Toy Industry PR Needs to Get the Lead Out
Poor Elmo, Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Dora. Among other popular Fisher Price toddler toys, they were the victims of lead tainted paint at a Chinese manufactory to the tune of a $28.8 million charge for some 1 million-plus recalled items. Then, they were lambasted by more than 10,000 stories in the press linking Mattel to potentially hazardous toys.
What’s Mattel to do but issue a statement claiming that it “believes it has some of the most rigorous quality and safety testing procedures in the toy industry,” and posting a notice on its home page? Well, in that case…I feel so much better, right?
To get the word out about the toxic toys, Mattel relied on the news media, which was already swarming. They put out a press release:
“El Segundo, CA–Mattel Issues Safety Alert to Consumers August 2, 2007–Mattel, Inc. announced today that the company has voluntarily recalled some products made by a contract manufacturer in China that were produced using a non-approved paint pigment containing lead, which is in violation of applicable standards, as well as our own self-imposed standards. Mattel is conducting a thorough investigation.”
… and a non-hysterical notice on the home page of the
Mattel website.
While branding experts have been quoted as saying that, “a million products, so in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that significant,” and others have added of the recall, “the early signs look very good… Mattel has been very transparent.”
Hmmm. I think that depends on which end of the telescope one looks through, and whether the toy maker’s public relations folks are even a position to take a look through that scope. Remember, the consumer owns the brand and we are rapidly moving into the era of corporate social responsibility. Even toy manufacturers need to learn to play the game.
Of course, Mattel is not the only U.S. company recently to be literally poisoned by the Chinese so let’s blame it on those unscrupulous, corrupt contract companies (50 of which Mattel employed). But that doesn’t really let Mattel off the responsibility hook, especially as this is the toy maker’s 17th recall in 10 years.
The problem is both a quality control issue, and a public relations issue. It is natural for companies to seek the lowest cost suppliers to enhance shareholder value. But those days are rapidly waning, as companies see the need to take the high ground and champion their customers’ rights when it comes to safely, efficacy and sustainability.
Sure, Mattel thought it had “rigorous” quality control systems in place. But even with its “independent audits” it fell to a European retailer to discover the lead paint. Obviously, more needs to be done to contractually require suppliers to use certified materials. One must take actions to preclude such events, even if that means testing its own products on-site.
But the key in this emerging age of consumer contract is a new form of social contract, actually a corporate contact with customers that clearly sets out the full process from raw material sourcing to manufacturing to shipping, product guarantees and appropriate usage, etc. If a company hopes to foster consumer loyalty, it must enter into a partnership with their customer constituency and treat them as a co-equal, not just as the revenue source.
Len Stein is president of Visibility Public Relations
