Using a contest to reduce your market share

Toys 'R' Us denies chosen baby its New Year prize

[lgn1]

Please avoid and racial, political or call to action comments.

[cnn.com ]

This thread is about how a large company can be so stupid.

The purpose of contests, is to gain exposure, free advertising and brand loyalty amoung its customers.

Obviously a Toys-R-US lawyer pointed out a problem, however
what I find totally amazing, is that Toys-R-Us management allowed this to propogate into a public relations diaster.

Didn't anybody at Toys-R-US see this coming.

If I was a major toy retailer, I would immediatly give the $25,000 scholarship fund to the denied baby, and instantly gain a significant portion of Toys-R-US market share, for a certain demographics.

Im not sure if there is an award for corporate stupidity (equivalent to the Darwin Award), but if their is, Toys-R-Us would be a strong contender.

[BaseVinyl]

According to the contest rules the baby's mom had to be an american citizen...this wasn't the case so whats the big scandal? If someone enters a contest that they are not eligible to compete in they can't be expected to get the prize...

Or am I missing your point?

[edited by: BaseVinyl at 9:54 pm (utc) on Jan. 6, 2007]

[jecasc]

Yes I think you are missing the point. First of all if you do such a contest and someone does not qualify you sort him out before you declare him the winner.

Secondly many people would say thats a stupid rule since the contest was about finding the first american baby and the baby is a US citizen. And even if it should be that according to the rules and even legally was OK to disqualify the baby - this is just plain stupid. What kind of positive PR do you expect to receive in taking money away from a baby?

However I understand Toys'R us in a certain way. This was a "loose-loose" situation, since the parents of the other two babys could perhaps have taken legal action since the baby did not win according to the rules.

However the solution, especially for a big company like this would have been to turn this into a win-win situation and find a solution like for example to award the money to all three babys. This would have made a nice story and gotten them positive cheap publicity.

Not to run into a PR desaster with open eyes. And a big company taking something away from a baby will always end in a PR desaster - you do not have to be a marketing genius to figure that out.

[edited by: jecasc at 10:57 pm (utc) on Jan. 6, 2007]

[lgn1]

When running a PR campaign, one must elinimate even any perception of wrong doing.

I suspect Toys-R-us will eventually give in, and award both babies the $25,000 in the end, as a method of damage control.

[lgn1]

[cnn.com ]

All three finalist babies are getting the prize.

I expected Toys-R-Us to give in, but I thought it would take a few days.

Score: Corporate Moral Responsibility 1 ¦ Corporate Lawyers 0