Total Recall

by Randall Hull of The Br@nd Ranch®

AKA: "Oh What a feeling".

Unless you have been on a trek to one of the poles or living in a cabin deep in the woods somewhere, you have likely heard about the huge problem facing Toyota Motor Corporation and its U.S. organization Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. Here's a quick recap just in case:

Toyota Motor Corporation began a recall in late 2009, which – as of March – totaled 8.5 million cars globally due to braking problems and accelerator pedal defects which were initially blamed on other things such as "floor mat entrapment". The initial recall included Toyota's Corolla, Matrix, Camry, Highlander SUV, RAV4, as well as Tundra and Sequoia trucks. After Toyota admitted the 2010 Prius had a design defect in its anti-lock brake system, it too joined the list, and the U.S government began investigating the automaker.

And then there's the Black Box. As in commercial airlines, automobiles have "black boxes" known as Event Data Recorders, or EDRs, which keep a data record of various things the automobile was doing a few seconds prior to and after a crash. The EDRs in Toyotas use a proprietary software which, according to an Associated Press investigation, until recently could be read by only one laptop in the U.S. In response to growing pressure Toyota has delivered three laptops to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with the software capable of reading their EDR data. The AP investigation also found that Toyota was not offering full disclosure about what their device did and did not record.

Discussing the legal implications and what was and was not disclosed is beyond the scope of this article and my expertise. I want to focus on how this could throttle the Toyota brand and how they can put the brakes on this situation before it spins out of control. After reading all the news releases and legal saber rattling, "Oh What a feeling" is taking on a whole new meaning for me.

Toyota has been producing vehicles since 1936, and up to now, safety and reliability has been the foundation of their brand. Yet, in the middle of all this Toyota officials admitted the company's rapid growth may have gotten in the way of maintaining the highest standards of quality control. Its the familiar company profits before customer safety scenario -- hardly confidence building.

Added to this poor communications mix, when Toyota should have reassured the world they had the recall situation in hand, they made a fundamental faux pas, overlooking the importance of not only what you say but also how you deliver the message. In January, a Toyota executive addressed television cameras wearing – gasp! – a surgical mask. Perhaps this is common in Japan during cold season, but the message was broadcast worldwide, where a cultural nuance such as this could easily be misconstrued. First, it projected a "we are in toxic triage" image, and secondly, CEO Akio Toyoda should have delivered the message – sans mask. The U.S. marketplace, particularly, does not take kindly to aloof leadership in a crisis, and quite simply, this was a crisis of confidence, where brands live or die.

This debacle holds so many lessons for brand managers and executives, alike. Primary amongst them what not to do when your product demonstrates a performance problem that puts your customers at risk. When building public trust in your product and your company, transparency followed by action is fundamental. The risk in failing to staunch eroding customer confidence is forever tarnishing your brand.

The Toyota recall, of course, is not the first time well known brands have faced a crisis.

In 1994, a professor at Lynchburg College reported a bug in the Intel Pentium floating point unit. He sent a memo to Intel reporting what became know as the Pentium FDIV bug. Intel, caught by surprise, had no crises strategy in place and chose to deny the problem. When public pressure became too great, Intel announced a recall and Andy Grove, Intel CEO at the time, offered one of the greatest mea culpas in corporate history. Although jokes prevailed for some time, the public forgave and moved on.

Johnson & Johnson had a huge headache in 1982 when cyanide-laced Tylenol in the Chicago area resulted in 7 fatalities. Johnson & Johnson took only 6 days to respond and recalled 30 million packages. At the time the incident was thought to be fatal to the company, but the public saw the action as a prime example of corporate responsibility. The final result was tamper-proof packaging on medications and Johnson & Johnson's brand intact.

Perrier recalled 160 million bottles of mineral water in 1990 when traces of benzene were discovered. Although the amounts were not considered enough to present a risk, Perrier acted to protect its reputation and was hailed as responsible public citizens.

Companies, who have dealt with critical challenges promptly and well, demonstrate how a brand can be guided through crises and emerge untarnished, if not stronger for it. A genuinely sincere apology timed appropriately will go far in winning back customer loyalty and restoring trust. Many companies have learned their customers listen most closely when they honestly admit failure.

