Nikon’s antisocial media relations at BlogHer ’09
Posted on 07/25/2009 08:47 am by kagranju
Before you read my blog post: Since writing this post this morning, I’ve read some comments on Twitter and on blogs complaining about “misguided outrage” related to this story. But as someone who has been observing the online conversation evolve over the past 24 hours, I don’t see any “outrage” about the whole thing at all. What I have seen since I first blogged about this early in the day on Saturday is a limited amount of fairly mild critical commentary from those who simply believe Nikon handled this wrong. Some of the criticism is from the perspective of mom-consumers, but in my own case, I was really interested in it primarily as a mini case study in how brands can do a better job at creating relationships with niche online communities, and that’s the way I offered my views.
So let me reiterate what I said in my original post; just because I think Nikon fumbled this one in terms of PR, I am in no way suggesting that anyone avoid buying Nikon’s products, and I am certainly not saying that Nikon meant any harm, or that anyone was harmed. My point was very limited in scope, and it addressed only one thing – my opinion that Nikon bungled the planning and execution of this single promotional event for bloggers. In my view, any time a corporate party host ends up having to literally turn away one or more of its INVITED media guests, there has been a planning misfire somewhere. And when you do it at the premiere national event for women bloggers, that misfire is going to give that corporate party host some degree of negative viral conversation, which is something no company wants. Certainly, some may disagree with my assessment that Nikon should have handled this differently in order to achieve better return on their investment in this promotional event, but please don’t mischaracterize my tone or intent in expressing my take on the matter. Thanks – Katie
——————————————–
I’ve blogged previously about how brands and PR agencies continue to struggle with how to effectively connect with the mombloggers whose audience and influence they want to tap into. The most common bungle is a poorly targeted or badly executed pitch, along the lines of the one I got recently from a marketing firm who emailed me (ME!!!) to ask if I’d be interested in promoting infant formula on this blog.
But last night, at the big BlogHer conference in Chicago, where many of the world’s best-known and most-read mombloggers are meeting up, and where many big brands are vying for the bloggers’ attention with parties and swag, Nikon offered up a wholly new kind of mom-related PR bungle. It seems that several women attending the conference were literally turned away from the Nikon party to which they had been invited. Why? Because the restaurant at which Nikon decided to hold the party has a “no babies allowed” policy, and these invited bloggers had the nerve to actually show up with babes in arms. Nikon’s people even declined to let at least one of these baby-totin’ bloggers so much as get into the limo that the brand had sent over to the BlogHer hotel to pick up their “guests.”
So to recap, Nikon held an invitation-only, evening event to promote their brand to, and curry favor with high-influence MOMMYbloggers, but then the brand’s event planners literally disallowed women with babies from attending, even though the whole point of Nikon’s party was to make friends with the bloggers and encourage them to promote Nikon products. When planning their party, did Nikon maybe think that BlogHer was actually a conference for 62-year old male bloggers who mostly write about the stock market? Because to be sure, those guys wouldn’t likely have babies with them, or need/want to bring them to a party. But mombloggers? Women who blog about their babies for their readers who have babies? Uh, yeah. Some of these women are pretty likely to have babies on board. Duh.
It would have been ill-advised enough had Nikon simply suggested to invitees that they leave their babies behind (you know, maybe back at the hotel bar, tossing back a few cosmopolitans with the other babies whom Nikon shut out). But Nikon took it a step further and actually refused to let women into the limo and party if they showed up with a baby.
Because Nikon’s PR firm, or maybe their own internal marketing staff made this careless mistake, the promotional money Nikon spent on that event, and on BlogHer in general may have bought them instead a growing buzz of negative viral conversation about Nikon, spiraling out from the very group of high-influence mombloggers they were trying to impress with the fancy party and swag. Not only did the brand fail to gain any goodwill with these important mombloggers, the “No Babies Allowed” incident is now gaining an online audience this morning, as BlogHer attendees Tweet about it, and the huge audience of women who read them begin re-tweeting and blogging it. There is even a new Twitter hashtag since last night, devoted entirely to discussion of Nikon’s baby-banning ways. It’s #NikonHatesBabies. (NOTE: to clarify, the blogger who started the #NikonHatesBabies hashtag says in the comments below this post that she actually meant it as a tongue in cheek thing, but then other Twitterers took it and ran with it. From the perspective of Nikon’s PR efforts, the second part of that series of events is the one that really matters.)
Let me be clear that I am not trying to paint Nikon as some sort of corporate bad guy. I’m not suggesting that anyone avoid their products or badmouth the brand, and I have no idea whether Nikon is or is not a company that in general does a good job supporting family-friendly events and promotions. However, I am saying that the single example of the brand’s social media outreach efforts that I’m criticizing was very badly planned and executed. Period. Maybe it was a one-off mistake -albeit a very public one – but if I ran Nikon’s PR efforts, I’d be asking some questions today.
If I had been in charge of planning Nikon’s BlogHer event, it would have been held at a restaurant that not only allows babies, but welcomes them. Because, really, telling moms – whom you have only invited in the first place so you can try to get them to say nice things about you – that they can’t bring their babies with them isn’t very social at all.
Addendum: in the comments below, a very good point is made (one I should have addressed in my post), and that is that, as both an event and a company, BlogHer is VERY baby-friendly and mother-friendly. The very progressive, smart women who run BlogHer should not in any way be tied to the Nikon flub.
