Keeping silent – PR lessons for evaluating purpose and influence

There probably couldn’t be two more contrasting campaigns being talked about in one week than the 30th anniversary Nike’s Dream Crazy commercial fronted by Colin Kaepernick and the single Listerine sponsored post by Instagram ‘influencer’ Scarlett Dixon.

What they have in common is controversy. This is not uncommon as a marketing strategy – for instance, it has been used deliberately by the likes of Ryanair and Protein World in recent years.

Controversy as a marketing strategy usually includes a planned PR response to prompt and challenge any criticism quite aggressively and so generate further attention. It’s a model that suits social media – be offensive, react defensively and repeat. Success is judged by the scale of reaction – and support of a fan base.

Nike knew it was courting outrage from President Trump (a master of the offence + aggressive defence play) and those opposed to the ‘take a knee’ activism of NFL players with its sponsorship deal that sees Kaepernick as the lead face and voice of the campaign.

It would also have anticipated criticism for taking a stance by aligning the brand with the purpose of this activism against police brutality towards people of colour. It was easy to predict a backlash from various quarters – including complaints about Nike’s own performance regarding ethics and inclusivity.

Interestingly, Nike has not adopted the offend-defend PR reponse. It has stayed silent allowing others to speak up – and speak out – for and against the campaign. Its Twitter feed for instance, simply quotes from the commercial with zero engagement with the hundreds of others tweeting their support or anger.

Controversy over the Listerine post is somewhat more bemusing. But perhaps it also speaks to the role of ‘influencers’ and how brands choose to work with them. In case you’ve missed this storm in a teacup – it relates to a stylised image that has been reported as “a perfect example of how artificial the world of influencer marketing has become“.

A quick look at Scarlett Dixon’s Instagram account (which now has 50.8k followers) shows her modus operandi is staged, brightly coloured images with low-key product placement. So the Listerine brand team probably didn’t anticipate that this “paid partnership” would result in social media criticism and national media coverage. The post has attracted about 5,500 hearts (significantly higher than most on the account) – and over 1,700 positive and negative comments (versus well under 200 on average).

The Johnson & Johnson brand has minimal presence itself on Instagram – and like Nike has remained silent about the controversy. Here the lack of PR response could be viewed as more surprising as Scarlett Dixon has been left to speak up and speak out in response to media enquiries and online comments.

I suggest that the Listerine ‘partnership’ was instigated by Scarlett London Digital – the agency that Ms Dixon established in 2016 after graduating. Her business pitch is to offer PR agencies “unrivalled access to some of the most popular digital influencers”. A typical claim among young entrepreneurial ‘influencers’ – without the support of experience or qualifications in strategic PR and crisis management.

The returns for brands of such ‘influencer’ initiatives have begun to be challenged. Evaluating the return for Listerine of this minor controversy should acknowledge criticism but more importantly, question the purpose of such placements. My reckoning is that it will have little if any influence on the brand or its sales – with or without the controversy. Silence is probably the right response to this incident.

In contrast, Nike is playing a long game with its campaign – and likely will be monitoring a range of strategic metrics from stock price to sales, brand reputation to stakeholder relationships.

What it shouldn’t be doing is using a spurious advertising value equivalent (AVE) measure. Yet the US marketing/sponsorship firm, AMEX is cited as claiming the Nike advert has generated $43m worth of media coverage as apparently:

“Apex discovered that the announcement generated $19.01 million in positive exposure and $10.91 million in negative, with $13.76 million showing as neutral.”

Such attention-grabbing numbers do not relate to the purpose of any communicative activity. They do not evaluate whether or not any meaningful organisational objectives have been achieved.

Nike is using controversy, and influencers such as Kaepernick, to make a brand statement. It has a planned and confident big budget campaign. Silence is the brand’s considered PR response.

For Listerine controversy was not sought and probably not welcome. Silence ignores the kerfuffle – but brands like Listerine should be more cautious when ‘partnering’ with Instagram ‘influencers’, and ask themselves, what if this becomes controversial?

