Brigid Slipka

The New York Times has run a glowing advertisement news article on in-kind donations from Proctor & Gamble (the same folks who brought us this picture) to Joplin’s disaster-hit residents.

Any mention of how this fixes priority needs, like shelter or identifying loved ones or providing resources to rebuild lives? Nope.

Any mention of how this might clog up infrastructure routes, making it more difficult for priority needs to be met? Nope.

Any mention of coordination with other disaster relief organizations or the government? Nope.

Any potential downside to this program at all?

Well, yes.  There’s a chance for problems to the brand:

“You have to be incredibly careful around natural disasters because you don’t want to be seen as an ambulance chaser, and you cannot merchandise on the back of a disaster,” said Carol Cone, managing director for brand and corporate citizenship at Edelman.

Sigh.

This scenario is entirely driven by what meets Proctor & Gambles needs:  good face to customers, good marketing, good PR.  Any effect on victims is measured only in terms how they feel about Tide, not if they actually get their real needs met.

P&G sorta kinda admits this: “I guess you could call it a marketing expense because it’s run by our marketing team” says a Tide spokesperson.  I guess you could call it whatever you want, just don’t pretend it’s done in service of the beneficiaries.