As the commenter astutely notes:
“BlogHer’s conference is both very baby-friendly and inclusive. The conference offers a lactation lounge and childcare, and last year one of the panelists breastfed while speaking on her panel. What a company chooses to do off-site is NOT representative of the conference on the whole, and I hope Nikon’s mistake isn’t viewed as BlogHer’s mistake.”
Of course, the fact that Nikon’s event was held within the context of a conference that IS so explicitly and proactively welcoming of women with babies and children who want to attend and participate makes Nikon’s PR screw-up even more difficult to figure out.
07/25/2009 at 9:51 am
I stumbled on this article when I was following the #blogher thread on Twitter. It’s a shame really that a company that makes it’s millions off of many of us (although I use a canon) can be so disconnected to their potential client. Can you imagine what would have happened if they did allow the babies and then some of the moms actually started breastfeeding during the event? I bet they would have handled that even worse. I think perhaps they need a mom as their PR consultant in the future. Thanks for the story and a little chuckle this morning.
07/25/2009 at 9:51 am
That is insane that they turned moms with babies away. You are right though, it was just planning oversight I am sure. Still reflects badly on the company though and was a VERY bad mistake to make.
You know I was debating going to blogher, you see I’ve got a 1 month old. She’s my first baby and I was worried that having her in tow would be a problem at the conference. Leaving her at home wasn’t an option though since I am breastfeeding. Anyway, I decided to skip the conference this year for financial reasons and also for her sake.
It’s sad that the choice has to be made at all but it is reality right now.
07/25/2009 at 11:01 am
This restaurant turned babies away. They can do that. If I was paying a lot of money for a dinner out in Chicago I wouldn’t want a room full of babies next door – sorry. The crying, running toddlers? Your choice to bring them to a conference, absolutely. More power to you. But if you want respect perhaps you should consider others as well as believing you should be considered.
Was this a private room? Was Nikon aware of this before hand? It’s a new world, ladies, give the sponsor — from whom you probably received lots of free goodies — a break.
And, I’m a mom. And a blogger. I have stayed away from promotions and BlogHer because of the prevalent entitlement issues of so many mom bloggers.
07/25/2009 at 11:08 am
So well put! So many companies are jumping on the social media bandwagon without a knowledge of those they are targeting. I also get so many careless pitches that even forget to include my name and leave in “Dear [insert name of mommy blogger]“.
07/25/2009 at 11:15 am
@Amy
I really think you have the context wrong here with regard to your opinion.
Nikon INVITED these women. The bloggers didn’t ASK for anything at all. In fact, Nikon was asking for something from them: access to these women’s large blog audiences, which are valuable.
And Nikon held the party within the context of an event (BlogHer) which is very publicly and explicitly designed to welcome women to attend with babies.
Women with babies and young children are given respect at BlogHer because the event is set up that way. The women who were turned away weren’t disrespecting some sort of set of rules or code of conduct; Nikon was the one who was disrespectful in not observing the BlogHer rules (I actually suspect Nikon didn’t even know or understand the rules).
-katie
-Katie
07/25/2009 at 11:16 am
@Amy – One more thing: Nikon chose the restaurant. They chose one that literally does not allow babies. Nikon is completely responsible for the rudeness shown to its invited guest bloggers, not the restaurant.
-Katie
07/25/2009 at 11:20 am
To clarify, BlogHer’s conference is both very baby-friendly and inclusive. The conference offers a lactation lounge and childcare, and last year one of the panelists breastfed * while speaking on her panel*. What a company chooses to do off-site is NOT representative of the conference on the whole, and I hope Nikon’s mistake isn’t viewed as BlogHer’s mistake.
I hope Amy will consider attending next year with her 13- month old. I’ll be there with mine!
07/25/2009 at 11:22 am
@Kristy – I think this is an excellent point and I’m going to add it to my post right now as an addendum.
Thanks-
Katie
07/25/2009 at 11:32 am
BlogHer is a wonderful place to bring babies or infants but it is possible that many of the marketing experts at nikon thought that moms would not bring babies to a cocktail party, hence the location.
Yes, HUGE oversight on Nikon’s part but in the”real” world moms don’t always do this…they often get sitters (and yes, if was offsight and not representative of BlogHer). Perhaps BlogHer can look into providing this service for next year so that moms could get a break if they want it?
07/25/2009 at 11:46 am
My babies went with me everywhere for the first year of their lives. It was rarely a problem and there wasn’t a lot of “screaming and crying” because I was a human bottle/pacifier/bed/swing. Parents understand that babies are portable. OTOH – when I was invited to parties, restaurants, meetings or events, I ALWAYS gave the host the option out by saying that I had a baby who would have to be with me. I don’t think anyone needs to be fired over bungled communication. Nikon knows they messed up.
07/25/2009 at 11:47 am
I was very surprised to hear this. Obviously Nikon did not do their research when planning this event!
Nell
07/25/2009 at 11:52 am
Cathy – I think the clear difference here is context. I don’t take Charlotte to business meetings or to dinner events that are clearly not for children. If I did without asking, that would be rude.
But the Nikon event was planned as part of a conference that’s all about women bringing their babies along, to all of it. And at the very least, if Nikon really did want to hold a child-free event, which they certainly would have had the right to do (even if it would have seemed silly as part of BlogHer), they should have had the courtesy to let the women they INVITED to their party know that children were explicitly not welcome.
But I don’t think Nikon thought about any of this at all one way or the other when planning it. It was poor research and planning and execution all the way around, and at a major media event like BlogHer, that equals a big PR bungle.