If Scarlett Dixon reflects on this experience, how could she evaluate it? I’m sure it is a learning experience that she could add to the sales blurb for Scarlett London Digital. But I’d also encourage her to think seriously about her business ambitions – and learn more about crisis communications.

Alongside the PR lessons to evaluate against the purpose of any campaign, the nature of influence resulting from partnering with celebrities or social media personalities, we’re left with a question about silence as a crisis communication strategy.

In contrast to the “stealing thunder” approach of pro-active and speedy responses to a crisis situation, silence is criticised in public relations literature and practice as being ineffective, passive and allowing others to control a story.

Keeping quiet so far doesn’t appear to be a problem for either Nike or Listerine. In the case of Nike, any response would detract from the advert – and the voices of those within it. For Listerine, given that Scarlett Dixon positions herself as an expert in influencer marketing, I’d suggest that keeping silent is not a bad strategy.

Indeed, I’d go further and suggest that a silent response strategy should be acknowledged as potentially appropriate if its benefits outweigh the risks. The silent response strategy is a reality – and ought to be considered when evaluating possible outcomes of anticipated or unforeseen controversy.

Think of it in terms of the Thumper rabbit quote, prompted by his mother in Disney’s Bambi movie:

If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all!

2 Replies to “Keeping silent – PR lessons for evaluating purpose and influence

  1. A couple of responses to your thoughtful post:
    – Courting controversy isn’t new as a marketing stance – Benetton made its name in the 1990s with dramatic, confrontational images in poster campaigns. They kept fairly quiet initially, but were eventually forced into responses. It got them coverage and advertising awards. In the long term, however, Benetton disappeared from High Street retailing.
    – Silence in public relations has been written about by the excellent Roumen Dimitrov, one of PR’s very few original thinkers, in his 2017 book, “Strategic Silence: Public Relations and Indirect Communication”, published by Routledge. Dimitrov’s book is recommended, if challenging, reading.
    – Nike’s share dropped 2% when the advertisement was launched but has largely recovered. Only time will tell whether it will be considered to be a principled stance or a cynical marketing ploy.

    1. Thank you Tom.

      Interesting that you mention Benetton as one of the CIPR students raised this when we had a forum discussion earlier this year about CSR.

      The student cited Luciano Benetton as saying: ‘We did not create our advertisements in order to provoke, but to make people talk, to develop citizen consciousness.’ With the company’s art director Oliviero Toscani saying: ‘Somebody who buys a top model and uses them as a symbol is making a social political choice. It’s actually more extreme and eccentric than mine. Hitler wanted Aryans. That’s what they do with Claudia Schiffer, those fashion companies. That’s what fashion magazines do. I call them the Fourth Reich publishers. You get all the rich and beautiful. All the alienated have to disappear. Style and culture magazines are like that, and so you are going to have a society that is intolerant.’

      The student also revisited Naomi Klein’s No Logo picking out her statement that ‘Benetton’s mid-nineties ads careered wildly between witty and beautiful challenges to racial stereotypes on the one hand, and grotesque commercial exploitation of human suffering on the other. They were, however, indisputably part of a genuine attempt to use the company’s vast cultural real estate to send a message that went beyond “Buy more sweaters”; and they played a central role in the fashion world’s embrace of the struggle against AIDS.’

      I’m sure the student won’t mind me drawing further on his well considered forum post as he noted that Klein attributed shock advertising to the collapse in brand loyalty among baby boomers in the early 1990s and their realisation that ‘the ballooning youth demographic held the key to market success’.

      Which for me is the same argument we’re seeing now with Nike that they are recognising the Millennials’ demands for organisations to have purpose.

      Actually Toscani and Benetton worked together earlier this year and this Vogue interview talking about courting controversy is an interesting read from Toscani’s perspective of the work and subsequent failures – https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/oliviero-toscani-benetton-art-director-interview

      I agree that we will need to see how the Nike initiative pans out over time. And thank you for the recommendation of Strategic Silence – I will add it to my reading list.

Comments are closed.