If you look inside your Pampers diaper pail, and a stink wafts into your face, it may be Procter & Gamble PR poop. Either Procter & Gamble is trying to turn the Internet into a soap opera, or their PR sniffed too many chemicals.
Procter & Gamble is a company with a strong reputation, a company trusted by millions. The bad news for their brand came when they betrayed this trust of many, then tried to cover up their actions using some of the dirtiest PR tricks in the book.
The story of the dirty Pampers diapers is no longer news, but a battle of wills. On one side, the few thousands of parents out of probably hundreds of thousands who dared to speak against Pampers via Facebook and other online channels. On the other side, the paid mommy bloggers who responded to P&G’s “plea for help” and transformed overnight into Pampers propagandists. Was this out of their “genuine love/like for the brand?” Surely. But wait, things get even dirtier as the CPSC has released no information so far about the diapers in question, despite the many consumer complaints that were submitted online, or through other channels.
The paid mommy bloggers defend Pampers with data from Pampers. The angry Facebook parents have other data, as you can see in these images, sent to me by one of the parents who joined this group.
I will not name this parent now, although I do have permission to publish these images. I am hoping that the parent will come here to tell a story in his/her own words. In all honesty, it’s too painful to look at this image and write about it. Can you imagine what that child went through? Will one of the kind sponsored reviews mommy bloggers give us an explanation for these burns? Because in a propaganda piece titled “The Truth Behind Pampers Dry Max” the avid and altruistic (!) Tiffany Snedaker is 100% for the brand, touting loudly that this is the safest product ever, developed for over 5 years.
She goes on, explaining sycophantically, how Pampers made a mistake introducing a new product in the old package, because no, it was not fair. But hey, give Pampers a break, they meant no harm. She goes on, describing how the “evil” Facebook group criticizing Pampers was born, and how her own son had diaper rash once a long time ago, which was not from the diaper…
And again the witty reader wonders: “Why are these incidents called diaper rashes if they are not caused by the diapers?” Because they happen inside the diaper? They appear out of nowhere, like UFOs, they have no explanation whatsoever… or if they do, it is NEVER the diaper. Is it just me, or does the following sound extremely dazed and incoherent?
“I’m not 100% sure how the diaper rash occurred, but it could have been many things.”
You see, unlike Tiffany Snedaker, who likes to invoke the mighty 100% every time she expresses an idea, Pampers know exactly how and why many diaper rashes occur. They also know that the “new and improved” diaper is thinner not because this is a break-through, but because it saves a few cents per diaper in production costs – as if their diapers were not already expensive enough. The proof that they are simply saving on materials? Well, in her generous description of the new Dry Max diapers, Kate Marsh Lord gives us all the details:
“Like me, some people have wondered how can a diaper that is 20% thinner and looks so different be made of the same material. I mean, Pampers made a big deal about how new and different Dry Max is from previous diapers. But, as I understand it, the thing that makes Dry Max so different is the process of making the diaper. The new technology uses less “pulp” – making the diaper thinner – and slightly more absorbent gel (like 5%) that is carefully placed strategically where babies need it most.”
Another way to throw dust in your eyes is to invoke the good old charity donations:
Additionally, they have an excellent record of giving to charities including Unicef. I won’t saddle you down with all the good deeds they do on a daily basis, but it should be noted there is a plethora of them.
This quote comes from Stephanie Manner Wagner, who is either not too bright or she seriously believes that her readers are that ignorant. I must admit I would not have given her credit before of knowing what a plethora was. Given all this, I expect she figures it is probably part of her baby she has not looked up on Wikipedia. “My baby’s plethora is just happy as a clam with Dry Max on it.” Good God.
Think about it for a moment: is Pampers really giving to charities out of altruism, or is it because they need a tax deduction? Add to this free PR, brand enforcement and free advertising, and POOF. And don’t forget: it’s YOUR money they use. YOU pay that extra dollar they will donate, because Pampers are 1 dollar more expensive than brands with similar quality that don’t make such claims. No pro Pampers thoughts from Renee Bigner yet.
And, while the US “burns” waiting for the CPSC to do their own tests for once, on products sent by parents and not provided by Pampers (as we all hope); P&G aims at the European market, where finally parents complain about their products as well. In the UK, BBCWatchdog reports that they have recently received dozens of complaints about Pampers’ range of Active Fit nappies. Apparently, in UK, P&G launched the new Pampers in the same package as their older product too. The only clue that the nappies have changed was a small purple leaflet tucked inside the pack, asking for feedback.
Now I don’t know about you, but as I see it, there’s something terribly stinky in those diapers, and that’s not baby poop!
Top Public Relations News:
Miami Parking Issues Public Relations RFP
Millward Brown Adds ‘Facial Code’ Technology to Ad Testing Tools
Marketing RFP Issued By Texas A&M University
M&C Saatchi PR Hired to Promote Carnival Cruise Lines in the UK
#Skype for Linux, Mac, and Developers
Dylan Farrow accuses Woody Allen of assault
How to Build a Great Dental PR Brand
Society for Environmental Journalism Issues RFP
Kindle Books Coming Soon to a Library Near You
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE ISSUES ADVERTISING RFP