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