-Katie
07/25/2009 at 12:35 pm
I’m hesitant to say this, but I don’t think Nikon made such a huge mistake. I’m a mom of 3. I nursed the first year for each. I took my babies almost everywhere. I would NOT have taken them to a bar at night. I didn’t, and still wouldn’t, take them to adult only restaurants. I think there is a time and place for everything and not everything is the most appropriate choice for a person (mom or dad or other caregiver) who has an infant in tow. I think the conference itself is perfectly appropriate for babies to be at with their parents. I don’t have any issue seeing little ones at the sessions. I don’t get why anyone would subject their infant to being at a party full of alcohol and noise and chaos at 9pm or later. And if it really was important to attend such an event shouldn’t there be some onus on the mom to ask if it would be okay? Why is all the blame on Nikon?
07/25/2009 at 12:49 pm
I’m with Laurie. I don’t think Nikon’s mistake was so much choosing an adults-only restaurant, but in not making clear to invitees that it wasn’t a child-friendly party. Yes, they could have done more research–a lot more research–into the BlogHer culture and norms. But it’s called “BlogHer,” not “MomBlogHer.”
(And I’ve got kids that I traveled with and nursed well into toddlerhood, too.)
07/25/2009 at 1:13 pm
In my opinion, the problem was that assumptions are always being made.
Problem #1: The moms involved assumed that since the Nikon party was a BlogHer event, that the rules would be the same for that party as for the rest of the event. They weren’t.
Problem #2: The PR department involved assumed that since they had chosen their own venue and were throwing a cocktail party, that the moms involved would automatically make arrangements not to bring their kids. See problem #1.
I feel that if the PR department was “courting” the services/audiences of the bloggers in question, the smart thing to do would have been make the thing go as smoothly as possible for the attendees. Not that the attendees are entitled to being waited on hand and foot, but just that if you’re sucking up to someone, you might as well go all out, or defeat your purpose for sucking up to them in the first place.
07/25/2009 at 1:38 pm
I’m disappointed to hear that one of my favorite brands made bloggers feel uncomfortable and/or unwelcome this year at Blogher ’09. We can all go back and forth on whether babies should be in restaurants and exactly whose fault it is, but the point is that the company overlooked a very important aspect of the event they spent so much money for which ultimately will only hurt them. IT’s just sad because this whole thing could have been avoided in a number of ways!
07/25/2009 at 2:06 pm
@Amber–just to clarify, the party was at one portion of restaurant–the only people there were the invited guests, not diners hoping to eat in silence.
Whatever our personal feelings are about eating in the company of other people’s children, I think the point that Nikon made a bad PR move on this issue is clear.
07/25/2009 at 2:15 pm
Were the mothers with babies planning on using the limo with no car seats?
If so, it’s not surprising that Nikon told them they couldn’t board. What an insurance nightmare if there had been an accident.
Also, whatever happened to common courtesy? If you’re invited to an event, *you’re* invited. Not your children, husband, roommate, or dog. You’re supposed to mention, when you’re rsvp’ing, that you’re a nursing mother and can’t go if you can’t bring your child.
If the mothers in question had done that, none of this would have happened.
07/25/2009 at 2:20 pm
Putting on my flame-retardant suit here but I am a little embarrassed by what feels like a big misdirected pile-on. First of all, it was not at all a “mommyblogger” party. It was an adult cocktail party with a broad guest list including craft bloggers, photography bloggers, and design bloggers. Common etiquette would dictate that you ask whether it’s okay to bring your child to a cocktail party in a bar – where, by the way, there was a lot of expensive photographic equipment around.
If we want to be taken seriously and treated as professionals, we have to act like professionals. And sometimes having power and influence means knowing when not to wield it.
Maybe next time we can save our power and influence and #_____hatesbabies hashtags for restaurants that ban breastfeeding.
07/25/2009 at 2:48 pm
As an attendee of the Nikon function, I have to say that the party was very well thought out and executed very professionally. I was excited to be there and felt very welcomed by all parties.
The thing is, not every event planned during the same time frame is an active part of the BlogHer conference. I believe Nikon had the best intentions planning to hold a function for a limited number of women – not strictly limited to “mommybloggers”.
It’s disappointing to see that it’s assumed ‘mommybloggers’ were shunned by Nikon because of their children. Simply: children do not belong in some situations. As adults we should understand that and accept that.
On the flip side one could complain that it’s irresponsible of a mother for trying to take her child to a bar where it was obviously not a place for children. Not only was it a bar setting, but as Mom101 pointed out, there were numerous displays of very expensive camera equipment and limited space.
It can easily go both ways.
07/25/2009 at 3:06 pm
I was there when the baby was turned away, and it was the bar, not Nikon, because per their liquor licensing, they can’t have anyone under 21 there. Yes, even babies. It WAS a fail on Nikon’s part if they didn’t warn the mother before she got in the limo, but I’m pretty sure she actually took a cab over. I don’t think it should be expected that you can take your baby into a bar, when it’s in fact illegal to take your baby into a bar.
07/25/2009 at 3:09 pm
Mom 101 — I agree with all your excellent points and thoughtful phrasing.
07/25/2009 at 3:24 pm
I find the following assumptions very troubling from the feminist perspective: (1) Only mommybloggers attend BlogHer and were invited to this party. (2) “Mommybloggers” generally have only young children and (a) lack the sense to discern what’s an appropriate environment for them and (b) lack the courtesy to determine whether their children are invited to an evening cocktail party absent specific disinvitation. (3) Most obscene, bloggers who do not fit the description in (2) must be 62-year-old men.
