CustomScoop Blog

Blogging for Apples...

Tech and finance blogs were buzzing yesterday about an incident wherein large, influential tech gadget blog Engadget posted about a delay of Apple’s iPhone that caused Apple’s stock to slip. It was apparently a rumor, and Engadget posted an update.

This left me wondering, what if this had been a slightly less visible blog, posting a rumor about a slightly less high-profile company, resulting in a slightly less-obvious stock slip?

If that company wasn’t monitoring blogs, the slip in stock price would have been noticed, but the company in question likely wouldn’t have had the information to quickly go directly to the source and address the rumor head-on. Heading things off at the pass in a case like this is crucial. For some companies, blog monitoring isn’t a nice-to-have; it is a must-have, to address just this sort of incident.

Apple Keeps their Cool

A couple of months ago, Custom Scoop CEO Chip Griffin posted a nice summary on his blog of an online crisis communications panel held at the New Comm Forum in Las Vegas.

The panelists stressed, among other things, that keeping your cool was one of the key survival strategies when responding to a potentially blossoming crisis. If there were ever an example of that, it would be the level heads on display over at Apple in the last few days, as hundreds of news stories and blog posts exploded late last week following the release of a study showing that iPods can potentially interfere with pacemakers.

Technorati shows Friday as the height of the firestorm, with nearly 250 posts concerning the study in a 24 hours—and radio silence from Apple. My favorite post was the (hilariously spot-on, right down to the fake quotes) phony press release in which Apple attempts to smooth things over by unveiling “the ekgPod, the first transcutaneous combination iPod/Pacemaker.”

Jim Nail wondered on Friday whether Apple would be forced to respond to the blogosphere and MSM chatter, asking, “Will this become the next example of the Influence 2.0 world damaging an iconic brand before it can organize a response?”

My answer to that question? Doesn’t seem like it so far. Apple was wise to remain silent (as of this posting I have been unable to locate any response from the company). After all, the study was conducted by a 17-year old high school student as part of a science project, and was by no means scientific. To respond would have only extended the story and granted total credibility to the study when none was truly warranted.

(Not to impugn the creativity of the student in question, of course. He has the makings of a true PR genius—cashing in on well-known brand to generate worldwide news coverage and blog chatter...about a high school science project. This kid is brilliant! Rather than issuing any response, Apple should try to recruit him to their team before a competitor grabs him.)

My guess is that the Apple PR team chose—wisely—to monitor the chatter and news stories before rushing to issue any defensive statements that may have only added fuel to the fire. By keeping a level head, the story is dying down, and many are pointing out that pretty much any electronic device has the ability to interfere with a pacemaker, not just an iPod. That’s common sense, we don’t need a panicked press release to tell us that. Had the story persisted, perhaps they would’ve moved from actively listening to actively responding. But as it turns out, that probably won’t be necessary.

Well played, Apple, well played. 

(The Game of) Life Takes Visa

I occasionally feel lucky to have grown up in the 80's, the days before the latest $300 video game system was the must-have item. I didn't need to beg my parents for the Next Big Thing (Cabbage Patch Kids excepted, of course).

We didn't have iPods, PlayStations, X-Box 360's, the Wii, and myriad handheld games and gadgets competing for our youthful attention. We had board games.

Lacking the attention span and real-estate sensibilities required for Monopoly, my game of choice was usually The Game of Life. It came with all the materialistic accoutrements of Monopoly (fake money, little car), but had a simpler premise and could be played in about a quarter of the time.

I noted with interest then, when I read that Visa (in what may be a nifty little tie-in with their ubiquitous "Life Takes Visa" campaign) was collaborating with Hasbro for a new version of the game using fake Visa cards instead of fake money.

Several bloggers have already cried foul, accusing Hasbro of attempting to manipulate children into learning to rely on credit cards at an early age, increasing their chances of winding up deep in debt later in life.  Bob at FlackLife thinks the idea is "ripe for a major backlash."

It will be interesting to follow blogosphere reaction to this case, particularly on marketing blogs. The ways in which big corporations market their products to children, either blatantly or surreptitiously, will always be a hot topic--particularly when the product in question is meant for adult use only (see also: Joe Camel).

For their part, Hasbro claims that use of credit cards in the game is an opportunity for parents to teach their children proper money management. But isn't it also an opportunity for Visa to teach children that they can get anything they want, so long as they use a shiny new Visa card (and all the ensuing interest charges) to get it?

As a person who fell victim to the manipulations of credit card companies on college campuses myself (I was a sucker for their free prizes in exchange for sign-up), I am wary of their apparent move here to target an even younger demographic. It most definitely smacks of Joe Camel to me; why else would Visa be interested in attaching their brand to a children’s game, if not in hopes of setting up future customers?

Visa needs to tread carefully here; I can only hope they are closely monitoring the reaction of the blogosphere and the MSM, and are prepared to answer to any and all crying "Joe Camel."

Technorati tags: personal finance, debt, Joe Camel, games

Guerrilla...or Gruesome?

It may be clichéd to say so, but file this one under “what were they thinking?”

At a recent European promotional event for its upcoming PlayStation game “God of War II,” Sony ruffled some feathers by presenting the event as a lurid Greek orgy-style bacchanal—complete with topless girls and a bloodied, decapitated goat.

According to today’s Daily Mail, guests at the event were invited to eat warm offal (standing in as the goat’s intestines) from the dead animal’s stomach. Other guests were involved in knife-throwing contests and draped with live snakes, all while topless girls in body paint kept up with their grape-feeding responsibilities.

Gruesome photos of the event were printed in Sony’s PlayStation magazine (which has since been recalled), showing the slaughtered goat’s head dangling over the edge of a table by a thread of tissue. The accompanying article touted the event as “Sony’s Greek Orgy.”

All in tune with the themes of the “God of War” games, to be certain. But appropriate for a marketing event? Not according to animal rights activists.

When it comes to marketing stunts, how far is too far? Is “anything to get attention,” a good enough strategy?

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal featured an article on guerrilla marketing that delves into this very question. While Sony certainly doesn’t qualify as such, the Journal article points out that many companies lack the resources for even the smallest of marketing budgets. Many consider guerrilla marketing to be the biggest bang for the smallest buck.

Taking such efforts to the extreme may result in lots of media attention (see the Cartoon Network’s ill-advised February marketing stunt in Boston), but may also end up damaging your brand’s reputation. Companies seeking to explore guerrilla techniques as a solution to budget crunches should tread carefully.

Sony has issued an official apology and pulled back the magazine spread; it remains to be seen if the extra publicity from the incident will affect sales of “God of War II” (for better or worse). But it is definitely interesting to wonder just how far a company will take a promotional stunt.

What’s next, battle to the death street fights to promote “Mortal Kombat?”

Technorati tags: Guerrilla Marketing, Wall Street Journal