Toyota is one of the world’s strongest brands according the Interbrand's rankings. CEO Akio Toyoda must utilize his best public communication skills and convince the public that he has taken control of this crisis. Then act swiftly and effectively. Should Toyota successfully address the many product issues, they will recover with nothing more than a bloody nose. But should they fail to resolve the problems fully, as recent reports indicate, the damage incurred may be fatal and the Toyota brand could be so severely tarnished, it will take years and millions of dollars to restore. "Oh what a feeling" that would be.

Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

Tiger's Personal Brand of Apology?

Putting aside the questions of whether Tiger Woods needed to or should have made a public apology, the timing of it, and even the content of it, now that Brand Tiger made the decision to do so and did so last Friday, I'm interested more with how Tiger conveyed it and the likely impact it will have on his personal brand going forward.

What struck me most about Tiger's 14 minute public apology (actually Tiger worked in more than an apology during this time) was the fact that he read it, word for word, rather stiffly, from a prepared script, and from behind a podium. Doing so begged for me the question of who wrote it, in the same way we might ask who a famous politician's speech writer is. Reading from a script or teleprompter behind the security of a podium works well for politicians, I'm not sure it is the best way to convey a heart-felt apology, ok, I am sure, it's not.

After seeing the entire 14 minutes, I had to check with the U.S. Trademark Office to determine whether Brand Tiger had any registered protection for trademarks in Int'l Class 35 for the "production of public service announcements." But, I couldn't find any . . . .

So, why the script, why the podium, why the presidential-blue backdrop? No doubt, this was a carefully controlled message with nothing left to chance, and no chance for surprise. So, that probably answers that. However, it seems to me the tightly controlled format squandered an opportunity to create a more meaningful connection, or perhaps reconnection, with Brand Tiger.

This morning I saw an interview on ESPN with one of the golfers on tour who thought it would have gone better if Tiger had not read a script, but instead spoken from the heart, perhaps guided by a few bullet points in some notes. I tend to agree and believe doing so would have conveyed far more emotion, truth, and authenticity. So, who recommended or chose this format for Brand Tiger?

I'm thinking it was a left brainer, not a right brainer, because striving for a more natural, emotional, and authentic expression from Tiger seems like a no-brainer to me, at least, if the goal is to resurrect, or at least begin the resurrection of Brand Tiger. Or, perhaps a right brain advisor recognized that the target audience for Brand Tiger's apology skewed toward left brainers who would feel themselves more comfortable with this controlled format too? By the way, if you're not sure which of your hemispheres is dominant, here is an interesting and brief online 18 question test.

Left brain dominant Accenture was the only sponsor mentioned by name, do you suppose they had any say in the chosen format?

For further guidance on my hemispheric brain hypothesis, I consulted Al & Laura Ries' most recent and highly acclaimed book War in the Boardroom, which explains the conflict and divide between management and marketing types by their respective emphasis on left and right brain thinking:

If you're the CEO of a major corporation, chances are good you are a left brainer. Before you make a decision, you want to be supported by facts, figures, market data, consumer research. It couldn't be otherwise in a world where the ultimate measurement is the bottom line and the stock price.

If you have a job in marketing, chances are good you are a right brainer. You often make decisions by "gut instinct" with little or no supporting evidence. It couldn't be otherwise in a creative discipline like marketing.
Another striking difference: left brainers have a strong preference for verbal thinking, while right brainers favor visual thinking.
When a management type makes a speech, he or she usually stands behind a podium and reads a script or the words on a teleprompter.
When a marketing type makes a speech, he or she usually stands in front of a screen using dozens of visuals.

Again, all signs seem to point to the left side of the brain on the format. Now, I'm not suggesting that Brand Tiger would have benefited from a Ross Perot style speech complete with charts and graphs, but I do think that Tiger would have chipped his personal brand out of the rough far more effectively without a podium, without reading a speech, and he wouldn't have needed 14 minutes to do it. No doubt, this was only the first public step toward resurrection of Brand Tiger.

As Laura Ries blogged last December on Ries' Pieces, and as I suspect will always be the case, It's What Tiger Does Next That Counts . . . .

Are Your Business Signs and Brand on the Same Page?