I love my young child. I quit my professional job to stay home with him almost five years ago. I consider that a hell of a lot more valuable than whether I get to attend a cocktail party with him. But I am more than just a mom. I am a woman who has a child. I’m an adult, actually, and I try my best to act like one.
07/25/2009 at 3:45 pm
The comment above me and temptingmama’s comment speak volumes.
VOLUMES, people.
07/25/2009 at 3:55 pm
I feel compelled to respond since I was the mom with the baby who was turned away. First of all, I did make the (wrong) assumption that my 11 week old nursing son would be able to go with me to any event at BlogHer since it is such a mom-friendly conference.
I brought my carseat and was about to board the limo when I was told that babies were not welcome at the restaurant and couldn’t be accommodated. I turned to a handful of bloggers nearby and had a laugh about how “Nikon hates babies” and when I tweeted it I used the hashtag, which I meant to be over-the-top and funny.
I didn’t even realize this post existed and hadn’t been looking at the twitter stream or I would’ve responded earlier. Nikon saw it and then emailed me to come talk to them at their booth. They apologized and have let me know the wish they’d have let both of us moms know ahead of time.
07/25/2009 at 4:24 pm
Hey Esther, I was there when another mama (with a wee baby daughter) was turned away. Nikon apologized and allowed her to get some swag. I was proud of the way they tried to handle the situation. The staff understood it as a ‘teachable moment’ and they seemed genuinely apologetic.
Hope you had a good conference, anyway.
07/25/2009 at 4:27 pm
Esther, you’re a class act.
07/25/2009 at 6:30 pm
Hmmm….I wonder if Canon ever pulls this kind of crap.
Those big, white lenses look a little less silly now, eh?
07/25/2009 at 6:35 pm
This is funny, though I’m sure it wasn’t funny for the women who were turned away. How could Nikon blow it this badly?
As a 62 (almost) year old male blogger who writes mostly about the stock market, I will definitely recommend that Nikon stock is a Sell starting Monday.
And I suspect there are a few guys at Nikon HQ committing sepuku right about now.
07/25/2009 at 6:38 pm
This has nothing to do with understanding “new media” or bloggers or Twitter or whatever. Had Nikon’s PR done the same thing for a mom’s club in, say, 1985, their actions would have been just as stupid.
Which makes it doubly baffling/unforgivable.
07/25/2009 at 6:50 pm
The more I read about mommybloggers, the more I understand the spoiled brat kids at my daughter’s kindergarten.
07/25/2009 at 7:28 pm
MommyBloggers,
Try to show some class. What did Nikon learn from their mistake? Perhaps that MommyBloggers are nothing special. Where’s the mommy understanding, the mommy empathy, the mommy caring? Buried under a mountain of greed it would seem. The title of this blog entry says more about you than Nikon.
07/25/2009 at 7:31 pm
I’m a professional journalist who just returned from covering BlogHer (a very impressive event) and I have covered more conferences around the world than I can remember. And I have never seen babies at a conference before–I thought it was wonderful, and one of the babies is going to be in our tv piece. But I can hardly fault the PR firm for anticipating that mommies might want to bring their babies to a bar at 9pm. Is that a blunder, a gaffe, a mistake? Or is it just that they could not, having never seen this phenomenon before, have anticipated they’d face this issue? I incline toward the latter.
Any mom who feels slighted by this perfectly understandable oversight needs to, in my opinion, get over herself. I see a lot of “center of the universe mommies” in my elementary schoolyard; they do exist in abundance, and they are insufferable. But I didn’t see any at BlogHer; in fact, even the woman who was refused a limo ride said she was joking about it moments later. Now, SHE is the kind of mom whose blog I would read–a blogger with perspective and a sense of humor.
07/25/2009 at 7:55 pm
@Axel – I don’t really hear any mombloggers bashing Nikon or being broadly critical – and neither am I.
I’m saying one thing only: brands who want to gain the greatest benefit of tapping into the large momblogger readership should do the research so that they can make the most effective connections. Mombloggers get all kinds of clumsy pitches from brands all the time, and I see this as just another example.
While others may disagree, I think anyone who knows even a little bit about BlogHer would tell you that many of the mombloggers who participate DO have babies with them. So if you plan a party to which you invite BlogHer mombloggers, it would be smart to assume some of them will have babies along, and to plan for that.
No one is suggesting that Nikon is a bad company or that people shouldn’t buy Nikon products. No one is saying that anyone was harmed here. But I do believe this serves as yet another good example among many of a mishandled “pitch” to this niche audience. That was my point, and my only point. Anyone who feels the need to defend Nikon against some sort of large scale attack from angry mombloggers over this is tilting at windmills. This blog post was my opinion only, and it was about one specific promotional event that I believe could have been handled in a smarter way. Nothing more, nothing less.
Katie
07/25/2009 at 8:13 pm
You really should read this post: http://www.motherhooduncensored.net/motherhood_uncensored/2009/07/not-all-bloggers-are-like-that.html
If you dare, maybe it will knock some of you (Esther excepted – YOU rock, lady!) off of your insufferably high horses.
Geez
07/25/2009 at 8:28 pm
@Jane – I don’t hear any bloggers creating a “hate movement” as the Motherhood Uncensored post you link to suggests. I speak only for myself, not for any other bloggers, and all I am saying is that from a PR perspective, I believe it was handled poorly. And I do.
