Learning from WWE: Is Honesty the Most Customer Centric Policy?
Add bookmark
They say honesty is the best policy. But does that mean one should always strive to tell the whole truth?
Those aware of a recent social media incident involving WWE’s Stephanie McMahon will likely answer that question in the negative.
This crippling blow to the notion of honesty emerged on Saturday, March 28. That afternoon, a well-intentioned Stephanie McMahon Tweet sent critics into a firestorm.
Warm heart vs. Savvy mind
Quoting Twitter co-founder Biz Stone, who spoke at WWE’s Business Partner Summit, McMahon wrote, "’philanthropy is the future of marketing, it's the way brands r going 2 win’ -@biz Stone co-founder @twitter #WWEBPS."
A popular talking point for Stone, presenting philanthropy as a contemporary marketing strategy rarely ruffles feathers. In fact, it usually evokes a positive reaction.
Today’s customer management climate ascribes a competitive advantage to businesses that establish human connections with their customers, and demonstrating a passion for giving is one of the most effective—and most societally beneficial—manners for a brand to demonstrate its humanity.
From spotlighting brands that have taken Stone’s advice to writing advocacy pieces for corporate giving, business community members, thought leaders and writers encourage organizations to recognize the marketing power associated with philanthropy.
The specific context in which McMahon issued her Tweet resulted in a vastly different reaction.
Issued hours before WWE was to posthumously induct a young fan—and cancer victim—into its Hall of Fame (and then urge fans to donate to the charity started in his honor), the Tweet blatantly called the company’s motivations into question.
Was WWE honoring the late Connor Michalek to create a more favorable brand image? Was its support for "Connor’s Cure" merely a marketing ploy?
And insofar as the Tweet came in the middle of WrestleMania weekend, it called invited cynicism about the company’s other philanthropic gestures.
Were the annual Make-a-Wish Pizza Party and WrestleMania Reading Challenge the products of savvy minds rather than warm hearts?
Fueling the opposition
It is not as if such inquisitive thoughts laid dormant prior to McMahon’s Tweet. Jaded and cynical, many members of today’s society presume the worst. When they witness someone performing an act of charity, their instinct is to ask what that person gets out of the deal.
The aura of philanthropy is preserved, however, by two realities:
1) While they might receive an auxiliary image benefit (or tax write-off), those who participate in charity are sincere in their efforts. They demonstrate that they would give no matter what – and no matter who is or is not watching.
2) The beneficiaries believe in the sincerity of their benefactors.
In essence, any causal link between philanthropy and marketing must be a one directional one. Individuals—or businesses—give for the sake of giving. The altruism of that effort, combined with the sincere delight it brings to beneficiaries, might then produce a marketing benefit.
In publicly trumpeting the marketing value of philanthropy, an organization gives observers, customers and potential beneficiaries’ reason to believe it is pursuing the process in reverse.
Its goal, first and foremost, is to build the brand. The company’s acts of charity dovetail from that objective.
The moment Stephanie McMahon issued that Tweet is the moment all of the company’s acts of generosity—and there are many—became tainted. WWE, it seemed, was doing acts for the sake of looking good rather than for the sake of doing good. Instead of brushing off cynicism related to the company’s charitable acts, WWE was openly fueling it.
Aware of WWE’s philanthropic track record—and of its plans to honor the late Connor Michalek that evening—numerous users lambasted McMahon over the Tweet.
"So your company only gives to charity for the "free press" always make sure a camera is around type of deal? DISGUSTING," wrote @DolphinsTalk.
Noting that McMahon’s lapse in judgment left his "jaw dropped," pro wrestling blogger Wade Keller wrote, "She's admitting charity is marketing strategy to build the brand. You know, using sick kids to put yourself and brand over."
"Really, a pretty disgusting comment given the context of Connor award tonight," added @divination25. "Using his death to build brand."
"This makes all future cancer awareness, black history month, etc mean nothing," declared @ybatman.
If a company is attempting to portray itself as sincerely altruistic, associating corporate consciousness with brand marketing is an irrefutably unwise move. It sends the message that WWE’s aim is to impress more than it is to help.
Is selective honesty the best policy?
Unfortunate about the situation is that WWE’s charitable endeavors are technically undeserving of such resounding criticism.
