Poor Elmo, Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Dora (among other popular Fisher Price toddler toys) the victims of lead tainted paint at a Chinese manufactory to the tune of a $28.8 million charge for some one million+ recalled items. Then, lambasted by more than 1,500 stories in the press linking Mattel to potentially hazardous toys.
What’s Mattel to do but issue a statement claiming that it “believes it has some of the most rigorous quality and safety testing procedures in the toy industry,” and posting a notice on its home page? Well, in that case…I feel so much better (right?
To get the word out about the toxic toys, Mattel relied on the news media, which was already swarming, a paid press release :
“El Segundo, CA--Mattel Issues Safety Alert to Consumers August 2, 2007--Mattel, Inc. announced today that the company has voluntarily recalled some products made by a contract manufacturer in China that were produced using a non-approved paint pigment containing lead, which is in violation of applicable standards, as well as our own self-imposed standards. Mattel is conducting a thorough investigation.”
… and a non-hysterical notice on the home page of the Mattel website www.mattel.com
While branding experts have been quoted as saying that,” a million products, so in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that significant,” and others have added of the recall, “the early signs look very good… Mattel has been very transparent.”
Hmmm, I think that depends on which end of the telescope one looks through, and whether the toy maker’s PR folks are even in line to take a look through that scope, let alone have the requisite quarter to deposit. Remember, the consumer owns the brand as are rapidly move into the era of corporate social responsibility. Even toy manufacturers need to learn to play the game.
OK, Mattel is not the only US company recently to be literally poisoned by the Chinese so let’s blame it on those unscrupulous, corrupt Chinese contract companies (50 of which Mattel employed) but that doesn’t really let Mattel off the responsibility hook, especially as this is Mattel’s 17th recall in 10 years.
The problem is two-fold; a quality control issue, and a public relations issue, which should be intimately intertwined. While it is natural for companies to seek the lowest cost suppliers to enhance shareholder value, those days are rapidly waning to be replaced by companies that take the high ground by championing their customers rights when it comes to safely, efficacy and sustainability.
Sure, Mattel thought it had “rigorous” quality control systems in place. But even with its “independent audits” it fell to a European retailer to discover the lead paint. Obviously, more needs to be done that to contractually require contract suppliers to use certified materials. One must take actions to preclude such events, even if that means testing its own products on-site.
But the key in this emerging age of consumer contract is a new form of social contract, actually a corporate contact with customers that clearly sets out the full process from raw material sourcing to manufacturing to shipping, product guarantees and appropriate usage, etc. If a company hopes to foster consumer loyalty, it must enter into a partnership with their customer constituency and treat them as a co-equal, not just as the revenue source.
And who would play a key role in crafting the policies, positioning and documents required to communicate fully and accurately with the public? Why what a gold rush it would be for the public relations profession.
END
PR, Get the Lead Out - To learn more about this author, visit Len Stein's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
|
|
Len Stein's
Complete
List Of
Public-Relations
Articles
|
|
|
If you enjoyed this article, get Len Stein's Complete List of Public-Relations Articles For FREE!
|
| |
|
|
|
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif){kind=small}
I had a journalist ask me the other day to define the difference between sales and marketing for the typical entrepreneur.
