Summary of Key Points
Recently, several well-known brands (such as Dove, Dettol, Logitech, OPPO, etc.) have successively made mistakes in their content marketing strategies. Issues range from Dove’s “green hat chocolate” promotional video to Dettol’s gender-discriminatory advertisement, and Logitech’s insulting remarks towards consumers. These incidents share a common pattern: the content was created by third-party teams or distributors, which used trending buzzwords and created conflicts in an effort to generate traffic, while the brands’ internal review mechanisms failed to detect these issues. The root causes lie in the separation of brand management from operations, a focus on short-term traffic gains, the diminishing authority of brand departments, and the risks associated with the accelerated content production driven by AI. The author believes that these systemic problems are difficult to resolve in the short term, and brand failures may become more frequent in the future. Brands can only continuously improve through trial and error.
Detailed Analysis
Why do big brands keep making mistakes in their content?
In recent months, leading brands from various industries have stumbled with their content strategies:
- Dove’s Valentine’s Day video, which tried to portray asking for chocolate from a potential romantic partner as a sweet gesture, was criticized as promoting the idea of “green hat chocolate.”
- Dettol’s advertisement suggested that a future wife should be a virgin, which was seen as gender discriminatory.
- Logitech’s promotional video for a mouse reduction claimed that consumers would “run over” to buy the product, insulting users.
- OPPO’s Mother’s Day poster referred to mothers as a brand’s “second husband,” causing controversy regarding marital ethics.
These campaigns all used controversial topics to attract attention but went against societal norms. More importantly, the brands were not directly involved in the content creation: Dove’s content was produced by third-party stores, Logitech’s by authorized distributors, and OPPO’s by internal teams focused on generating traffic. The brands either had lax review processes or were completely unaware of the issues until public backlash led to apologies.
The separation of brands and operations is the root cause
In the past, brands would develop ad campaigns with their own departments setting strategies and advertising agencies providing creative ideas, with multiple rounds of revisions to ensure accuracy. However, this approach is no longer effective:
- Brands now have multiple online platforms (e-commerce stores, social media accounts, live streaming channels), and their daily operations are often managed by third-party operators or distributors.
- Brand departments understand the long-term image of the brand (e.g., Dove’s “romantic” image), but the younger and more transient third-party teams focus on generating traffic (using provocative or controversial themes).
- Brands own the accounts but have little control over the content; consumers assume the content represents the brand’s official stance, yet the brands are left to figure out which suppliers are responsible for the problematic content.
It’s like parents handing over their children to nannies who only care about whether the children cry (i.e., whether the content generates traffic), without considering the long-term impact on the brand’s reputation.
Traffic: both a blessing and a curse
Why do operations teams produce offensive content? Because traffic is their key performance indicator (KPI):
- Short-video platforms favor controversial topics, as they are more likely to be recommended by algorithms and generate high views and comments.
- Operations teams are evaluated based on daily metrics like views, click-through rates, and sales, not on long-term brand damage.
- A mild brand message might not attract much traffic, while a controversial one can quickly become viral, leading to rewards for the teams and negative consequences for the brand.
Brand departments have lost their power to oversee content
Previously, brand departments had independent control over content. Nowadays, many companies have merged them with sales or marketing departments:
- JD.com has merged its brand department with its marketing division;蕉下的 brand department was restructured, and its CMO resigned, reducing the brand’s role to supporting sales initiatives.
- Brand departments no longer have the authority to stop problematic content before it’s released; they can only apologize after the damage is done.
- Companies prioritize short-term growth (traffic, gross merchandise value), and since brand development takes longer and is harder to measure, resources are allocated to more immediate results.
As a result, brand departments, once responsible for maintaining brand integrity, are now often blamed for mistakes.
Will AI make brand failures even more common?
AI has accelerated content production and reduced costs, but it also increases risks:
- 72% of marketers use AI to create content, which can replicate popular themes and generate large amounts of similar material.
- AI lacks understanding of ethical implications; it simply replicates what generates traffic.
- In the past, one operator might produce one problematic video; with AI, dozens of versions could be produced and distributed across multiple platforms, spreading mistakes quickly.
As content production speeds up, if review processes do not keep up, brand failures will become more frequent.
Conclusion
Brand failures are not the fault of individual employees but reflect systemic issues: the separation of brand management and operations, a focus on traffic, the weakening of brand departments, and the impact of AI. The author suggests that brands should reclaim control over content distribution, separate content creation from review processes, and give brand departments the power to reject inappropriate content. However, he also notes that as competition remains fierce and traffic continues to be a driving force, similar mistakes are likely to occur. The best a brand can do is to learn from each mistake and correct its course.