If you haven’t monitored the controversy surrounding Motrin’s recent web advertisement, which may, or may not be the handiwork of bored creatives at J&J, you may want to take a look here.
Transcript:
Wearing your baby seems to be in fashion. I mean, in theory it’s a great idea. There’s the front baby carrier, sling, schwing, wrap, pouch. And who knows what else they’ve come up with. Wear your baby on your side, your front, go hands free. Supposedly, it’s a real bonding experience. They say that babies carried close to the body tend to cry less than others. But what about me? Do moms that wear their babies cry more than those who don’t. I sure do! These things put a ton of strain on your back, your neck, your shoulders. Did I mention your back? I mean, I’ll put up with the pain because it’s a good kind of pain; it’s for my kid. Plus, it totally makes me look like an official mom. And so if I look tired and crazy, people will understand why.
The commercial was launched in conjunction with International Babywearing Week. Immediately, it received substantial backlash. Hours after launch, there were hundreds of tweets complaining about it. Mommy bloggers were so enraged they formed a Facebook group calling for a Motrin boycott. J&J, no stranger to monitoring social media for brand commentary, responded quickly. The commercial was pulled, and J&J VP Kathy Widmer, (who is a mother of three) issued apologies to several bloggers and twitter users:
“I am the Vice President of Marketing for McNeil Consumer Healthcare. I have responsibility for the Motrin Brand, and am responding to concerns about recent advertising on our website. I am, myself, a mom of 3 daughters.
We certainly did not mean to offend moms through our advertising. Instead, we had intended to demonstrate genuine sympathy and appreciation for all that parents do for their babies. We believe deeply that moms know best and we sincerely apologize for disappointing you. Please know that we take your feedback seriously and will take swift action with regard to this ad. We are in process of removing it from our website. It will take longer, unfortunately, for it to be removed from magazine print as it is currently on newstands and in distribution.”
Obviously, the case study is an exceptional example of the power social media has to amplify the voices of the collected few to affect the behavior of a multinational corporation. Looking a little deeper, however, and some other interesting nuggets reveal themselves: a few women whose outrage runs probably a bit too deep, a few men who appear to be using the issue as an excuse to wax poetic about the ills of political correctness or show some overt sexism. In the middle, however, is an encouraging majority – people who think an otherwise savvy marketing group at Motrin (the name J&J has been pretty much synonymous with moms and babies for decades) went a bit too far and that everyone who is unduly outraged should probably lighten up a little bit.
It seems like the early days of the Internet were dominated by extremists. New media is leveling the playing field, weighting voices and empowering the reasonable majority. And (hopefully) turning down the volume on the crazies. While the extremists on either side will never be pacified (not to mention silent), the groundswell of activity in the middle seems to be assuaging people on the fringe, making me wonder, can social media tools be used to help people pacify one another? If so, what is the brand’s role in tinkering with those tools to bring people together – not just to buy goods and services, but to actually help people get along better in the face of controversy?
Thoughts?