the NYT, (which also got a bit misconstrued) I printed them on our blog for a better understanding, since 'soundbite news' rarely gets to the proper framing of the full story or its intent. http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=1063

Thanks for the logic and reasoned response! --Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth.org

p.s. For even FURTHER context of how the whole brouhaha was derailed from the original topic of the APA study pointing to surround sound harm from objectification in ambient advertising to kids, here's the proper context for that story, too:
http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=969

best, A.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Tammy:

That is an important thought. I believe that as a society we've learned to want to manage risk by avoidance at the expense of clarity.

Alas, that tack only delays and, as you point out, complicates things further -- unnecessarily. Often causing stress in the process. It looks like you are in the right business, if only people were aware of having conflict problems in the first place.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Amy:

Thank you so much for providing more background and food for thought. I am honored to have you here. There is always a lot of positive that builds from conversations -- the reason why I made my recommendations in the post. Talk can and does change lives.

Words and visuals are very powerful, advertising people know that. We should learn to respect their power as we say we respect the people they are meant to communicate with. I applaud your efforts and stay tuned for opportunities to reinforce positive messages.

[Roxanne Darling]

I spoke about this incident at a talk I gave last week to the Hawaii Advertising Federation. I agree with your thoughtful post. The more the agency side understands how the brand is being owned in the marketplace and the more the communications staff understands how the internet really works, the faster these situations can be converted to lemonade. It is no longer sufficient to think that using email and Google qualifies one as being internet literate.

As a person who does new media/social media training, I encourage companies to get training and then to have dedicated staff who love the brand and want to get out there and interact with people like Amy who both like the store yet are confused by seemingly arrogant behavior and demeaning ads.

[Shaping Youth]

Valeria, Mahalo. And Roxanne...Hawaii is my home turf (grew up on Oahu in the Aiea area/kamaaina Radford girl) so I'm thrilled to hear the ad community over there is using critical thinking skills along these lines if you're imparting same as a new media trainer.

Since your readers are so savvy at tackling these conversations, don't forget Drew & Gavin are having their 'open call' to jump in w/new names for version 2.0 (Valeria did you do the survey for this weekend yet? easy to guess which of the 3 topics I chose...;-)

In fact, I was waiting for the NYT brouhaha to blow over before posting about it to ensure it didn't 'taint' AOC in any way...though perhaps I should've snagged the extra eyeballs this week, eh? hmn...I'll ping our illustrious editors and see what they have to say about when/how I should handle. Malama pono... (Hawaiian for 'take care') --Amy

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Roxanne -- another suggestion I would add for companies is to get every decision maker and front line person in a room and ask: what is the worst thing that could happen? Then chart how you would be prepared to respond and act to it. We have the tools in crisis communications planning. Why not use the same process? Just a thought. I've never been to Hawaii... one day.

@Amy -- what are the chances that two Hawaiian ladies would be here at the same time? I am well aware of Gavin and Drew's call to enrollment, I have been one of the original authors. And yes, I already answered the survey. It would be neat if we really edited this second edition, organizing it in chapters or grouping talent according to criteria that can give more insights to the reader. The first book ended up containing a lot of repetition. I offered to help make that happen. Thank you again for your energy and participation.

[Tim Brunelle]

Not sure if it was Hemingway, Mark Twain or Blaise Pascal who said, "If I had more time (i.e. resources), I would have written you a shorter (i.e. more appropriate, more considered, more human) letter." Still, Von Wolter's excuse is just that, an excuse, and not really an answer to Amy's original question--or really even an answer to the questions that developed later.

Don't be surprised if Target doesn't ever get the courage to have a conversation about this. They have a surprisingly conservative corporate culture (i.e. At corporate HQ, men must wear either a sport coat or tie when away from their cube/office).

You can see this for yourself when you visit Minneapolis in March, Valeria. Heck, you can talk about it! I'm hoping we'll see some Target folks in the audience March 3.

Thanks for the insightful conversation here.

[Valeria Maltoni]

The fact that they hired more staff may mean little if the culture remains stodgy. I worked in conservative industries -- insurance and chemical manufacturing, for example. Those were fun times, trying to loosen up a little and be with the times.

