Unilever Responds

Last Sunday, I blogged about Unilever Philippines' Communications Manager being quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (Advertisers pulling ads) about their stand on McCann Erickson's recommendation to withdraw their advertisements from "The Buzz" and "S-Files". I also wrote the company an e-mail which I now post here. In response, Unilever Phils shared with us a letter they sent to the editor of the PDI to clarify their position.

My e-mail to Unilever Phils.:

To: CAS.PHILIPPINES@unilever.com
Cc: CorpDev.Philippines@unilever.com
Subject: Quote attributed to your Mr. Ed Sunico

Yesterday's Philippine Daily Inquirer report filed under their Entertainment Section
(http://news.inq7.net/entertainment/index.php?index=1&story_id=35470)
quoted your Mr. Ed Sunico, supposedly your Country Communications Manager, as to have said the following:

"Unilever Phils., a major advertiser in both talk shows, and who is among the top 10 ad spenders in the country, said it would continue to place ads in talk shows as "it is not our job" to watch their content. Ed Sunico, Unilever's country communications manager, told the Inquirer that the company's primary concern was ratings. "Our decision to place ads on a program will depend on viewership," Sunico said. By nature, talk shows are controversial, which is what the viewers are after." He added: "Having a say in program content is a gray area although we influence it in a way with ad support. Content is the [responsibility] of the MTRCB.""

Since this could tarnish the reputation of your company and affect your products' market standing, can you confirm whether the quote is accurate or the news report is as close as to what Mr. Ed Sunico meant?

We hope to receive your reply soonest.

Sincerely,
Sef Dudeo
http://www.alternation101.blogspot.com/

PS. Please note that any of your reply may appear in the above blogsite.

Here is their reply and the letter they sent to the PDI:

Dear Sef,
Thank you for your inquiry. We would just like to share with you the letter of clarification which our General Manager for Corporate Development sent to the Philippine Daily Inquirer yesterday afternoon. Hope this clarifies your query.
Thank you very much!
Unilever Corporate
Development

3 May 2005

MS LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC
Editor-in-Chief
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino Roces Avenue,
Makati City


Dear Ms Jimenez-Magsanoc:

Re: Pull Out of Advertisers in TV Talk Shows

Unilever wishes to clarify its position regarding the pull out of ads in show biz talk shows featuring sex videos.

Unilever believes that to succeed requires the highest standard of corporate behavior towards our employees, consumers, and the society that we live in -- though we never claimed to be a paragon of morals nor are we the guardians of morality.

It is unfortunate then that our position may have been quoted out of context in the article which appeared last Sunday, May 1, in the Inquirer (“Coke, Jollibee, Greenwich pull out of 2 talk shows”). Indeed, the decision to place ads in a show depends on the show’s rating. Show biz talk shows normally have good ratings that merited regular placements in the past. However, what the article failed to mention and was emphasized during the phone interview with our Country Communications Manager is that, support for these shows does not necessarily indicate that Unilever supports 100% the program’s content. It is obviously very difficult for us to monitor the entire contents of the programs as they are being aired, since we have ads on a lot of programs.

While we respect the decision of other advertisers to pull out of such programs, Unilever would like to approach this matter differently. We prefer to dialogue with the producers of the program and discuss this issue with them. If nothing positive comes out of it can we say we should consider withdrawing our ads. We also take into consideration what the advertising associations have to say, Unilever being an active member of the AdBoard and PANA for several years now.

Unilever prides itself on being a responsible company, as evidenced by our efforts and campaigns for the environment, health, and nutrition. This responsibility is extended to the promotion of positive values particularly in brand advertising, an example of which is the latest Surf detergent ad espousing dignity of hard work/labor.

Needless to say, we are concerned about this issue on show biz talk shows. We look forward to an effective resolution to this issue through dialogue with the relevant producers.

We do hope you will find merit in alloting space for this clarification in your paper.

Thank
you.


Very truly yours,


Chito S. Macapagal (Sgd.)
GM – Corporate Development
Unilever Philippines


cc: Margie Quimpo-Espino, Business Features Editor, Inquirer
Emmie Velarde, Entertainment Editor, Inquirer
Ed Sunico, Country Communications Manager, Unilever

Does Pacific Plans plan to continue to honor their obligations?

Yesterday, Pacific Plans aired their side on the controversy that their company faces. Their President, Mr. Ernesto Garcia, wrote an article on the Opinion/Talk of the Town section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer claiming that they continue to honor their obligations since 1990.

