The J.C. Penney Closeout

J.C. Penney has ousted CEO Ron Johnson and reinstated his predecessor, Myron “Mike” Ullman. “Disaster” and “debacle” are keywords tied to the retailer’s name (more about public relations in a moment.) J.C. Penney’s precipitous sales decline offers insight into several major components of marketing.

Sales Promotion: Much has been made of Ron Johnson terminating JCP’s coupons and sales, only to backtrack after customer and investor complaints and falling revenue. Such marketing tactics come under the category of “sales promotion,” short-term inducements to prompt immediate purchasing decisions. Lowering prices is a classic and prevalent form of sales promotion. Noted marketing consultant and author Laura Ries likens it to drug use, citing addictiveness and peer pressure inherent in the practice–customers getting hooked and needing more to be satisfied, marketers all discounting because “everyone else is doing it.”

Ron Johnson obviously held a similar philosophy, believing as Ries does that coupons undermine branding, causing customers to focus more on the discount than the brand and instilling the belief that the regular prices are too high. Like it or not, JCP’s customer base expects professed deals, evidenced by their abandonment of the chain when Johnson turned off the sales promotion spigot. There was nothing to fill the void, neither new types of customers nor new motivations for old customers to return.

Public Relations: During the Johnson era, JCP was often in the news but rarely in a good way. Johnson was a superstar executive lured from the Apple Stores, which have been long heralded as the epitome of retail with the industry’s highest sales per square foot. In his previous stint at Target, Johnson introduced products by designer Michael Graves, cementing that chain’s “cheap chic” positioning.

The bad PR mounted as sales plummeted, a natural consequence of Johnson and JCP both being so prominent. The causality of ceasing the chain’s traditional sales promotion was a recurring media theme. Reports of mass layoffs signaled desperation and callousness. The New York Post–never known to shy from controversy–ran an exclusive on Johnson and his executive team spending lavishly on offices, travel and perks.

JCP’s media missteps crystallized in its court fight with Macy’s over Martha Stewart. Macy’s claimed exclusivity on Stewart’s wares per agreement. Stewart and JCP countered that Macy’s contract allowed Stewart to sell branded goods in standalone stores, and that JCP’s stores-within-a-store concept met the definition. To the casual observer, JCP’s argument was shaky as was Stewart’s rationale that $300 million in annual sales at Macy’s was disappointing, prompting her to seek the additional deal with J.C. Penney. In the latest development, the judge has ruled that JCP can sell products that are designed by Stewart but do not carry her name. (I can see the salesperson now: “Psst, don’t tell anyone but Martha Stewart created this spatula.”)

Research: Good marketing stands on a foundation of research. By his own admission, Johnson failed to build this foundation. He did not test many of the concepts for eliminating sales promotion and creating stores-within-a-store. A large chain like JCP has the luxury of using select stores in key markets as laboratories for new marketing programs before launching them nationwide. Johnson squandered this opportunity. He also paid limited attention to the demographics and psychographics of his existing customer base. Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports that commanding percentages of JCP’s core customers are over 55 and earn less than $35,000 per year, making them more price sensitive and therefore favorably disposed to the company’s sales promotions.

It is not a crime to target new market segments, in the process turning away from less profitable and less sustainable segments. General Motors’ decline was due in no small part to its refusal to build cars that would appeal to younger drivers lest it alienate its older-skewing customers. Nevertheless, when targeting new segments, there must be a transition to ensure revenue. Customers must be replaced in real time, and this is often a gradual process. Netflix failed to research customer reaction and stumbled badly in its abrupt and aborted attempt to phase out its signature DVD-by-mail services in favor of streaming video.

Positioning: Johnson sought to reposition J.C. Penney as he had Target. The “cool but inexpensive” mystique of Target was unlikely yet unquestionably successful. However, Johnson’s achievements at Target and later at the Apple Store hinged on the first “P” of marketing: Product. The exclusive goods of Michael Graves and the designers who followed him to Target have been fun, practical and affordable. The originality and allure of Apple’s creations are legendary. Positioning begins with a strong, viable offering.

Johnson had no such card to play at JCP, despite recruiting Martha Stewart (painfully) and his original muse Michael Graves. “Coming soon” is the frequently seen signage for the celebrity designers’ stores-within-a-store. “Coming never” may be the final post as returning CEO Ullman is suspending the mini-stores.

To understand positioning, refer once again to Laura Ries, who cites the work of her father, Al Ries, co-author of the landmark book, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. Despite the unique products at Target and the Apple Stores and the lack thereof at J.C. Penney, positioning is not something done to a product. It is not something decided by a company or its marketing team. Positioning is up to the customer. Marketers must work to establish, maintain, and when necessary change positioning, but it resides firmly in the customer’s mind. In the end, JCP remained “the place you go when they’re having a sale.” When the sales stopped, so did the customers.

Posted in Bad PR Examples, Marketing, Public Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Johnson & Johnson: Tarnishing the PR Gold Standard

The New York Times recently ran a piece on the smears and ostracism used to keep doctors from reporting faulty products, focusing on Johnson & Johnson and the lawsuits over its hip implant, the A.S.R. This report prompted me to repost a piece I wrote on J&J in 2010 marking its fall from grace.

Johnson & Johnson: Tarnishing the PR Gold Standard

Originally Posted May 10, 2010

Amid the multiple crises filling the media and PR blogs–BP and Goldman Sachs primary among them–one is particularly dismaying because it involves the company routinely lauded for setting the PR gold standard: Johnson & Johnson.

