November 21, 2009
Login | Register Now

Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News


More from Ad Age:
Creativity
Ad Age China
Bookstore
Jobs
Ad Age On Campus
Sign up for E-mail Newsletters

Stay on top of the news, sign up for our free newsletters


Did Motrin Overreact to Twitter Complaints?

Instead of Responding, It Retreated From Vocal Niche

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Submit to Digg Add to Google Share on StumbleUpon Submit to LinkedIn Add to Newsvine Bookmark on Del.icio.us Submit to Reddit

Tom Martin Tom Martin
Last weekend I watched as a few outspoken mommy bloggers started a firestorm via Twitter. Throughout the weekend I was seeing Tweets about a Motrin campaign and could see a groundswell of anger rising. On Monday, Motrin pulled the campaign, issued an apology and the social-media mavens declared victory. And most folks agree that Motrin did the right thing.

But honestly, I disagree. In fact, I think Motrin blew a huge opportunity.

A few items to create context.
  • Based on data from Radian6 and our own manual review of hashtag #motrinmoms, "motrin campaign" shows about 900 tweets between Friday and Monday; overall, #motrinmoms had about 1,500 tweets. A big number. But a lot of them were from the same folks having a conversation via Twitter. All told, just more than 1,000 Twitter handles are found on #motrinmoms with the vast majority of the tweets considered "neutral" in tone. Heck, the positive-toned tweets outnumbered the truly negative-toned tweets. Though, for the record, the positive ones seem to be associated with males. So lots of noise, but few noisemakers.

  • I was able to find about 300 to 400 blog posts on the subject (depending on keyword string) from Nov. 14-16 and 3,000 posts if you track through to Nov. 18. Again, lots of noise. But the vast majority of it was after the issue surfaced and bloggers (including males) around the world simply commented on a hot topic.

  • And finally, my own quick poll of 150 heavy internet-using moms showed that 145 of them are unaware of the campaign or backlash. And of the five that were, not one was planning to boycott or complain to Motrin.
Which begs the question, If the uproar was a vocal minority (as the data above would seem to support) then why did the ad have to be pulled so quickly? Why did Motrin feel the need to move so swiftly?

Why? Because Johnson & Johnson (owner of Motrin) and its ad agency, Taxi, simply reacted instead of responding. And in doing so, they missed a huge opportunity to exploit the real power of social media -- dialogue.

I would have counseled Motrin to do two things.

First, reach out to the offended and apologize via the channel that person used to complain. Acknowledge that the ad obviously is flawed as it certainly offended some, but in the spirit of learning from mistakes, Motrin wants to invite these moms to help Motrin create better ads in the future by participating in a dialogue at Motrin.com. But I wouldn't have yanked the campaign right away because if moms can't see it, they can't comment on it and J&J loses a learning opportunity. There was time to "wait and see" without risking retail backlash. (Then again, the ad had been up for 45 days without earning any scorn.)

Second, if a reporter wants to interview Kathy Widmer, VP-marketing for J&J, let him. But make sure Kathy gets her "we understand the ad has challenges, we've apologized and we're inviting moms to help us understand how to fix it" point in the final story.

By asking the bloggers, Twitterati and everyone else for that matter to join the conversation at Motrin.com, Motrin gets to learn from its "mistake." As it is now, all Motrin knows is that they offended some folks. But it doesn't know if it offended all moms or just a vocal minority. Additionally, it knows it did something wrong, but if you read the tweets and blog posts/comments, no one really offers Motrin any advice about how it should target moms. That insight is worth its weight in gold.

Had Motrin sought to continue the dialogue versus shutting it down, it could have fielded what amounts to a huge online focus group. It could have talked directly to a market it really wants to understand. And if it got really innovative, it could have tried to unite that group as a community that appreciates Motrin's willingness to engage in two-way dialogue.

Instead of playing defense, it should have played offense. I think in the long run, it would be more successful marketing to moms, or at least less likely to piss some of them off.
13 Comments
Subscribe to comments on: Did Motrin Overreact to Twitter Complaints?
  By benjancewicz | Baltimore, MD November 21, 2008 02:49:20 pm:
I can't believe no one has brought up the point that Motrin was ON MOM'S SIDE.

Did anyone actually view their kinetic type commercial? Besides being brilliantly animated (kudos to Taxi on some very sharp stuff, and I pity the poor guy who put his heart and soul into this and was shot down), the ad was directed at moms.

