Defending Products at the Expense of the Brand

Been thinking a lot lately about the Pampers DryMax fiasco. With so much to talk about, study and learn, I think I’d better postpone the final analysis for a future post. Today, I want to address one aspect of it that stands out like a sore thumb to me.

Pampers is defending a product at the expense of the brand.

After reading several articles covering both sides, I would actually tend to side with P&G on this one. And I’m sure after the effort and investment of a product launch of that scale, I’d want to punch any detractors in the face. But even if short-term sales are flat or even up, what long-term damage do you incur when you blame your customers for the problem?

And while yes, Pampers gets fresh new customers every few years as potty training obsoletes diapers and the stork drops new tots from the clouds, brand loyalty still exists in the form of mothers-in-laws, sisters, and friends.

I’ve always said a brand has as much right to defend themselves as a customer has to broadcast a complaint to thousands, but this case has made me revisit my position.

It’s not as simple as The Customer is Always Right. That’s too much of a blanket statement and we know every instance is different. There are times to defend your product if it’s a matter of education or setting the record straight, but at some point as the wave against you gets bigger and bigger, you have to step back and give the customer the benefit of the doubt and say “While we’re confident of no wrongdoing, we’re launching an internal investigation and in the meantime, will honor some restitution.”

A brand has to pick its battles carefully. Choose which hill do die on, and when to run away and live to fight another day. That’s it. I’m out of corporate war cliches. I think Pampers is in danger of dying on this hill. What do you think?