Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Connect with Mike

mike volpe twitter mike volpe facebook mike volpe linkedin mike volpe youtube mike volpe blog rss mike volpe google buzz Mike Volpe on Foursquare mike volpe slideshare mike volpe itunes podcast mike volpe qik live video

Free Website Redesign Tips

software developer jobs

conversion conference - mike volpe speakingUse code CCE127 to save
an extra $200.



Marketing with Mike Volpe

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Thoughts on the Pampers Social Media Marketing Disaster

Posted by Mike Volpe on Fri, May 21, 2010
 

To catch up, read the article Why Pampers Diaper Fail is a Lesson in Marketing Transparency to get the back story and the updates in the article Pampers Steps up Digital, Social Media Efforts.  Here are my thoughts...

Pampers does not have a communications problem as much as a product development problem.

  • Change is BAD for products with a high emotional quality to them, and diapers are for babies and people are very emotional about babies.  There is a huge risk in changing products for babies, even if you improve them.
  • You can't tell people what to think anymore in TV ads about your product or even by getting 3 magazines to endorse your product.  You can't fix a poor product with good marketing anymore.
  • P&G's product development cycle is famous and studied in business schools.  But, it was developed in the era of one-way broadcast media.  Customers were told what to think by a few TV stations, and had no way of communicating effectively with each other and product ratings and feedback didn't exist.  The P&G product development process is no longer relevant in an age where things move much faster, and customers have much more control and are much easier to involve in your development.

What should Pampers / P&G do now?

Change their product development process.  Get rid of the 2-3 year cycle.  Get rid of the focus groups.  Create "P&G Labs" which works on experimental products.  If people buy them, they know they are experimental and might be cool or might suck.  Bring customers into "P&G Labs" and co-develop products with them.  If you get customers feedback really early, and be more public about the process, people will respect it, and get more involved.  They will also become advocates.  Then, after the product launches and leaves P&G Labs, if someone says they don't like the product, all the customers involved will tell them they are crazy and tell them the 20 reasons why this product is better.  And P&G won't have to say a thing.

If they had done something like this, the launch of Pampers Dry Max would have been very different.  

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

I absolutely agree. 
But I thought P&G's Tremor was pretty good at that (in addition to their disruption motto)?

posted @ Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:10 PM by Marion


Much of the problem IMHO was simply Pampers not realizing they *needed* to talk about this. They got so focused on their excitement about a new product and their expectation (hope) that consumers would like it... that nobody thought they needed to talk about it. 
 
 
 
How do you see what you cannot see? 
 
 
 
Social media and, in particularly, the new "transparency" paradigm will take some getting used to for new-millinia companies:  
 
 
 
What are they supposed to talk about!? (You don't know what consumers are interested in hearing until you ask them or they offer...) 
 
 
 
How much info do consumers want!? (Trust me, we do NOT want notes of all the meetings they held, discussing these changes). 
 
 
 
It's a conversation. That means it's two-ways
 
 
 
Less important is whether P&G read consumers minds to tell consumers what they later decided they wanted to know... and more about how the back and forth - now that it's started - goes.

posted @ Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:15 PM by @markfarmer


Comments have been closed for this article.