I'm a dad, and I've tried out the sling that the ad berates. And you know what? They hurt after a while. Motrin is a good answer. A lot of moms I've talked to were extremely surprised at the backlash on Twitter.

We already have to deal with clients that don't always see the light of brilliant design... now we have to deal with online trolls too?
  By MommyBrain | Richlands, NC November 23, 2008 10:33:03 pm:
There were several moms who offered ways that Motrin could've approached this.. Me being one.. It wasn't necessarily their concept of the ad, but the verbiage they used. The ad was very well animated. it was awesome.. it was how they approached things.

My husband viewed the ad, and he thought it was poorly worded as well. We have twins, and he very frequently carried one or both of our girls in a sling.
~Monica @ Mommy Brain Reports
  By mediadls | SAN FRANCISCO, CA November 24, 2008 09:34:41 am:
Yes, Motrin would have benefited from a two way conversation. What happened was a result of them letting the conversation be one way for 48 hours before they reacted. Maybe they overreacted but it would have been easier on them had they and Taxi realized that the consumer does not take weekends off. The proper time to join the dialogue was in the first 12-24 hours. There are plenty of tools in place to monitor dialogue about your brand from the consumer. The point of all of this is that we must monitor the consumer 24/7 from now on and be prepared to engage with them even if it is on a weekend. Certainly before it goes beyond Twitter and becomes a mainstream blogosphere issue, which is what happened.
Dave Smith
CEO
Mediasmith
  By ray3823 | New York, NY November 24, 2008 09:47:02 am:
I think it's easy to look back in retrospect to say that the brand 'over reacted' to the minor groundswell. But take a moment to look at the ugly alternative which could have occurred. If the negative backlash would have been picked up by enough blogs it could have become quickly become the kind of issue that spiraled out of control like Beacon did for Facebook.

On the same token there is value in engaging their consumer in conversation in order to get to the root of what precisely about the ad disturbed them (and why) - but for whatever reasons, Motrin did not want to invest those resources in such a dialogue at this time (or perhaps they are already doing this on the back-end unbeknownst to us)
  By Betsy | Winnetka, IL November 24, 2008 09:57:42 am:
Aa a marketer, I wholly support Mr. Martin's approach. From a sheer business perspective the advice I like the best is "to take the time to look for a response as opposed to rushing to a reaction. Clearly, there was a lot in this ad that did resonate with Moms. Motrin began with an empathetic message that demonstrated their understanding that carrying heavy babies....(just like anything else that is heavy) can make you sore. They even acknowledged that they know it is worth it. What they did not understand is Mom's humor; or in this case, their lack thereof over "baby as accessory".

Mr Martin is correct in how their error in understanding could have been corrected. Importantly though there is a lesson here for all marketers; engage in conversation with consumers BEFORE you produce an ad to avoid this kind of Motrin Mishap.

Betsy Westhoff
Principal
MomWise
  By BART | KANSAS CITY, MO November 24, 2008 10:33:18 am:
Ok, caveat, I'm a guy, so if in your book that immediately disqualifies me from a valid opinion, so be it. For the record, I've never rolled around on a bonfire either, but I imagine it's a painful, burny sensation. I digress....

I'm going to take this a step further and even challenge the notion that there was a "mistake" in the ad. The ad attempted some dry humor, and with any humor you're going to have people who either don't get it or are offended by it. If your organization's tolerance for that reaction is zero, you should stick with soft-focus TV spots of a hausfrau rubbing her temples in pain.
  By Tom Martin | NEW ORLEANS, LA November 24, 2008 11:31:43 am:
Raymonde,

Yes-always easier to Monday morning quarterback and yes the situation "might" have spiraled but highly unlikely. Twitter is a virtual unknown in the mainstream and mommy blogs have a limited universe. Thus, while letting the situation ride a few more days "could" have made a bad situation worse, it very well might have gone the other way. Already, since I first posted my post on this subject at my own blog, www.tommartin.typepad.com I've seen the conversation begin to morph both on blogs referencing my post AND twitter where folks are retweeting the post with positive comments.

In fact, if you want to see what some of the very mommy bloggers who participated in the Motrin event had to say, visit the post @ www.tommartin.typepad.com and click on the comments link.

The macro point is -- we'll never know. Which is a shame.

Thanks to you and everyone else for taking the time to comment. I love hearing what readers think.
-Tom
  By mondogrande | Ft Lauderdale, FL November 24, 2008 12:00:15 pm:
According to emarketer, 16% of interent users will have their own blogs by 2012. Does this mean in the future advertisers will be forced to mollify every group of malcontents on the web?