-Katie
07/25/2009 at 8:38 pm
Sure. You don’t read Twitter then?
http://twitter.com/#search?q=nikonhatesbabies
07/25/2009 at 8:52 pm
I am so very grateful I did not attend Blogher. Mommybloggers are certainly the least interesting people on the internet.
07/25/2009 at 8:56 pm
Disclaimer – I use a Canon
What a perfect social media storm on Nikon, I almost feel sorry for them… And since this posting is on Saturday, there probably won’t be a Nikon response till Monday.
07/25/2009 at 9:32 pm
Nikon messed this one up, plain and simple. If they planned a party at a conference where 5% of the attendees were known to be in wheelchairs, but the restaurant they chose to hold the party had very poor wheelchair access, this would be a mess up. If they planned a party for attendees at some major dog show at a park that didn’t allow pets, and then they turned away their own guests who showed up with their dogs, this would be a mess up. If they planned a party as part of a national gay rights convention, but held it in the basement of a local Mormon Church, this would be a mess up.
If I were attending a convention where I was told that it was absolutely okay to bring my nursing baby to all the events, I would assume that this meant all events. Nikon’s party might have been away from the conference hotel, but it was clearly advertised and promoted as part of BlogHer (here is an example – http://blogs.suite101.com/article.cfm/tide_nikon_bringing_big_names_to_blogher_09 ). So if I were there with my baby, at a conference where babies are welcomed absolutely everywhere as part of the conference culture, which is what I understand about BlogHer, and if Nikon invited me to their “BlogHer Party,” why the hell wouldn’t I assume I could bring my baby?
That assumption wouldn’t make me rude, unprofessional, thoughtless or any of the other things that have been slung at BlogHer participants who might have assumed based on pretty good evidence that their babies would be welcome. This idea that a woman with a baby on her hip can’t be just as grown-up and professional at a social event is sexist. I know several women who have attended BlogHer, often at great personal expense, in large part because it was that rare event where those of us with in-arms babies would be treated as equal competent women and where we didn’t have to stash our babies somewhere else in order to participate fully.
Maybe babies don’t belong in bars, but then again maybe a company trying to get women with babies to blog nice things about them should consider not holding their parties in bars. I am actually not upset with Nikon. I hope in the future they will be more thoughtful when they plan parties to make sure that they have created an environment where all the guests they invite can be comfortable and welcomed.
What bothers me more than anything Nikon did is reading all these comments from people esentialy saying that any woman who expects to be taken seriously better just check her baby at the door. I think that one reason many women are attracted to blogging is that it allows them to be both a mom and a selfemployed professional but what I am reading in these comments makes me ill.
07/25/2009 at 9:36 pm
My wife’s out at the conference, you may know her as Ms Picket from http://www.postpicketfence.com, she’s promoting the book she wrote with another blogger- http://bit.ly/49O6U
She snuck into this party through the back door. Literally. I don’t think she knew of the wht do you call it, prejudice?
Anyway, all i know is you don’t piss off the mom’s who blog. Trust me, it’ll show the next day.
07/25/2009 at 10:26 pm
BlogHer is run by progressive women? Thanks for the warning. You can put the word “inclusive” there all you want but we all know that when progressives say “inclusive” it’s code for “only those who agree with me.” You put progressive there as a standard and you’ve got to win me back. Not going to be easy.
07/26/2009 at 12:02 am
Just to be clear, I am not RRR
07/26/2009 at 12:02 am
Hmm, Nikon made my next camera buying decision easy for me! I have had Canon DSLR’s for several years and am trying to save my money for a big purchase. Thought I might venture over into Nikon territory. Nope, I shall stay with Canon. Way to go, Nikon! Sorry, but I have had 4 children and this was unacceptable to me. Don’t care who or what dropped the ball. I spend my money where my heart tells me to. Thank you very much.
07/26/2009 at 4:06 am
Oh please listen to yourselves.
Last time I checked Blogher was just that Blog HER. NOT Blog Mommy.
Just because you’re a Mum does NOT mean that you have to take your child absolutely everywhere with you. Just because you’re a Mum does not mean you get to have rules bent for you.
The invite was for the blogger NOT their partners, offspring, or their cousins friends sister’s aunt!!
Being a Mum does not mean that the world revolves around you or your blog….I was reading a blog the other day that stated that Mommy bloggers are some of the most hated in the blogosphere…I think I can now see why.
07/26/2009 at 7:29 am
Hmmm, no babies at a cocktail party. Sounds like something from Alabama. I would know.
Also, I thought it was mostly the US who had a general attitude of disrespect towards mothers. But as I see in an above comment, “Mums” are generally hated every where.
07/26/2009 at 7:38 am
I can personally attest since I was there at the time that Esther was a total class act and saw the humor in the situation. Her genuine responses to this have been the perfect example of the kind of person she is. Also, I spoke with the Nikon PR people that night about how wonderful the party was but that I was sad that a few of my friends were turned away from the restaurant after paying for a cab to get there and they Nikon people were incredibly nice about it and immediately said they should have put it in the invite but it was an oversight. Mistakes happen and I think all parties handled it well and were more than willing to take responsibility for any unintentional hurt. I’m proud that this didn’t turn into a horrible drama-filled thing and instead was quickly resolved by PR people who were quick to admit they are human and aren’t perfect, and bloggers who have done the same. I think it’s a learning experience for us all.