Hopefully you enjoy riddles. It is late Sunday afternoon, 4:30 pm to be exact. Too early for valet parking at Fogo de Chao, a wonderful Brazilian steakhouse, so you drive two blocks and enter a parking lot with the following sign:

                                 

You had a very nice dinner and now you're ready to leave the parking lot at 6:15 pm. Based on the above sign (and contract, by the way), how much do you owe the parking attendant? Instead of humming the Jeopardy thinking music theme song, might I suggest you consider humming the 1970 Five Man Electrical Band tune "Signs" during your calculation. And for any '70s challenged folk, I'll prime the pump for you: "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign, blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind, do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

Simple sign, simple question, simple answer, right? I thought so, at first, but apparently not. Well after the fact, my rather informal survey yielded four different answers from four different people:

  1. $3.50
  2. $6.50
  3. $11.00
  4. $14.50

So, what is your answer? One of the above, or none of the above? I chose Door No. 2.

OK, because I entered the lot before 5pm and was ready to leave the lot after 5pm, I offered to pay $6.50, for spending 1-2 hours in the lot, but was told I had to pay the $11.00 "Weekend Night Rate" to exit the lot, unless I wanted to call the police and convince them otherwise. Really.

After a rather frustrating face-to-face discussion with the attendant and an even more frustrating telephone discussion with the night manager on duty (this guy seemed to be a Five Man Electrical Band fan with a heavy emphasis on the "can't you read the sign?" lyrics), I declined the offer to call 911, paid the $11.00, and took it up with parking lot management bright and early on Monday morning. After speaking with a total four different employees, I was left with the firm conviction that they "knew" I owed $11.00, because they "knew" what they meant the sign to say, yet my fine legal training told me otherwise because neither the "Night Rate" exception (enter after 5pm) nor the "Weekend Day Rate" exception (valid 5am-5pm) applied to my situation.

Anyway, this negative brand experience got me thinking about how important good, clear, and accurate signs are to building favorable and positive brand experiences. It also got me thinking about what makes a good sign, and putting aesthetics and design aside, because those topics are better left for our talented pool of Guest Bloggers, I came up with two key elements: (1) simplicity; and (2) accuracy. In fact, I submit that if either is lacking it can lead to a negative brand experience -- one where the sign and the brand the sign represents are out of sync or not on the same page, so to speak (assuming, of course, one promise of the brand is a favorable experience).

By way of dramatic contrast, the favorable brand experience I had at Fogo really reinforced and illustrated this point. Indeed, one of the "signs" that Fogo is known for is the two-sided disk -- one side red, the flip-side green. Everyone at the table gets one. The Fogo disk sign easily satisfies the simplicity portion of my two-part sign test:

"Each guest uses a two-sided disk to control the pace of their meal. The green side signals the Gaucho chefs to bring out skewers of sizzling fire-roasted meats to carve at the table. The red side indicates a stopping point. Turning back to green lets the Gaucho chefs know to start offering the meats again."

Not only is the Fogo disk sign simple, it is accurate too. The Gaucho chefs don't bother you when you desire a "stopping point," (perhaps to loosen your belt) unless someone sitting next to you plays a childhood prank by quietly flipping your disk back to green, as my giggling children learned quickly, and as the Gaucho chefs seem to have seen more than a few times before. So, the Fogo disk sign reinforces the Fogo brand and creates at least the opportunity for a positive brand experience because it is both simple and accurate.

As an aside, for you trademark types who enjoy riddles, no, it doesn't appear that Fogo views the two-sided disk as a trademark, at least it hasn't attempted to register it as one yet, despite owning two other rather interesting non-traditional trademarks, including five vertical skewers of meat surrounding a campfire, and a chimney design. I'm thinking that the above quote from Fogo's website would make it rather difficult to overcome a functionality refusal on the two-sided disk, at least as a non-conventional trademark.

Anyway, to wrap things up, back to the parking lot part of the story. The fourth person I spoke to, the person with whom "the buck stops," had a much different view of the parking lot brand than the previous three. So, not only can poor business signs get in the way of positive brand experiences, but obviously, employees who don't live up to the company's brand promises can too. I was eventually told "we want to keep you as a customer," despite what the others said. In fact, I was mailed a full refund (more than I asked for) and I cashed the check a couple of days ago, just in time to feel safe running with this blog post. And, in case you're wondering, I am also informed that the sign is being "re-done," so let's just consider this whole exercise a public service.