PR 101

I was sitting at the BizTimes Milwaukee BizTech Conference-Expo last Wednesday listening to Kirk Strong of Smart Interactive Media explain how a sales program his company designed for Chrysler fell flat. On paper it was a great social media program designed to generate sales leads for local dealerships. In reality, despite hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars spent planning and implementing it failed. Chrysler killed the program after only a year.

Why did it fail? Because despite the sometimes dozens of leads generated for those local dealerships, the salespeople didn’t buy into it. What they wanted was instant gratification, Strong explained. They didn’t want to cultivate those potential sales, none of which were guaranteed to buy a vehicle. What they wanted was someone to walk into the dealership who wanted to buy a car immediately, he said.

Many of those listening to the presentation faulted the salespeople. How could they not want to accept a bunch of leads handed to them on that proverbial platter? Boy, those men and women were lazy, many said.

Well, I disagree – they weren’t lazy. I think it was just that no one sat down and walked them through how social media works. Not just how this sales program worked, which I believe was demonstrated, but how social media in its entirety works.

Look I know social media is taking over marketing. Still, it is only about five or six years old. To a lot of people it is new and somewhat scary. It is such a shift in the way things have been done that it still hard for many of the rank and file to grasp.

A lot of that has to do with the Great Recession. Companies from coast-to-coast cut employees. No one wanted to stand out for fear they would be the next one out the door. So they hunkered down in their cubicles, did what they were told, and did nothing to attract attention. The Japanese have a saying that goes “the nail that stands out is hammered down.” No one wanted to be that nail.

This was not an atmosphere that lent itself to creativity and risk taking.

Chrysler’s management loved and endorsed this program, Strong said. Unlike many CEOs and CMOs, Chrysler’s management actually got it. I think being the smallest U.S. auto manufacturer gave management the impetus to try something new.

Well, as Shakespeare said, “there’s the rub.” Given what’s been going on for the past three years in corporate America, do you think most people actually trust management? It appears to be no one bothered to get buy in from the people who would be the beneficiaries from the program.

Getting buy in does not mean just mean explaining this new marketing program. It means starting at zero and showing employees the benefits of social media. It cannot be assumed that they know what’s going on just because you tell them it is going to work.

Let me give you an analogy from own family’s history. My grandmother grew up on a dairy farm in upstate New York in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. For most of the time when she was a girl, her father used a team of horses to power the farm. The horses were used for everything from pulling the plow to taking the family into town.

As the farm grew more prosperous and larger, the horses could no longer handle plowing the growing acreage. So the men on the farm debated what to do. This was a tough decision. We take these things for granted nowadays, but in 1920 a growing, sparking, loud tractor was a scary concept. Apparently only after the three men had decided unanimously – with buy-in from the women – that a tractor was needed was a purchase made. The key here was everyone agreed about the need and understand the benefits.

This is what companies need to do. Even if the CEO and CMO agree on the need to a new way of marketing, it is doesn’t mean the employees will understand the need. The days of top down management are gone. That Chrysler program demonstrated that to me. Employees have to be shown and convinced that something new will work. Otherwise the entire effort is a waste of time, money and effort.

When I first thought about writing this rant, I was considering ripping Toyota a new one. The way the automaker has handled the public relations for its various relations recalls was nothing short of abysmal. I think the White Star Line handled the initial P.R. dealing with the Titanic’s sinking better than Toyota did its accelerator problems.

But as the New Orleans Saints can attest, being behind in the first half doesn’t mean the game is lost.

Full disclosure: I drive a 2000 Toyota Camry. Both my children drive Corollas. However, I have never received compensation of any kind from Toyota. The closest I have come to anyone from the corporate side was Monday, Feb. 8^th when Jim Lentz, president and chief operating officer of Toyota Motor Sales, USA, was asked a question I had posted as part of a Digg Dialog.

At any rate, yes, Toyota was slow off the mark with its response to the accelerator issue. The initial statement in which the company said customer safety was “very important” to them made me cringe. They should have said that customer safety was the “most important” thing to the company. Saying “very” made me wonder what was more important.

Since then, however, the company has recovered its equilibrium. Frankly, I think doing all of the recalls at once is very a smart tactic. It’s the band-aid theory of action – some people take a band-aid off slowly. The pain might be less, but it is prolonged. Or, one can rip the band-off quickly and get it over with. It hurts more at first, but the pain goes away faster.

The apologies have come from the top down, which is a good start. The leadership has been willing to take the heat. Lenz has been everywhere, which is smart. He seems unflappable, he is well-spoken and he doesn’t shy away from tough questions. All good qualities in the crisis team leader.

That’s what Toyota is doing – they are taking their licks all at once. Yes, it is painful at first, but they will put it behind them.

It’s not like it is the only auto company to recall defective automobiles. Here, from Reuters News Service, is a list of recalls from 1971 on:

• 1971 – General Motors recalls 6.7 million vehicles due to engine mounts that separated from the vehicle and impacted the throttle.
• 1981 – GM recalls 5.8 million vehicles due to loose suspension bolts that affected steering.
• 1996 – Ford recalls more than eight million vehicles to replace defective ignition switches that could have led to electrical shorts and engine fires.
• July 1998 – GM recalls close to one million Cadillac, Pontiac and Chevrolet cars because of fears the air bags may have deployed by accident.
• Aug. 2000 – Japanese tire maker Bridgestone Corp recalls 14.4 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness tires of certain sizes installed on Ford Motor Co.’s Explorer SUVs and sold separately in stores. The recall applied to all tires produced at the company’s Firestone U.S. division.
• 2004 – GM recalls nearly four million pickups because of corroding tailgate cables.
• April 2005 – GM recalls more than two million vehicles to fix a variety of potential safety defects, most of them on cars and trucks sold in the U.S., which includes 1.5 million full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles from the 2003 to 2005 model years with second-row seat belts that GM says may be difficult to properly position across passengers’ hips.
• Oct. 2005 – Toyota recalls about 1.41 million cars globally, including the Corolla and 15 other models, due to trouble with their headlight switching systems.
• Dec. 2007 – Chrysler LLC recalls 575,417 vehicles as long-term wear on the gearshift assembly could cause them to shift out of park without the key in the ignition. The recall involved 2001 to 2002 model-year Dodge Dakota pickup trucks, Durango sports utility vehicles and Ram van models and 2002 model-year Ram pickup trucks.
• Aug. 2008 – GM recalls 857,735 vehicles equipped with a heated windshield-wiper fluid system in the United States after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said a short-circuit in the system may cause other electrical features to malfunction, increasing the risk of a fire.

For the record, Toyota has recalled 3.8 million vehicles in the latest recall and 4.2 million since 1971. Since 1971, General Motors has recalled 20.4 million of its autos. Ford has recalled 8 million, while Chrysler brought the rear with 575,417.

If you remember, the other automakers often resisted recalls. The Bridgestone tire problems, for instance, came to light because of a 60 Minutes news report. At least Toyota admitted it had a problem and dealt with it.

The key now is how Toyota will handle the issue going forward. I have some ideas that I will discuss next week that I think could help.