Maclaren: Case study in PR errors

In this age of product-recall overload, it's easy to become inured to the daily flow of releases from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But if there's one exception, it would be the recall of about 1 million baby strollers last week by Maclaren, the gold standard of its industry.

Much has been written about this issue--which involves sharp hinges that have amputated children's fingers--ranging from the mechanical problems to how the information was handled. One sensible blog post came from the Harvard Business Review, which offered practical advice for any company unfortunate enough to find itself in such a position.

It is perhaps telling enough that such basic guidelines bear repeating from an article written in 2001, an indication that many businesses apparently remain clueless about addressing the very real potential for such crises. But the most disturbing illustration of this corporate density actually came in the form of a comment posted at the bottom of the blog, believed to be from the Maclaren CEO Farzad Rastegar himself. [Full disclosure: The comment in question has been attributed to Rastegar by the New York Times, but I did not confirm that it was written by him.]

One of the many criticisms has been the dearth of immediate information from the company after reports of the problem began to surface. To that point, the purported Rastegar note blamed an "early leak in the agreed joint recall announcement planned for November 10th." According to the comment:

"This leak was as a result of inadequate procedures to protect the necessary confidentiality of process in order to ensure that the objectives are not compromised. The result of this early leak was panic amongst parent[sic] and tens of thousands of calls and website visits to the wrong addresses. All of this with a company team that was preparing for the following day.[sic] When our staff were arriving for their final practice run oon[sic] November 9th, they were mostly unaware of the explosive media coverage with misinformation packed with conjecture. It was a quick awakening. We have tried to deal with it as best as humanly possible but the crash of the systems was unavoidable and the subsequent task of bringing things back on line was equally more challenging. Should we have assumed that things could go wrong in this process.[sic] The answer is yes, absolutely. However this is a first for Maclaren and we are learning fast."

There are so many problems with Maclaren's response that I'm not even sure where to begin, not to mention the dubious syntax, spelling, and punctuation of the comment above. But here are a few:

Unpreparedness. Maclaren's most obvious failing was its woeful inadequacy in dealing with the prospect of leaks, which have become almost inevitable on the web for issues of magnitude and controversy. This was underscored by the company's paralyzing website, phone, and Twitter problems, which would have likely occurred regardless of any breaches of confidentiality.

Oblivion. If it's true that the staff was "mostly unaware of the explosive media coverage with misinformation packed with conjecture," are they living on another planet? It should be routine for any communications professionals to know what's being said about their employer, especially under these conditions.

Slowness. The Rastegar comment says the news was leaked while the company "was preparing for the following day." Corporations must learn to act with far more sense of urgency in these instances, thinking in terms of minutes instead of days. When information is spreading like wildfire, speed of response is critical to have any chance of being heard above the din at all.

Insensitivity. As of this writing, the Maclaren website does not have a link to recall information on its front door. There is a temporary pop-up window acknowledging the recall, but it contains no links to further information or status updates; once it is closed, we are shown pictures of smiling families and a section labeled "Safe" that treats us to happy music and cartoon-like animations--hardly something I'd care to see if my child had recently been maimed.

Misjudgment. If the post is in fact written by Maclaren's chief executive, why was it? The typos indicate that it wasn't vetted beforehand, and a relatively obscure comment section is hardly the appropriate forum for this communication. In fact, the post has unwittingly elicited negative responses that continue days later. A good PR professional would have at least rewritten the note to avoid the backlash and the perceptions cited in the bullets above.

The bottom line is that all companies must have disciplined, code-blue systems in place for such emergencies, where top-level executives from the CEO on down can be assembled within minutes, virtually or otherwise. If there is time to include a crisis-communications expert, all the better, though not at the expense of expediency.

The goal should be formulation of an official response within an hour after the company learns of the situation. Any later than that and it likely won't matter, as far as the web is concerned.

That might seem like a Herculean effort in most process-laden corporate cultures, but consider this in the order of priorities: What other company affairs are more important than a breaking crisis that threatens to permanently undo your long-established reputation?

To that end, I believe that the most egregious problem in this case study is the insensitivity of Maclaren's site. People can forgive and forget mistakes, but an apparent lack of appreciation for the gravity of such situations can leave an indelible impression.