Crisis control: Is deleting an offending ad always the best move?

It's the nature of marketing to "cut through the clutter", as the industry calls it.However, this once in a while results in massive outcry when a brand or agency takes it a bit too far and ends up seemingly offending more consumers than winning them over. In panic, these brands may hastily pull their ads. However, is this always the best crisis control move?One recent incident is Nivea, who over the past week has come under fire for its ad depicting a woman with dark underarms being shunned by society. The ad, put up last month, was removed yesterday.Last year, another brand to get burned was Hong Leong Bank. It was slammed for racial stereotyping when it ran an ad for domestic helper insurance crudely depicting a local Hong Kong actor as a Filipino maid, with her face painted black. The bank hastily pulled the ad as well after getting flak from the public. (Read Hong Leong Bank slammed for racial stereotyping)In 2013, Dunkin' Donuts in Thailand ran an ad for its charcoal donut using a woman painted black, with the brand being slammed for making "racist slurs" in the campaign. That ad was also pulled.While quick damage control is rational, is that always the best move? Especially when it comes to the online space, maybe not, suggest industry players.Monitor and respond to the communityDon Anderson, managing director of We Are Social said that when brands find themselves in tricky situations - such the one Nivea was in online - they should simply “face the music” rather than remove the evidence. "Removing the video is essentially an admission of guilt and wrongdoing," said Anderson. Dealing with the situation in a more “authentic and human” way might leave the brand in a much better position where they can then earn some respect amongst those speaking out against them.He suggested using social listening to monitor the conversation, and sculpt responses to the community, instead of giving flat statements. "While this would not completely erase the negative sentiment, what it would do is allow the brand to get further in front of the sensitive conversation topic with messaging that actually adds value," said Anderson.“Acknowledgement is key to reinforcing that the brand is actually listening to the audience, truly grasps the sensitivities of the situation and the significance of the comments yielded,” he added.In Nivea’s case, added Anderson, the core issue is not whether the brand removed the video or left it up but rather what the brand was seeking to achieve with its marketing. “If they were trying to get a rise out of people then their team certainly achieved so. But at what cost to brand integrity and public perception?” asked Anderson.Possible further proliferation of the issuePreetham Venkky, head of digital strategy & business at KRDS Singapore added while in such situations, the brand has the right to take down the content, removing the content will almost always lead to further proliferation.“It's the internet and the more you try to ban or delete content, the more it spreads. It's not enough for brands to just be on social media, but for them to truly behave socially,” said Venkky. Consumers, he added, do not really expect brands to be infallible, but rather expect them to behave responsibly when mistakes are made.Defending Nivea was Daniel Yap, head of creative communications at Right Hook Communications.“ I think we can assume that Nivea was not trying to promote shame or insecurity. The video was in fact a humourous take on the subject […] If a brand does not want to appear to be directly exploitative of consumers' fears, humour is one valid way to approach the issue,” said Yap.However agreeing with Venkky and Anderson, Yap said that Nivea should have stuck with the campaign and turned the discussion around. When a brand chooses to remove the campaign in such a situation, their next worry should be that the entire conversation swinging against them, added Yap.“Nivea missed out on the opportunity to keep the conversation going, or at least letting people gain an informed perspective on the debate. Without the video, it will be hard for people to decide for themselves if it was fair game, or if there was something sinister about the way Nivea went about the subject,” said Yap.