Only the hopelessly naðve would believe WWE gives without consciousness of the potential marketing benefit, but all indications are that the company does believe in the causes it supports. The company’s extensive work with Make-a-Wish goes beyond the lip service provided by many companies. When advocating for Susan G. Komen for the Cure, wrestlers share personal, emotional stories related to the fight against breast cancer. Industry insiders say that top WWE Superstar John Cena, who has been publicly recognized for his philanthropy, also does extensive work under the media’s radar.
In sharing Stone’s quote, Stephanie McMahon was surely not attempting to demean her company’s own philanthropy. She was doubtfully attempting to reverse the causal link between "doing good" and "looking good."
She, more realistically, found gleeful self-affirmation in Stone’s quote. As a notably philanthropic organization, WWE is ahead of the curve when it comes to this new business normal.
She might have also been communicating an admirable sense of priority. Since charity provides a branding benefit, companies like WWE can direct would-be marketing dollars (that are only self-serving) to philanthropic initiatives (that serve multiple interests). When that happens, beneficiaries, society and WWE all emerge as victors.
She, unfortunately, picked the wrong venue for that message. She, unfortunately, picked the wrong crowd for whom to demonstrate her cognizance of charity’s marketing potential.
She, unfortunately, picked the wrong time to be honest and transparent about what businesses are thinking when they engage in philanthropy.
Within the confines of a business, it is not unreasonable—and is, in fact, responsible—to ask how investments and activities impact the bottom line. It is logical to wonder if certain behaviors can fuel consumer admiration and then whether that consumer admiration will turn into revenue.
Twitter is not the confines of a business.
And because Stephanie McMahon’s account primarily reaches an audience of WWE customers, her Tweet ultimately represented a businessperson telling customers how her business—and all businesses—could manipulate them.
Worse, how it should manipulate them.
Inherent to believing in the sincerity of philanthropy is believing that the actor—whether an individual or a business—sees it as distinct from its image benefits. McMahon’s public Tweet conflated the two, and thus raised a legitimate question regarding whether WWE sees philanthropy as an ends or a means.
If WWE partakes in charitable endeavors with clear cognizance of the marketing value, one is not wrong for wondering if marketing is why the business is giving to charity. And if marketing is indeed why, then the perception of admirable generosity turns into one of calculated exploitation.
Why reward a company for doing good when you know the reward is the only reason they are doing good? Why laud a business’ humanity when it is clearly putting its own interests first?
The moment a business publicly recognizes the marketing value of its philanthropy is the moment its philanthropy loses its marketing value. It becomes a tool for promoting to customers rather than a tool for giving. Customers admire brands for the latter, but they do typically do not revere brands for shameless self-promotion.
Resonant in corporate circles, much of Biz Stone’s philosophy towards philanthropy would not hold up to consumer scrutiny.
Imagine telling a customer that instead of donating $5 million to a cause in which you believe, your business donated $4 million to a cause you thought would make you look good in front of potential customers and then used the other $1 million to brag about it. It would completely bastardize the donation. It would completely dehumanize the organization.
The hazards of public communication are not restricted to philanthropy. They extend to all forms of business behavior. We might associate transparency and openness with today’s notion of connectivity and corporate humanity, but they can also serve to undermine those objectives. They can serve to remind customers that businesses are not their peers and are in fact corporate entities looking to exploit relationships for financial gain.
Even the notion of customer centricity—which literally means operating in accordance with customer interest—is business strategy. If customer centricity were not a pathway to business reward, it would not be a priority for today’s organizations.
The takeaway here is to know the audience. To a community of business professionals, feel free to talk about how and why concepts like customer centricity and philanthropy will further business ends.
To a community of customers, focus on what your business plans to do for customers—and why it matters to them--rather than on why it is valuable to the corporation. Demonstrate value through action – and through high-quality experiences—rather than through statements that expose the brand promise as a marketing ploy.
Brutally jaded, customers are nonetheless able to recognize the fundamental good associated with acts of charity. They are able to recognize the fundamental good associated with acts of customer centricity.
Do not strip those acts of their good by reminding customers that they only exist to fulfill business ends. Let the value for customers and society send a more appropriate message. It is the one that will satisfy customers and is thus the one that will actually yield the intended business benefit.