07/26/2009 at 8:27 am
I think this is ridiculous! If they didn’t want babies to be at their party, it should have been clearly stated. Then it wouldn’t have been an issue. If they were specifically targeting mommy bloggers, then they should have allowed for some of them to bring their babies. I view that as common sense, but many larger corporations are seriously lacking in this department. My wife (@Toni_GPB) went to BlogHer, but I took the week off work so I could stay home with our 7 and 2 year old children. Why wouldn’t you take a few days away from your children to enjoy yourself, meet in person people you have met online and to establish new contacts? Isn’t that what BlogHer is really about?
We will all see what kind of company Nikon truly is in how they handle this situation from this point forward. It isn’t too late for them too come out looking good, but the clock is ticking.
@royal_3
07/26/2009 at 9:06 am
As a single person who hasn’t had kids myself, I have to say that people with babies are almost as inconsiderate as smokers. You have become immune to the sound of your brat err kid screaming, crying, spitting up, etc. but it ruins other people’s enjoyment in public places. There is a time and place where it’s ok – the zoo, chuckie cheese, Wal-Mart, etc. but seriously, nobody cares about your offspring. spend a few bucks and get a babysitter and if you can’t afford it, don’t have kids.
07/26/2009 at 9:08 am
BTW, I hope you soccer moms go with Canon and leave Nikon for real photographers.
07/26/2009 at 9:32 am
How typical of the advertising industry to be this stupid. This is so fun to watch corporations flap in the wind as they behave the old way with new media outlets.
Advertising is now being led from the bottom up (from the people) Bloggers are in control.
Yeah!
07/26/2009 at 9:34 am
It’s unlikely this has anything to do with the client Nikon, this is the PR/Adverting agency that screwed up.
I hope they fire that Ad or PR firm!
07/26/2009 at 9:35 am
Katie, you try to minimize your denied outrage, but the URL for this post is (or was) “Nikon needs to fire somebody over this PR bungle.” That sounds kind of outrageous. Anything else changed? I really hate it when bloggers disappear published material.
07/26/2009 at 9:38 am
NIKON as a entity, a company did NOT screw up.
They pay millions of dollars to Ad agencies and PR firms, it’s the agency and the PR firm that screwed up.
07/26/2009 at 10:05 am
I have a young son so I know what having kids is like BUT…
#1 It is my understanding that you were not even at BlogHer
#2 Why are you toting a baby to an 11pm party?
#3 Did she have a car seat for that baby?
#4 It was ONE mom who was turned away from what I heard directly from Nikon
#5 They were in a room that had a certain number of people and it was already over capacity. Others were rejected to but DID NOT have children!
07/26/2009 at 10:11 am
@Jenny – I shortened the URL because it was very long, and when I posted it several places, I was having to use Tiny URL to shorten it so it wouldn’t be too unwieldy, or would fit in the space at all. If you doubt that this is the case (and even care that much, which I can’t imagine), see my Saturday morning Linked In mombloggers group post, as well as my Twitter post and Facebook post. They all had a Tiny URL version of that incredibly long URL. Later in the day, my husband showed me how to actually change the URL to an abreviated version in WordPress, which I hadn’t known was something I could even do to my individual posts. There was nothing more or less to this change than trying to make the URL shorter. No trying to “disappear” anything. Sheesh.
Additionally, I believe “outrage” is a patently absurd term to describe the tone or subject of my criticism in this matter. I work in public relations. I am a longtime momblogger. I happen to believe that whomever handled event planning for Nikon in this specific instance really bungled it. That’s not “outrage.” Given that I hold the opinion that this was a preventable PR bungle – and as I clearly say in my blog post above, making no bones about it – if I were the person who oversaw PR and social media outreach for Nikon, I’d be asking some very hard questions post-event about where the buck stops on this matter. I would consider it quite a serious on-the-job mistake for a PR professional, and I would want to find out how my team had failed to undertake the due diligence required to understand that mombloggers at BlogHer were likely to assume that babies were welcome at a BlogHer-related event to which we planned to invite them.
I can guarantee you that if I had been the person responsible for planning and executing an event this costly and public for a major corporate client of my employer, my job would be on the line if this had happened under my oversight. I would be – and should be – at risk of being fired from the account. Our agency would be at risk of losing the client altogether. Clients like Nikon pay a lot of money to agencies to make events like this go off without a hitch, and they certainly have a minimal expectation that no overtly **negative** buzz will be created via the investment they make in a big promotional event. In today’s economy, marketing dollars available for something like Nikon’s BlogHer party are very scarce. This is true for even the most recognizable, big brands in America. So at the moment, that party and everything that went into it represented an even more significant investment for Nikon.
I do get “outraged” sometimes. I frequently blog about political or social issues about which I am truly “outraged,” including things like lack of health care access for all Americans, racism, poverty, child abuse and sexual violence against women around the world.
My criticism over this single incident – offered within the context of an ongoing series of posts I’ve written recently regarding how brands can most effectively connect with niche online communities- in no way rises to the level of “outrage” – not in tone, delivery or focus. So if you are looking for some “outraged” call to consumer or activist action that you can legitimately criticize as misguided, excessive or unreasonable, you’re gonna have to look somewhere else. In fact, the only commentary rising to the level of “outrage” that I’ve seen in this whole discussion has come from those who are upset (to a degree I don’t quite understand) that anyone would dare suggest in even the mildest terms that perhaps Nikon should have done a better job planning this event.