Every social media platform (Twitter, Reddit, Digg,etc) is always dominated by a small group that works together to get their own voices heard. The goal of most viable platforms is to get advertising dollars. As long as this type of nonsense continues, they never will.

Social media has the attention span of a gnat (ergo Twitter) and will move on to something new very quickly. Caving in feeds their ego's and gives them the power and creditablity they crave.

Business needs to simply apply the Obama campaigns method of shouting down their detractors on the web. Unless they are being paid, most of the vocal social media crew will give up quickly and focus on attacking someone else.

www.proudtoliveinamerica.com
  By STEPHANIE | BIRMINGHAM, AL November 24, 2008 12:02:12 pm:
I agree with Mr. Martin's comments that Motrin reacted as opposed to responded. I also agree that Motrin had opportunity to learn from their mistakes. What I am amazed at is that they even put themselves in this position. Every woman I have shared this ad with has either agreed that it was either offensive or it just did not resonate with them at all.

I have no idea, but if I were a betting person I would bet that it was primarily (if not all) male creatives who were involved in the development of these concepts.

This ad and the comment that someone made here about resorting to "soft-focus TV spots of a hausfrau rubbing her temples in pain" make for 2 great examples of how men think of their options to communicate with women. The Motrin ad is an example of how they want women to appreciate their humor and brilliant design and if they can't talk a client into doing that, they know of nothing else to do but settle for the stereotypical messages they "think" women want to hear.

I just continue to be amused at men who get "mad" at women who don't react to their creative as they want them to, especially the ones who call them "online trolls." Now, that's the way to connect to your target audience.

Stephanie Holland
She-conomy.com
  By Tom Martin | NEW ORLEANS, LA November 24, 2008 12:08:30 pm:
Stephanie

I think I recall while doing my research for this post that it was in fact an all-male creative team -- but don't quote me on that one.

- Tom Martin www.tommartin.typepad.com
  By Marty | Cincinnati, OH November 26, 2008 12:37:37 pm:
Tom-
They did miss the opportunity, I agree. I actually have a couple builds on what I think they should have done (posted on my blog http://www.faminecity.com).

1) Leave the video on their site and immediately setup a comments forum on their site AND collected all the content on their website. Let people view and decide for themselves on THEIR site. Have some say on the conversation. Most of the moms I talked to about this just described it as awkward, not alienating.

2) The results of the reaction, The Google Penalty. Definition- unfavorable brand impression as a result of search results that have consumer generated content on par or greater than brand messaging.

Great stuff. I like your point on reaching them in the same medium they are voicing their complaints.

Thanks,
Marty
  By MLTurner | Lawrence, KS December 1, 2008 06:39:38 pm:
I am a student at the University of Kansas and we actually talked about this advertisement today in class. According to my professor, Motrin had asked mothers things that bother them and they had told them about these aches and pains and she said she believed the ad passed through focus groups. I think the main uproar with the ad is that it highlights most women's secret pain, but they feel like they can't vocalize it because it is caused from carry their baby. It is almost like once a woman is a mother she devotes everything to her child and does not want to admit that doing something for them such as carrying them in a baby carrier can cause them pain. It is not something to be ashamed of and Motrin I don't think was trying to make them feel that way. I think they were pointing out a problem most women have and trying to provide a solution. Furthermore I think Oscar Wilde did say, the only thing worse about people talking about you is not talking about you. So in the long run this is just increasing awareness about Motrin and maybe sparking the idea in mothers minds that it might actually be beneficial to take Motrin when, not if, they have back pain from carrying around their babies. In the long run I think most people would understand Motrin was on mom's side like they said above. I don't think they should have pulled the ad. It was creating a lot of publicity and in my opinion, I did not think it was that offensive.
  By Juan Lulli | Rockville, MD April 1, 2009 01:12:45 pm:
Yes, absolutely agree with Tom.

Here's why.

By engaging, by simply joining the conversation -- and not disengaging-- Motrin would have stepped over the buzzing divide of the Mainstream vs Twitterstream conflict that is causing much confusion and fear and illogical reactions from institutions and brands. By remaining engaged, as Tom suggests, Motrin would have leveraged social media for the benefit of the brand and its consumers.



Stay on top of the news and stay ahead of the game—sign up for e-mail newsletters now!



Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News