The company has recalled a broad range of over-the-counter children medicines due to contamination and/or excessive amounts of active ingredients. Compounding the issue is Johnson & Johnson’s slow response to acknowledge and correct problems. Per media accounts, the FDA has issued a “scathing” report on conditions at the J&J factory that produced the recalled products. As reported, the FDA met with the company in February to voice concerns and consumers had been complaining about dark specks found in medicines since April 2009.

This delayed reaction contrasts sharply with J&J’s bold steps in 1982 during the Tylenol tampering crisis. Several people died when they took Tylenol capsules that had been laced with cyanide. As the parent company of Tylenol manufacturer McNeil Consumer Products, Johnson & Johnson acted swiftly and took primary responsibility for the incident, even though it was quickly determined that no employees had caused the poisonings. The company recalled all products in question at a cost of $100 million, suspended Tylenol advertising, and ultimately redesigned the pills and packaging to deter future tampering. In his book Trust or Consequences, PR legend Al Golin cites J&J’s openness and honesty which protected the company’s reputation and Tylenol sales.

The latest commentary on J&J’s current crisis shows the company’s stock price holding steady and its reputation not suffering significant damage. Advertising Age describes “the halo” above J&J derived from its 1982 crisis management. However, the article chronicles the company’s growing list of woes encompassing product recalls and government investigations. It also mentions a thread on a pharmaceutical industry message board entitled “The Credo is Dead,” filled with observations that J&J is ignoring guiding principles set by former chairman Robert Wood Johnson nearly 70 years ago.

It’s true that J&J’s past achievements buoy today’s troubled organization. In PRNews, I comment on a similar state of affairs for Toyota (subscription required). The title of the article,” Toyota’s ‘Trust Bank’ Is Open for Business,” harkens to my reference of Al Golin’s “trust bank,” the reservoir of good will companies can tap during tough times if they have consistently done the right thing up to that point. Like Toyota, Johnson & Johnson is currently withdrawing from its trust bank. Thanks to the actions of giants in the past, the current J&J regime may be able to ride out their crises. What a shame they do so at the expense of the PR gold standard.

Posted in Bad PR Examples, Public Relations | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Dope on Lance

Oprah Winfrey has conducted a two-part television interview with Lance Armstrong, in which the world-famous athlete admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career including his historic seven victories in the Tour de France. Armstrong made a de facto confession when he failed to challenge the findings of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) that he consistently doped and led a program of drug use and cover-up among his teammates and staff.

Armstrong joins a special tier of public figures whose transgressions are known well before they admit them, whose fruitless denials run up to the inevitable confession. Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was commonly accepted despite his interpretation of the term “sexual relations.” John Edwards’ paternity of Frances Quinn Hunter was never in doubt to most of the public despite his elaborate campaign to conceal it.

Public relations is dedicated to mutual understanding and truthful communication between organizations and their publics. Individuals in sports, politics and entertainment are institutionalized and branded, hence their reliance on public relations the same as corporations. Public relations is dedicated to guiding actions that will maintain a connection of trust with publics. In short, it is bidirectional, a two-way street.

Lance Armstrong, like Clinton and Edwards, made his connection unidirectional, obscuring what was occurring at the source, controlling the message, blocking feedback. This behavior ignores the most basic communication models I teach in my courses. It violates the principles of public relations. It destroys reputation and brand equity, and it devalues any good works of the transgressor.

Did Armstrong finally show good PR sense with the confessional interview? Good public relations is not an academic exercise. It is not about a single interview. It is about long-term actions and planning for positive outcomes.

The most realistic outcome that Armstrong could anticipate is a reduction in his lifetime ban from sanctioned sporting events. He confirmed this desire by declaring his punishment too harsh and citing the leniency shown riders who testified against him. It is highly questionable how fans or the sports themselves would benefit from Armstrong’s future competition. As stated above, public relations must focus on the publics.

The second most realistic outcome is survival and stability for LIVESTRONG, the cancer foundation established by Armstrong. His interview with Winfrey served as a public apology to LIVESTRONG and its community, confirmation that he has stepped away from the foundation, and an appeal for its continued support. In this case, publics can foresee tangible good if LIVESTRONG stays viable.

Did Armstrong do a good job in the interview? Again, public relations is not about the immediate. With the damage done and bleak future ahead, there is no way this interview could be “good.” As did Clinton and Edwards, Armstrong fostered a certain fascination with a grossly belated “coming clean.” However, the confession was incomplete and laced with qualifiers.

Armstrong refused to admit the pivotal revelation by Betsy Andreu, wife of teammate Frankie Andreu, that she overhead Armstrong admit to doctors in 1996 that he used performance enhancing drugs. In turn, he tried to mitigate his years of attacks on the Andreus by acknowledging two derogatory terms he used to describe Mrs. Andreu but denying that he called her “fat.” Armstrong’s parsing was also seen in a truncated definition of “cheating,” recalling Bill Clinton’s tortured word play during his scandal. He further parsed by disputing USADA’s description of his illicit drug program as the most sophisticated ever, invoking East Germany’s sports doping as more vast.

While Armstrong took responsibility for his actions, he portrayed himself as simply another member of a warped culture, the entirety of professional cycling where doping was as common as filling tires with air and sport bottles with water. This conclusion sadly mimics the Catholic Church’s blame-evading report that attributes priest pedophilia to cultural changes in the 1960s and 1970s. Blaming culture, even indirectly, creates a convenient villain–a superhuman, amorphous entity bending wills, all the time impossible to interview, subpoena or jail.

I teach about culture and its effects in my communication and marketing courses. Its presence and power are undeniable. But even when someone is born into an ethnic or religious culture, adherence to its values is voluntary. Lance Armstrong did not get caught up in cycling’s culture. He simply got caught.

Posted in Bad PR Examples, Marketing, Public Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment