By Quentin Langley
In my book I categorize all the 140 brandjacks in my case studies. The biggest categories are the Self Brandjack (corporate actions lead to the problem) the Staff Brandjack (caused by rogue employees) and the Ethics Brandjack (organization is criticized for the ethics of its decisions, eg, supply chain). Some cases come under multiple categories. There are rarer instances, include the Fake Brandjack (when a wholly false story is spread) and the Unanticipated Response Brandjack.
Does the Tide Pod Challenge fit into the last category? Not quite. It may be something new.
For those of you not familiar, the Tide Pod Challenge is a craze among teenagers of eating the brightly colored laundry pods sold by Procter and Gamble.
If P&G was being criticized for the bright colors - potentially making the pods attractive to toddlers - that would be an Ethics Brandjack. While that issue has arisen, it is unrelated to the YouTube meme of teenagers consuming them. The teenagers know exactly what they are.
But there's no easy fit with "Unanticipated Response" either. That covers instances where the organization invites a response and gets something surprising. For example, GM invited YouTube users to create their own ads for the Chevy Tahoe. Some were not at all flattering.
But P&G was not seeking any sort of response here. They were just selling laundry pods. While teenagers being irresponsible is hardly unanticipated, no-one could reasonably have guessed the precise vehicle of their stupidity.
Just as in a Fake Brandjack, P&G is a victim here. The brandjack doesn't stem from malfeasance or even bad judgement. It was just bad luck.
So what should we call this one?
Comments