It’s not exactly lying if you generally tell the truth but leave out some details, right? Well, my Irish Catholic upbringing would probably argue that’s a sin of omission. It happens all too often in marketing and when it’s inevitably revealed that a company wasn’t being entirely truthful, the reputational damage that ensues can be severe. “Leaving out” important details can be just as bad as outright lying about a product. With the social media mantra of being transparent (can we put that word to bed yet?) people are expecting, perhaps now more than ever, to get straight-up and honest communication from companies and brands.
Which brings me to FedEx. Yesterday I noticed tweets from Mike Germano and Lisa Hoffmann about a new Web site: BrownBailout.com. Check it out. It’s a site that chastises UPS for trying to insert wording in legislation that would somehow change the way FedEx is regulated. I’m not going to go into details about the actual argument presented on the site (something about whether delivering packages predominantly through the air or by ground impacts what type of regulatory act a company falls under). But in general, the goal of the site is to get average Americans to contact their legislators and let them know that they oppose the “Brown Bailout.”
In certain ways, the site/campaign is very well done. It features a video on the home page that spoofs the UPS “white board” ads. The campaign plays up the animosity that many Americans are feeling right now toward bank and auto bailouts (even though I don’t think the issue at hand actually involves any direct infusion of cash from the government to UPS). The site enables sharing across social platforms with ample “share this” links for content. It mixes media such as video, blogs and charts. Visitors can register to get more info sent to them via e-mail. There’s an online petition, a newsroom and voluminous facts and counterpoints presented that are actually quite informative about the differences in the FedEx and UPS business models.
It’s a public awareness campaign, but one of the things the site seems to try very hard NOT to make people aware of is that the site is run by FedEx. In teensy-tiny print on the home page, at the bottom, is a small notice that says “Copyright 2009, FedEx.” I had to dig around on the site to finally get to a press release within the site newsroom that acknowledges that the Brown Bailout campaign is run by FedEx. But I doubt most “average Americans” who aren’t that interested in transparency or marketing would take the time to do that. Many people could very easily visit the site and not realize that Brown Bailout is not an independent organization of concerned citizens but a public relations campaign from UPS’ biggest competitor.
FedEx isn’t exactly being opaque here – you can figure out that the site is run by the company if you hunt around. But I certainly wouldn’t call it transparent, either. Part of me understands – if the site was overtly branded and labeled as a FedEx site, perhaps people would be less interested in or trusting of the information, and probably less likely to take action on behalf of one big corporation in its schoolyard rumble with another. But most of me just feels extremely skeptical about this tactic – my red flags are raised.
What do you think? How should FedEx have handled this campaign? Are you comfortable with the level of disclosure on the site? Are they putting themselves at risk of being labeled as fake or manipulative? Is it a sin of omission?
Image via Flickr user b0r0da
I attended an event last night where I saw a case study of how Greenpeace ran a campaign to get Apple to use more environmentally-friendly products in its product line. It used branding and imagery very similar to that of apple, and even allowed people to create a “Steve Jobs” speech. The case study was very well received, and seemed to have the desired effect.
This one is slightly different, in that it is a competitor to UPS running the campaign. However, there are a lot of similarities.
You’re right – it would be less effective if the site was fully branded with FedEx logos. However, you don’t exactly have to look hard to see it – the homepage footer indicates it’s FedEx, and the video says the same at the end.
It’s a real grey area. I’m more comfortable with the identity part than I am with the slightly misleading “bailout” terminology, I think. Interested to see what others think.
Dave – thanks for sharing that example. I’ll have to read up about the Greenpeace campaign and learn more.
You bring up an interesting point about the bailout terminology – that’s probably even more misleading than the identity of the site. I think FedEx clearly saw an opportunity to play on the fears and frustrations about the economy right now by using that term – but in actuality it doesn’t appear that the issue has anything to do with taxpayer money going to UPS.
I think the campaign shares some really good information, but I just have a nagging discomfort about it. I hope more folks will chime in with their thoughts!
I think it is pretty obvious from the second you arrive at the page that it is operated by FedEx. I was never under the assumption that anyone would care to operate a site like this.
I guess I don’t see a big issue with this campaign. I read this post before going to the site, so maybe I was looking for signs of Fed-Ex, but I was able to see a number of places where it mentions Fed-Ex. I probably would have assumed that it was being ran by Fed-Ex. My personal opinion is this is a smart & innovative campaign by Fed-Ex.
That’s not to say that companies should go out of their way to blatantly try to mislead or hide their agenda. That’s wrong. For me, the issue arises when a company blatantly tries to mislead the public/their audience. Recently, the head of PR for the Golden State Warriors posted comments in an attempt to “steer the conversation in a positive direction.” Stuff like this is what bothers me.
Rule #1 with online presence is to identify yourself.
Kasey – thanks for your input. I’m sure some people will definitely poke around and (perhaps more easily than I gave credit for) will realize that it’s a FedEx site. But I still think there are a fair number who may just give it a cursory glance and not realize either the provenance of the site or seek to understand the rather misleading use of the term bailout.
I heard about the issue with Golden State Warriors recently. Very bothersome. You’re point about always identifying yourself truthfully online is dead-on.
What makes this all the more interesting is the comment directly above yours, from “Jess”, came from a FedEx IP address. I have no idea if Jess is an “authorized” representative of the company (I am guessing no), but nevertheless, she didn’t identify herself as an employee or affiliate of FedEx. It sorta reinforces my whole original point about transparency, even though her comment tried to refute it.
I see your point, Amy. I think that as long as the information presented in the video and on the site is accurate, I don’t think it’s unethical or misleading. If they are “juicing” some of the facts, then that’s a different story.
The use of bailout could be looked at as misleading. A little extreme? Probably. But it’s also a clever play of the current state of our economy. I think it could go either way.
Do you think the video/campaign would lose anything if at the end of the video there was a quick “Video produced by FedEx…etc.”?
On the issue of the not-so-anonymous “Jess” post..I’m completely with you on that. On a post about transparency, that is completely unacceptable. Granted, the poster probably isn’t an authorized rep, but you have to understand that online, everything is traceable.
I read about this campaign in an Adage email… My initial reaction was not about FedEx hiding behind a website, it was the use of the ‘bailout’ term that is thrown around way too often these days. I felt the content was very misleading, and that if taken at face value, it would seem that the Govt was handing UPS a big check because they’re financially unstable.
The transparency issue for me is secondary. Many of my competitors have informational or value-add websites that aren’t obviously run by the competitor, but the calls to action take you to the competitor’s site.
I believe that in this case, it comes down to truth in advertising and being honest with the consumer; and FedEx fails on both these points.
Thanks for the insight!