The Parenting Community Will Hold Your Company Accountable if You Pull a Stunt Like Nestle Family

Here's a news flash for any up-and-coming marketing executive who is keen to use the parent-to-parent grapevine to market the widget of the week. Not only can the parent-to-parent grapevine wreak havoc on your company, if the campaign goes terribly wrong: your company can wreak lasting damage on that grapevine: damage for which the parenting community will hold your company accountable.

It's a lesson Nestle USA learned the hard way this week when it invited a group of parent bloggers to be part of the Nestle Family conference – a face-to-face think-tank designed to allow the company to pick bloggers' brains on everything from product development to social media. The invitees willingly accepted the invitation, apparently unaware that they were about to step into a major Twitstorm. ("I'm not being paid to do this. I use Nestle products and have for years, they are a part of my life," Nestle Family attendee MomSpark tweeted in response to a question on Twitter yesterday.)

Eager to capitalize on the popularity of the guest bloggers, Nestle created a Nestle Family website to promote itself and its brands. Nestle encouraged the guest bloggers to tweet about their participation in the conference, something that led to a mix of pro-conference tweets from the participants and anti-conference tweets from breastfeeding activists (under the #nestlefamily hashtag), who were trying to convince the guest bloggers to withdraw from the conference in protest of Nestle's non-compliance with the World Health Organization's International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. Nestle did not making any attempts to speak out on behalf of its brand during this time. It allowed the guest bloggers to function as unpaid brand representatives, fending off attacks on the brand and themselves. Some of those attacks became highly personal and extremely nasty. ("Not going to forget the behavior of some people under the guise of discussion. You fool no one," tweeted Busy Mom – one of the guest bloggers – from the conference.)

Isabel Kallman, CEO of AlphaMom, and Allison Worthington of Allison Worthington Media, prominent mom bloggers and social media observers, tweeted back and forth about Nestle's lack of action as the conference day progressed. I contacted each of them for end-of-day interviews.

"It gets to the point of disaster if others have to be answering questions for you," said Kallman. "If [Nestle] had been in the conversation during the peak when the questioning was happening at least they could be there alongside others answering with their information or POV. But they were silent."

Nestle should have stepped up to the plate at the first signs of trouble. Worthington noted: "I watched the Nestle Family Tweets [Tuesday night] and expected engagement with the Twitter community to begin immediately."

It wasn't until the guest bloggers were being subjected to series of ongoing, highly personal attacks that Scott Remy, Senior Vice President of Nestle USA, decided to step in. He posted a comment to a discussion thread on PhDinParenting (See Comment 119), calling for a cease fire and asking that questions or concerns about the Nestle Family conference be directed to Nestle Family's brand new Twitter account rather than at the guest bloggers.

"Clearly there’s been a lot of conversation, and we recognize that you haven’t heard from us yet, Remy noted. "We ask that your readers do not attack our guests. We’ve been listening from the start. The social media space is new for us. Bringing bloggers to Nestle was a first step to extend conversations with our consumers in the social media space. We intend for this to be a first step not a last...."

Remy then re-iterated many of those same messages on the @NestleFamily account on Twitter

However, once members of the Twitter community started asking pointed questions about the company's infant formula marketing record to the @NestleFamily, the controversy re-erupted, with blogger @ilauredhel accusing Nestle of going from from obfuscation to outright lies.

It's hard to make sense of Nestle's game plan with regard to Nestle Family – if, in fact, they had one.

Nestle either underestimated the kind of reception that the conference (and its attendees) were likely to receive from breastfeeding activists; or it decided to operate on that old adage that any publicity is good publicity. It's just hard to imagine that any company would want to be known for generating this kind of bad feeling between parenting bloggers and towards its own brand.

Sure, they succeeded in reminded everyone that their company makes infant formula. But at the same time, they also hammered home even more powerfully the message that there's a lot of controversy associated with their brand. "Moms on Twitter now know what the WHO is and that they are there to provide unbiased research and advocacy on the benefits of breastmilk for babies," Kallman noted.

And as for the fallout in the online parenting community? Relationships were damaged as a result of a corporation's unwillingness to think through the consequences of sending parent bloggers into the frontlines to fight a losing battle in a PR war gone very wrong. Parents won't be forgetting that anytime soon either.

Related:

Respect the Mommy Blogger

Number One Rule of Mommy Blogging: Be Upfront With Your Reader

Mom 2.0: Meet the Mommy Blogger

Comments

[kgirl]

Fantastic summary of a very ugly incident, though one that ultimately left most better informed - of big business practices as well as how to protect our community from the lure of the PR junket - and sometimes, from each other.