-Katie
07/26/2009 at 10:28 am
But, you do suggest in your comment above that somebody’s job should be on the line for this. Which is waaaay overreacting, IMO. So, you must be somewhat emotional about what you “think” happened–even though you were not there, and the lady who was directly involved said that she was fine with it all. She misunderstood that it was a cocktail party and should have mentioned the baby when she RSVPed.
It seems that you have taken some partial information and used it to construct a PR case study. A valid case study should weigh all the facts, and not just those you choose to use. This post hurts your credibility.
07/26/2009 at 10:51 am
@Wheatie – I find it puzzling that you would say that my view that this event planning misfire represents a major bungle for the professionals who were paid to handle it, likely one even rising to the level that the person’s role with that account should be in jeopardy, means that I am “emotional” about it. But you are certainly entitled to your view of the nature of my blog post, so whatever.
You are correct that an official PR case study, written up as a white paper or for a professional publication, would be much broader, and would include any public response Nikon chooses to give, as well as whether they end up making any changes in how they handle promotional events in the future. And yep, you are correct that a first-person, my-opinion-only post on my personal blog shortly after the event in questions does not rise to that level. You’ve got me there.
I never claimed anyone was harmed or even offended by the fact that they were turned away from the party, but with regard to my perspective looking ONLY at whether the people who were paid to handle this for a big brand could have done a better job, that really doesn’t matter. If you pay someone to plan a costly, public event for your company, you have the reasonable expectation that NONE, not a single one of your invited media guests will be turned away at the door because you didn’t communicate expectations for party attendance clearly. And the fact is that at least a couple of Nikon’s invited guests did have this happen. Kudos to the women in question for their gracious response to the inconvenience of being turned away, but their polite responses don’t change my opinion that the team who planned the event for Nikon didn’t do the job they were hired to do at the level of excellence they were hired to do it.
-Katie
07/26/2009 at 11:03 am
Judging by many of the comments here, I’d say momblogging is the enterprise with the serious PR issue. “Least interesting people on the Internet…” wow–that’s harsh.
Does anybody else here find it ironic that mommybloggers who are supposedly all about their kids are agitated over the lost opportunity to take their babies to a bar…full of potential hazards…late in the night?
This is a test: if you’re upset that the PR firm had the GALL not to consider your very, very special position in life as a mother, then you are a center-of-the-universe mom. And that’s not a good label to carry.
Next year, let’s have a party just for those of you who wield your little babies like broadswords as you break down more and more of the unfair barriers that confront you (like, for example, the no-children-in-bars law; how uncool is that?) Meanwhile, the adults who want to enjoy, just for a little while, the company of other adults and the absence of children can have their own party. Guess which one I’ll be going to?
By the way, BlogHer rocks. 1400 smart women who can really write: what’s not to like? And I can’t say enough good things about the great job Lisa and her gang did organizing everything. I covered it as a journalist, but I would eagerly pay to attend. Either way, I’m in for next year.
07/26/2009 at 11:38 am
Rick you are an ass. No one is saying that BlogHer did not rock or that it was only for women with children. No one has said that. And where do you get off criticizing those of us who attended BlogHer with our young, often breast-fed babies who wanted or needed to keep them with us at all the events and panels we went to, including the ones that fell late at night. BlogHer is designed so that women with young babies won’t be excluded, like we are just about everywhere else that’s considered a professional setting.
Also I take my baby many places where alcohol happens to be served, like most restaurants where we eat out and to baseball games where people drink beer and eat hotdogs. That doesn’t make me a bad mother. I sort of doubt that mothers who would have brought their babies into the bar area of the upscale restaurant where Nikon was holding that party were subjecting the babies to some sort of risk. Seriously, what are you talking about? Was there some risk that if my baby had been asleep in a sling on my chest as I chatted with people at that party, even standing near the bar or talking to guests consuming alcohol that some terrible thing might have happened to him? That’s just stupid.
Dude, it was Nikon who was interested in these bloggers’ very special position in life as a mother. Nikon invited these women specifically because they are mothers. That’s what made them valuable to Nikon. It isn’t like a bunch of random moms with babies were harassing Nikon to get into their exclusive party. These people were invited guests, invited because Nikon wanted something from them. Which is fine, but don’t act like these moms were some crazy bunch of rude baby endangering party crashers with a sense of entitlement. Also, the mothers who were turned away simply mentioned it happened because it was interesting, which it is. They didn’t raise any hell and neither is Katie.
This whole conversation following this post reveals more about the way women view mothers in our culture than it does about anything else. I can’t believe more people aren’t standing up for the mothers at BlogHer who are being insulted and criticized in this thread.
07/26/2009 at 11:39 am
Katie’s point about it being poorly thought out in advance is spot on. I’m sure the sponsor meant no harm, loves babies and all of that, but it was not the best decision to plan a party for this particular group at a bar/restaurant that cannot allow babies inside. Someone just screwed up. That’s no reflection on the company, the event or anyone except whoever made the decision to have it at that particular venue. Don’t over-analyze the post. It’s just a commentary about the importance of thinking things through carefully. Having been in pr, it’s important to consider every detail, every possible snafu and plan accordingly. I agree with Katie.