If Target's corporate culture is indeed so conservative, then there is a huge disconnect between who they are and who they want to portray in their brand manifestations. Amy herself shared that she reached out to them *because* they are a great company as perceived through their playful advertising and store merchandise.

Food for thought. These are times when being integrated means being and living your brand. Or you will be found out.

[Shaping Youth]

Valeria, yep, I know YOU are an AOC contributor for sure, I was hoping some of your sharp readers would join in the fun. (I'd love to see Hawaii have a presence!)

As for Target's 'conserv. corp. culture' yes, there seems to be a 'disconnect' there, like the old Rolling Stone ad campaign "perception vs. reality."

I love their peppy pup (the bull terrier w/the circle) and lifestyle ads and such, so I find myself in the awkward position of sticking up for Target when people are too harsh w/them on my blog; I keep assuring 'look it was probably just a misstep'---but I’m beginning to think Tim’s comment above is absolutely right. (about dodging the entire conversation)

Reason being? There are ways corporations can 'recover' from customer svc. issues even AFTER the fact (see the Jott/MisJott CEO brilliance that I mentioned in their cust. Svc. Gaffe here: http://blog.ogilvypr.com/?p=279#comment-11190

And yet, Target reminds silent.

You’d think if they were trying to rectify the perception of dissing customer outreach, they’d at LEAST have touched base w/Shaping Youth in 'some' manner (off-line, off-blog, phone call, boilerplate oopsie, smoke signal, whatever)

But nope, they never did.

Not a word…not a great cust svc/branding statement, esp. when both our orgs have been dragged through the media spincycle.

Which brings me to a similar query, based on your vast expertise in this arena: Should I stay silent/ignore or reframe skewed contexts of our org (Shaping Youth)?

We've been lobbed some doozies (slanderous assumptions/accusations that could damage the perception of our brand if not corrected) yet we don't have the people power to 'mop up the misinformation' and set the record straight.

Is it better to just 'keep on keepin on' and not reopen the can of worms/since the original conversation is completely off the front page now (Jan. 8 posting?) or should I deconstruct the anatomy of the hijacked conversation as a media literacy lesson for all, much as you've done in your Feb. 3 post?

Thoughts? Advice? Plea for professional best practices?

I'm all ears. Best, Amy

[Valeria Maltoni]

When I mentioned the incident in the office, a couple of people said that it was enough to walk to the next ad in Times Square and see much worse. This statement goes to the perception of what Shaping Youth is trying to do. People are unreasonable and distracted.

Nobody wants to enter a one-sided conversation. You cannot help Target not responding and you cannot make them. Their brand is their problem. Your brand is your problem.

To recalibrate the perception of your organization you go back to your core mission, the support you give and receive, and broaden the conversation to what the issues are that inspired you to lead that effort. This is not about Target, it's about you and your organization. Remember that you are also dealing with public perception and lack of interest. Balanced and deliberate trumps reactive every day.

Yes, there is a larger lesson on media for all of us -- controversy sells on interest, especially when most do not stick around to figure out exactly what happened.

[Shaping Youth]

yes, that's so very true. Shaping Youth is KNOWN for 'balanced and deliberate'...so I need to reinforce that...thanks.

As infuriating as it is for people to misunderstand the 'bigger picture' I feel it could harm OUR brand by lowering into a 'one ad' defensive dialog to try to open eyes for the larger POV...As you said, the general public is 'unreasonable/distracted' w/a preferernce for soundbites and labels over nuance...So I 'get it' that the majority of folks will choose 'eyes wide shut' mode as it's easier to play the 'over-reactive card' sans greater context...

That said, the 'move on/focus on the positive' stance isn't working well to quell the 'reactive vitriol of 'road rage' types who let loose in troll/trigger-point mode to resurface an otherwise dormant conversation...

My tech guy said, 'just shut down comments on that post if it's draining your productivity and polluting you w/bad energy'...But somehow THAT smacks of MORE potential to be misconstrued (since I'm a free speech proponent/anti-censorship gal)---

ugh. Just need a good media handler to shore up the flanks and redirect the focus to the larger issues. (and to get a thicker skin) ;-) And you're right, nothin' I can do about Target's response, only my own...still pondering that one...thanks for the tips...A.