[Adventures In Babywearing]

I do have to say I feel like I am in a very uncomfortable position. I was invited and declined because of the controversy and not wanting to link my blog with that brand. I also know many of the bloggers that went, and feel like our relationship could be strained if they feel like I was one of the haters (which I wasn't, but I stand my ground on my decision to not attend.) Nestle was made aware of my reasons, and so they DID know ahead of time that this could be an issue (and I have heard there were other invitees that declined for the same reasons) so there is no way they didn't know.

Steph

[Julia Beck]

Ann,

Thank you for this wonderful post. As always, you are wise, observant and right on the money.

There is no question - this is a case study we will be talking about for a long time. Not only did Nestle fail to plan well (or as you state, not at all) - they had no idea what they were setting their "guests" up for. It somehow reminds me of the passengers/castaways of the SS Minnow on Gilligan's Island -- you know it was meant to be a three hour tour.

Well this was meant to be a little swag fest – you know a little trip, a little love, good meals and some fun with fellow bloggers. Instead, it turned quickly stormy - and those bloggers who attended were left out to sea by their hosts in the very worst way – drifting along –tying to defend their hosts but ill-equipped to do so. Nestle had hurt all involved – certainly their invited guests and without question, themselves. As I discuss in my recent blog on this topic:

Nestle has lost control of the conversation – in fact the conversation that is being had is not only off-message (one would assume ) but the defense of Nestle has been left in the hands of those least qualified to handle it — the bloggers who answered their call and came for a few days of fun. This is damaging to the brand on a profound level (obviously) and leaves these bloggers in an untenable position. Feeling loyal, under attack, not knowing facts, frankly over their heads and outside of any normal scope of engagement for an event like this. (www.fortyweeks.com/blog)

There are many learnings here. Not the least of which is that companies who wish to market to/with moms need to do so within the framework of a well thought out strategy, clear expectations and regard for their partners. At least that would be a start...

[Mike Btrady]

I became aware of this event through the traffic to Baby Milk Action sites from links people were posting to inform those in attendance at the event and following it on Twitter about Nestlé pushing baby foods in breach of international standards and other issues of concern. I am very pleased there were informed people on the ball - through embarrassing Nestlé and putting its malpractice in the spotlight we have won some changes to its practices.

This response has undoubtedly led to many more people learning about these concerns and I hope that at least some of the bloggers will be interested in investigating further and reporting both the evidence and how Nestlé misled them. It was very disappointing to see Nestlé's claims relayed without analysis - but that is a hazard of Twitter, I suppose: it is not journalism.

I think most tweets by those trying to raise awareness were providing information, responding to requests from bloggers for questions to ask and correcting the Nestlé misinformation being relayed. There were some over the top comments and the danger is that those provide an excuse to avoid the issue; the focus is on the so-called firestorm and not Nestlé or the ethics of attending meetings such as this.

Campaigners need to learn from this. At the very least, come back to the basics of being polite. Most people at the event will have been unaware of the issues and may be open to information - a harder task if they are alienated by a few posts which are then portrayed as representative of campaigners. We already face an uphill task as those who accept Nestlé hospitality do sometimes seem reluctant to even look at the evidence of malpractice because it makes them feel uncomfortable at having accepted its hospitality and embarrassed to realise those nice Nestlé people were deliberately misleading them - I've seen it happen.

It will be interesting to see the articles the bloggers do post. One I've seen on the 'attacks' commented: "I’m not going to touch on the complaints, some of them valid, that are being brought up by the #nestlefamily critics. That’s a different post, and frankly one I have no interest in writing."

Incidently, when Nestlé came online I posted questions and offered to take part in a Tweet debate - Nestlé used to debate with Baby Milk Action from 2001 - 2004, but lost them all and now refuses to speak in public if we are present. There has not been any response to my questions or offer to debate. So much for Nestlé's claim to the bloggers that it wishes to engage.

For more thoughts and links to supporting documentation and images showing what Nestlé is really up to around the world, go to:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/09/nestle-family-twitters.html

[Patte Rosebank]

Any company that refers to itself & its consumers as a "family" is every bit as phony and sleazy as the televangelists who use their permasmiles & charisma to pick the pockets of the poor & elderly. It's like the term "family values". Whenever I hear it, I'm instantly on the alert for the ensuing rhetoric about the evils of anything other than the sort of nuclear family & society that existed in the 1950s.

[Beth]

Yet another reason why I love you!

You are able to distill things down to their essence and show why Nestle didn't think this through and why we all really need to think about the consequences of our actions (and by this I mean both those attending and breastfeeding activists).