07/26/2009 at 12:18 pm
I am bumfuzzled. take all the entitlement crap out of it. This was a marketing fubar of
EPIC proportion. As a nephrologist (kidney doctor) this would be like a pharmaceutical company trying to get me to use one of their meds and holding it in a restaurant that refused dialysis patients. Yes the target audience (the doctors) were free to come, but the people they were passionate about (the dialysis patient) were banned. Or having a PETA conference at Peter Lugers with the goodie bags containing fur lined sleep masks. I don’t give a rat’s butt whether you want to eat with screaming toddlers or babies or not. If your goal as a company is to reach an audience with a certain passion, it is best to pick a venue that is open and welcoming and inclusive to that passion. And I would guess Chicago (hick town that it is) has at least one hip, uptown restaurant that would be more than willing to take the bucket of money Nikon dropped for this event AND allow a few rugrats a welcome mat. They might even serve a chicken nugget or two, since we mommies are suckers for people who are suckers for our kids. Seems to me that Nikon’s marketing dept is a little unfocused or at worst, uncaring.
07/26/2009 at 12:23 pm
Good heavens, where did all the mom-hating come from? I just want to thank Katie for writing this up – it’s pretty obvious that if you invite media to a promotional event you want them to actually attend, and figuring out ahead of time that they’re likely to want to bring their babies shouldn’t be rocket science when you’re talking about BlogHer.
I also want to add that we’re talking about VERY young infants here, who would be in a sling, sleeping or snuggling, not running around tearing down cameras. Babies that young rarely go to bed at 7 pm anyway, they need to be nursed every 3 hours or so, and they’re generally most happy close to their mothers whether their mothers are locked up in a hotel room or mingling with other people. There were, from what I’ve read, at least two mothers turned away, one in the limo (where she brought her carseat) and one at the door.
There were lots of babies at BlogHer and they caused very little disruption. Occassionally there’d be a tiny cry that would be rapidly soothed, or the mother would leave the room. This function was in a private room with a bunch of other conference-goers, many mothers. It’s hard to imagine them being bothered by a couple of women having sleeping babies in slings.
07/26/2009 at 12:23 pm
I’m sorry Rick, I thought it was held in a restaurant. Can you point to where this was held in a bar? If it was, another GLARING oversight by Nikon. And the center of the universe mom thing? Show me a child who doesn’t want a mom who considers her job as a mom to be the most important thing in the universe and i will show you the poster child for job security for the psychiatric industry.
07/26/2009 at 12:23 pm
I have to agree that this looks like someone in Nikon’s PR or event planning team really screwed up. I can’t figure out why anyone would or could argue otherwise, nor can I figure out why you would find it objectionable for the mistake to be discussed. I also have to agree that a baseline expectation in promotions event planning would be that the agency hired to do it would know enough to hold the event somewhere that would handle the unique characteristics of those on the guest list, and to do the research to know what those characteristics are likely to be. I would not put together an event reaching out to top yoga bloggers at a steakhouse because basic understanding of my audience would tell me that some percentage of yoga bloggers are going to be vegetarians. Not all but some just as some percentage of mommybloggers on Nikon’s guest list were likely to have babies they would need to have with them. I further concur that Nikon should and probably will fire the agency who did this event for them.
07/26/2009 at 1:07 pm
I’m probably going to get flamed for this position, but I would not presume, and do not understand why others seem to presume, that children were invited to such events. I love my children, and admittedly they are older than babies, but if you want my full undivided attention, having my children there for me to chase around isn’t going to do it.
07/26/2009 at 1:41 pm
Katie, I think you’ve covered the issue well. It’s irrelevant, from a PR perspective, whether the mom(s) in question were right or wrong in assuming a baby would be invited. Bad PR is bad PR, and things like this have a way of spiraling out of control.
As a mom who brought her baby to BlogHer, I’m disturbed by how many people seem to think it’s not OK for babies to be in “adult” places. We’re not talking about terrorizing toddlers, we’re talking about tiny, immobile babies. I’ve written about this at my blog, too: http://thehappiestmom.com/?p=799
07/26/2009 at 2:01 pm
I have found this entire thread to be unsurprising. Our culture is rather anti-mom and anti-child. That this event caters to women and because it does so, it makes welcoming small children a priority is WONDERFUL.
that Nikon’s PR group blew it by failing to recognize the reality of this demographic includes nursing mothers is just another typical goof from corporate america. As the demographic speaks out on this, the PR groups will learn. Sadly for Nikon, they got a PR black eye here.
But attacking the mom aspect is out of line. Just because moms of toddlers chose to leave them at home, doesn’t mean that that option exists for moms of infants who are nursing. The bloggers in question are women, moms, and important enough to be contacted by a company like Nikon–this means that Nikon needs to recognize the importance of accepting that nursing moms who blog are still nursing moms and expect respect.
Nikon clearly intended to make their event really nice. They clearly goofed. This doesn’t reflect on the quality of the equipment they sell–and I wouldn’t let it change my brand one way or the other.
But if they want to reach a demographic that includes nursing moms–then they need to recognize the validity of moms with babies in slings and a diaper bag over one arm–our brains do not turn off when we give birth so the corporations need to include that FACT, and respect our commitment to the next generation as well as our commitment to having an impact through blogging.
07/26/2009 at 2:34 pm
BlogHer isn’t just about mommies. Just because you pushed your snowflake, snot-nosed brat out of your vagina does not mean the world stops to congratulate you. If Nikon didn’t want children and strollers at a COCKTAIL party with EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT around, that’s their right! Take your child to a more appropriate venue or cough up the cash for a baby-sitter!