Quite a bit has been written about McDonald's Open for Discussion blog (it's on the topic of corporate social responsibility) and the blog's non-response to readers' negative comments about miniature Hummers as Happy Meals giveaways.
Before I tell McDonald's VP and corporate blog author Bob Langert to stuff it because he's doing a really bad job of it, I'd like to offer him a little advice.
Bob, admit you weren't listening
Bob, it's not too late to pull yourself out of this hole. Hummer toys are cool collectibles and yes of course your colleagues' children love them. But what they represent is antithetical to your desire to expound, through the CSR blog, on McDonald's environmentally responsible initiatives.
You wrote in a somewhat garbled sentence: "I do not see this promotion as a reflection of our commitment to strategies that will conserve non-renewable resources and reduce the environmental footprint of our restaurant business--and our supply chain." Huh?!
What I think you meant (if I can wade through that mouthful of corporate-speak) is that you see the promotion as a harmless marketing ploy that you had nothing to do with. Therefore it isn't connected to your loftier mission of promoting McD's CSR. Hmmm...
On one level you are correct. If my son were of Happy Meal age (alas, he's all grown up) I know he'd go nuts for a mini Hummer. But I'm sure you can see (wince...) there's a bit of a disconnect here.
Offer a cheerful apology with an "Oops"
An "oops" blog entry is in order. Ya gotta apologize. First for failing to promptly post readers' comments about the Hummer giveaway. And secondly for not responding in a cogent way to what your readers are saying.
Their comments are great provocative:
"Thanks Bob for posting all the comments, better late than never eh? I look forward to your responses and participation in the discussion. Questions for you: Would McDonalds allow Colt to give away a toy gun in Happy Meals? If not, why not?" - Al Tepper
Then move on and keep blogging
Bob, chalk this up to taking your lumps in the blogosphere. As long as you promise to listen more carefully to your smart readers in the future and to speak more credibly, you'll do fine. Please, give us more authentic Bob-think. And a lot less corporate-speak.
Looking forward to your next post...
Useful Links
Would you like fries with your hummer? (Christopher Carfi)
McDonald's blog not open for discussion (Jackie Huba)
McDonald's VP McBlogs About the Hummer (Elana Centor)
Fortune senior writer Marc Gunther on McBlogging
Previous Comments
Kevin Holland said on September 12, 2006 at 09:00 PM
Debbie, I was with you right up until the point where you referred to as “great” that moronic comment from the Al Tepper person somehow equating Hummers with guns. It’s such an asinine statement that I would certainly hate to see MickeyD’s let it go by as if it were deserving of serious consideration. Perhaps a response along the lines of, “Okay, we goofed, not the smartest or most consistent move we could have made—but that guy who thinks Hummers are somehow comparable to guns? A little beyond the pale, don’tcha think? Feel free to hit the BK drive-thru next door.” Now, THAT would be refreshing corporate honesty.
But frankly, let’s fsce it: they could probably just let this pass by. The sort of people who are getting upset about toy Hummers are not the sort of people who eat at McDonald’s. Just the sort of people who like to gripe about it.
Debbie Weil said on September 12, 2006 at 10:16 PM
Kevin, yeah good point about the reader’s comment. It struck a chord with me when I first read it. But on 2nd reading comparing guns to Hummers is a bit over the top. So… I’ve modified my blog entry. Oh, I am *sooo* responsive to my readers, aren’t I?!
Kevin Holland said on September 12, 2006 at 10:31 PM
There really is an interesting case study here if MickeyD’s were to actually respond, which I don’t think they will (and am not entirely sure that they should). It’s a classic pr move (in the political world anyway) to define your opposition by their most extremist elements. This commenter gave them a great opportunity to do so by enabling them to respond along the lines of my original comment—basically, conceding a couple points but really emphasizing the “out there” nature of the extreme complainers and thus making them seem somehow alien to the more reasonable-minded of those inclined to express opposition. It’s a classic move but it’s rarely played in the corporate world where folks seem scared to criticize even the wackiest of the general public. How I would love to see more of the corporate bloggers start to call crazy crazy when it’s appropriate, And I can’t help but think it would be more helpful to them than harmful.
Donna Papacosta said on September 13, 2006 at 09:02 AM
Excellent advice, Debbie. I hope McD’s is listening!
Al Tepper said on October 9, 2006 at 08:21 PM
I could not agree more with you Debbie when you say:
But what they [hummers] represent is antithetical to your desire to expound, through the CSR blog, on McDonald’s environmentally responsible initiatives.
That is entirely the overall point being made.
Namaste
Al
——-
Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via Email
Social Media Blogs