Are U.S. politics harming the Zippo brand?

Another interesting branding issue was just raised as a result of the U.S. presidential election.

In a news story that has been widely reported in the media (see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39816), a new book that is coming out critically against Senator John Kerry states:

“During the Vietnam War, a searing image in the anti-war movement was one of American GIs torching huts with cigarette lighters. It turns out, according to "Unfit for Command," that Kerry did just that – entering an abandoned Vietnamese village, slaughtering domestic animals and burning down their homes with his Zippo lighter.”

Let’s forget about politics here but consider the Zippo brand.

Does such an image associated with the Zippo brand harm the brand’s image? Should Zippo, the company, respond in any way? What lessons can branders learn when their brand(s) encounter negative press?

When I first heard the story, my first reaction was to think that mentioning the Zippo brand by name is not relevant to the story. I also thought how unfortunate it is for Zippo to be getting this type of attention—attention that it might not want. Upon some reflection I now feel that the Zippo brand is not being harmed by the story. Getting negative press about your brand in such a manner does not always do damage to your brand.

Zippo is no more responsible for the actions of its users than gun manufacturers are for the criminals who use guns to commit crimes or SUV manufacturers are for reckless drivers who operate their vehicles. The real crime here is reporting such stories using brand names when doing so is not necessary and the brand is, in fact, materially irrelevant to the story. Consumers are wise enough to know that such brands are not responsible for the actions of their users and, in fact, the attention these brands get may not be negative at all. In this case, the Zippo brand might actually be helped because, in essence, it is getting free media attention.

A while back I was interviewed by a USAToday reporter doing a story on the Zippo company. The reporter was looking to get some perspective on the Zippo brand. In the USAToday story, Zippo was presented as having universal appeal and as being recognized around the world. As such, “Zippo” is almost a perfect substitute for “cigarette lighter” in the recent story so no ill was intended toward the Zippo brand itself.

But the question remains. The story itself has nothing to do with the Zippo brand and mentioning it by name is not critical to the story. So why report it?

-Dave

After writing these comments on my blog, I contacted Patrick Grandy, Marketing Communications Manager for Zippo, who told me that yes, Zippo indeed is concerned with the recent media attention surrounding the story. While he reiterated to me that the lighters were not intended for such purposes, he went on to say,

"We would much rather that the press focus on the positive aspects of the lighter during wartime. These include deflecting bullets while in a GI's pockets (our archives contains many stories of this happening -- and we even have some sample lighters with the bullets still in them). Zippo lighters were also used as signals to rescue soldiers in lifeboats. There are other positive occasions when the lighters were used in wars."

Great comments and great stories.

Couldn't Zippo be more proactive getting such stories out there to enhance its brand? It seems to me they could capitalize on the the media exposure they are currently getting to tell the stories of lives being saved. I for one am happy to tell the story because I think it is a good one.

There is a lesson to be learned here.

Although we can't always control the publicity our brands receive, we should always be ready to respond to negative press with positive stories or evidence that refutes or neutralizes such negative attention. "Damage control" is very much a part of brand management.