This parenting thing ain't easy no matter how you dice it.

[karen]

My impression was that it's not just the WHO breastmilk substitute marketing code violations that people are concerned with. There are numerous other unethical practices that people were discussing, and the fact that people are trying to make this a lactivist vs. formula battle seemed very frustrating to the anti-Nestle side.

My old boss used to say, 'perception is reality'. When a company is accused of the wrongdoings that Nestle is, any dealings with them and their PR machine will reek until the original issue is addressed to the satisfaction of reasonable onlookers. At this point, do I have a problem with the integrity of bloggers who went on their merry way to the event, even after being informed of the ethical violations? The ones who scoffed and went on the defensive and moaned about their precious hashtag? You betcha.

[DaniGirl]

Thanks for the summary, Ann. I'd seen some of the comments flying around, but I appreciate the big-picture perspective you provide.

While I acknowledge that Nestle has a less-than-stellar history re:formula, I think that's completely beside the fact that their social media team dropped the ball by leaving their guest bloggers out to dry in a twitstorm. But I also have to say, shame on the anti-Nestle contingent who took it out in such a personal manner on the guest bloggers.

A cautionary tale all around, I think.

[Deb on the Rocks]

Your summary is great. I don't think they are new to the social media space at all. They held a similar event in early summer through their Stouffers brand, during which very few people inserted anti-Nestle tweets. I think the success of that venture led them to experiment with bloggers as buffers between the Nestle name and the public.

[Busy Mom]

I am not an unpaid representative of anyone, but thank you for your concern.

However, I am actually at this event and would be delighted to answer any questions.

[Liz@thisfullhouse]

I appreciate your post. However, as a mom blogger at the Nestle event, I'll be happy to answer any questions or concerns and personally give you my thoughts on the event. Thanks.

[Ann Douglas]

Thanks for all the comments -- and for the respectful tone in which they are all written. I really appreciate that.

I'm going to take them from the top (and visit any links you have provided while I respond to them, so that I am able to benefit from all of the information that you have provided).

I'm just back in the door from an after-school bonfire at my son's school, so I've been off-line for a few hours.

I'm posting this right now, so you'll know I'm on the case, even if it takes me a while to get to your comment. (I hate waiting when I'm waiting for a response. Maybe you do, too.)

Ann

http://www.twitter.com/anndouglas
http://www.twitter.com/themotherofall

[Ann D]

BATCH ONE OF RESPONSES. MORE TO COME.....

kgirl - Thanks very much for your comment.

Steph - The past few days must have been very stressful/awkward for you. I appreciate you sharing your experience so openly so that there's additional factual information on the public record -- about what Nestle knew and when.

Julia - You and I are definitely on the same page. Agree 100%.

Mike - Thank you for your comments and the additional link you provided. It is very frustrating to try to convey your message when the other party refuses to engage in debate -- or even answer a straight-forward question. (@ilauredhel was continuing to have difficulty obtaining answers to factual questions tweeted to the @nestlefamily Twitter account today -- the communication channel that Nestle's SVP specifically asked bloggers to use.)

Patte - The "family" connotation certainly doesn't ring true for me in this case. And as for "family values" -- those are loaded words now, for sure.

Beth - Thank you. And I agree. We have to take responsibility for our own choices.

Karen - Thank you for raising this really important point: "There are numerous other unethical practices that people were discussing, and the fact that people are trying to make this a lactivist vs. formula battle seemed very frustrating to the anti-Nestle side." I saw tweets about all kinds of other unethical practices, but didn't have a chance to research them. (Earlier today, someone posted a link to a website that seemed to have additional info about some/all, but I didn't have a chance to assess the credibility of that website; the authenticity of the sources/data; etc.) Your second paragraph also contains two other really important points: this issue isn't going to go away until Nestle resolves it. And the defense of the hashtag was odd, to say the least. (Retiring the hashtag might not have been a bad idea.)

http://www.twitter.com/anndouglas
http://www.twitter.com/themotherofall

[Ann D]

BATCH TWO OF COMMENT RESPONSES....

Danigirl - Thanks for your comment - and for being so sensible. :-) (PS - Great discussion on your blog re: H1N1.)

Deb on the Rocks - Very useful comment re: the summertime Stouffers event. I had forgotten about that event nor had I made the connection that Stouffers is a Nestle's brand. What a brilliant point to bring forth for the public record.

Busy Mom + Liz of This Full House: Thank you very much for dropping by to let us know that you are at the conference and that you're happy to tackle any questions. Just to clarify, could you please explain which Nestle-related questions should go to you and which questions should go to @nestlefamily? Yesterday, Nestle's SVP redirected questions/concerns to the @nestlefamily account (in an effort to halt some of the highly personal attacks which bloggers were being subjected to). Thanks.

http://www.twitter.com/anndouglas
http://www.twitter.com/themotherofall

[Haley-O (Cheaty)]

Great post, Ann. I've found the whole situation fascinating on so many levels. And I quite enjoyed watching as the Nestle controversy became exposed more than ever.

[Amber Strocel]

I am really sort of flabbergasted that a company like Nestle wasn't more proactive on this one. From my perspective, they didn't do their research. If they wanted to consult with social media experts I understand that, but doing it in such a high-profile way without any sort of prior engagement seems foolish. You can't control this conversation, and you especially can't control it after the fact.

I think that personal attacks against others are inappropriate regardless of who is making them. I am sorry that happened, it's not OK. It's also not appropriate to use unpaid bloggers as your PR machine, leaving them to deal with the fallout. I think that's the big problem - Nestle should have been there from the get-go or even before, taking its own hits. This whole debacle has left me with a very negative opinion of Nestle, even more so than I held already.

[twitter.com/NestleFamily]

Ann, I wanted to respond to a few of the comments on your blog about the Nestlé Family conference. It was never our intention to have our guest bloggers function as “unpaid brand representatives” for Nestlé as stated in your post. The women and men who attended our event are thoughtful, intelligent bloggers and would have never agreed to that. Nor would we have wanted them to.

I accept your criticism that we jumped in late. In retrospect, I wished that we had responded sooner and not allowed our bloggers to be subjected to criticism. We asked the bloggers to stop attacking our guests, and direct their questions and comments to us. We have attempted to respond to as many factual and thoughtful inquiries as we can on Twitter, recognizing that this is not the ideal communications forum for these questions and conversations.

I also wanted to address one of your reader’s comment about the Stouffer’s event. We never intended to “experiment with bloggers” as buffers between the Nestlé name and the public. That is simply not true. We did hold a Stouffer’s event earlier this year.

We learned a lot through this experience and look forward to continuing the dialogue.

Edie, on behalf of Nestlé Family

[John]

Not too many big companies on the planet, and none bigger con artists, than Nestle. You're all being had.

[Michelle @ doudoubebe.com]

Thanks for the summary, Ann. It will be interesting to see what the bloggers who attended the event chose to do with what they saw and have no doubt learned about Nestle and their practices. I've certainly spoken to several parents for whom this was a very revealing discussion - and I'm hoping that trend continues.

[Ann Douglas]

Just wanted to let you know that I've just logged on after being offline for a couple of days (a long weekend at the cottage with the family, unplugged!) Catching up on comments now.

[Ann Douglas]

Haley: Fascinating, for sure (and pretty appalling, too). As Meagan Francis noted on Twitter on Friday

MeaganFrancis suddenly #motrinmoms looks like a nice little chat over tea. #nestlefamily

I found it disturbing to see moms getting into such a hateful war of words with one another in order to defend a corporation.

[Ann Douglas]

Amber: Your comments are very sensible. I agree with them 100%.

Edie from NestleFamily: It may not have been your intention to have your guest bloggers responding to the PR disaster as it unfolded, but that's what happened. Whether they agreed to do this or not ahead of time is a moot point. This was the direct result of your responding late - an error you acknowledge in your comment above. I am unable to follow your point re: Stouffers.

John: The parenting community is diverse and holds a variety of different opinions on any issue. When you say, "You're all being had" you indicate that you fail to grasp that very important point.

Michelle: I agree. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the days ahead. I will certainly be keeping tabs on the situation and I know you and many others will, too.

[Jayne Wagman]

Although I personally deplore most large corporations, and their machinations to control the hearts and minds of consumers, I am really uncomfortable with much of the tone of comments being made here. The breastmilk vs. infant formula issue has been a sad and vicious spectacle for years. Holier than thou mothers have wreaked far more damage in this regard than Nestle. I am a mother of three, and do not use Nestle products. However, I am constantly amazed at how vitriolic many mothers are towards other mothers who opt for different choices for their children. A lot of the emotion that has been put into this debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nestle at all.

[Ann Douglas]

Jayne - Thanks very much for your comment. I really appreciate it. I hate to see anything cause this kind of friction between mothers. That's why I wrote this post in the first place: to highlight the damage that can be done to relationships between mothers if a corporation doesn't proceed within extreme caution when it's heading into extremely sensitive/volatile territory.