As expected, he blamed the problems they are facing from the deregulation of the education sector starting 1990, which he said is beyond their control. He said PPI stopped selling the problematic open-ended plans in 1992 as a reaction to the deregulation. And although their contract is said to have "explicitly free(d) PPI from paying extra cost (as a result of deregulation)", PPI still paid the tuition claims regardless of amount and did not exercise their "right under Section XV" of the plan's contract.

He also said that, and this is something new to me,:

PPI bought back plans, but the secondary market, which it has no control of, has brought prices to unreasonable levels.

However, he did not say when they started buying back the plans. I cannot be sure why they do not have control of the secondary market (he did not explain why), when they could have easily announced in 1992 to the public that they will not honor those plans bought from such secondary markets.

To Mr. Garcia's mind, PPI has done more as an exercise of its obligation, legal and moral, to its plan holders. He said they are doing things correctly, and they will be remembered as such even if they are taking "a lot of beating" this days.

Now, now, we see that Mr. Garcia is defending his institution, and yes it is indeed his job and expected of him. However, he is failing at it, unless he will be able to make more explanations as to the following:

1. Why did they not announce the problems and their planned solutions in 1992, when as he said that then, "the handwriting is on the wall" of their "doom" as he said their

...open-ended plans were in effect doomed by a radical change in government policy: from capping tuition increases to no more than 10% to allowing unlimited increases...

Instead, they offered a new fixed-value plan, still using the name PPI (they are still riding on their earlier marketing success), then transferred these plans to another company called Lifetime Plans, which is, as Mr. Garcia said "perfectly legal action that is done around the world", but not necessarily moral! Obviously when they learned of their doom from the shift in goverment policy in 1990 onward, they continue to cash in on PPI's reputation while not having any definite plans for the affected plan holders. Also, they made steps to shield the other affiliated companies legally, while they still enjoy the good words coming from the early scholars. This clearly shows that in 1990 to 1994, they are not interested in invoking Section XV of their open-ended contracts, because they are still profiting from their customers. Now that the cash is running out, they claim they are doing the good thing for their planholders!

2. Why do they continue to say that they "continue to honor their obligations" when they are now proposing another plan which is nowhere near the amount of full tuition (which is their real obligation) of the remaining 34,000 or so open-ended scholars?

...PPI proposed to return all the premium payments plus seven percent net compounded interest to the 18,000 non-availing plan holders. For the 16,000 who are already availing themselves of the benefits, PPI offered tuition support, which is part of the discounted balance of remaining "availments," plus seven percent net compounded interest that they are entitled to...

Also, their obligations calls for a specific time, meaning they should pay the tuition fees in full at the time they are needed, and not at another time that they will be able to do so. So what does Mr. Garcia meant that they have "done more as an exercise of their obligations".

3. And how can he say that they have no control over the "secondary markets" when it is their plans that are being sold in the market???

4. The only viable solution left for PPI is to absorb the loss, by having its owners infuse additional cash (even from the owner's own funds); Or do they prefer to save some billions in the expense of their good names (if it is of any value to them and there is still something left of it)?

The glare of gold blinds even the most intelligent people to say things that are nowhere near logic yet claim that they are moral and straight. I hope Mr. Ernesto Garcia and PPI have not fallen yet into the trap of this blindness and could still explain their way out of this mess.

Advertisers pulling ads

Yesterday, there was an article on the entertainment section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer saying that Jollibee, Greenwhich and Coke pulled out their ads from "The Buzz" and "S-Files". This is so because their ad agency McCann Erickson asked them to do so, after the two shows "aired sex videos purportedly made by popular movie or television stars".

Is this good news or what? If I were to be asked, I think this should be the headline of the paper's main news section. This could be the start of something big and fruitful. I thought it was only me who had this idea, to promote good media, by targetting the advertisers. Kudos to McCann Erickson for setting an example.

Now it was said that McCann make the call to its clients for wholesome media content. Jollibee, Greenwhich and Coke are the firsts to heed the call. I am counting on the other big advertisers which they also handle, such as Globe, Johnson and Johnson, and Nestle to follow suit. And I wish that this become a trend: All ad agencies calling on their clients to promote good media, and/or their clients cancel placements on bad media even without prodding.

Meanwhile, it was reported that Unilever, another McCann Erickson client, has a different reaction (as per the inquirer report):

Unilever Phils., a major advertiser in both talk shows, and who is among the top 10 ad spenders in the country, said it would continue to place ads in talk shows as "it is not our job" to watch their content.

Ed Sunico, Unilever's country communications manager, told the Inquirer that the company's primary concern was ratings.

"Our decision to place ads on a program will depend on viewership," Sunico said. By nature, talk shows are controversial, which is what the viewers are after."

He added: "Having a say in program content is a gray area although we influence it in a way with ad support. Content is the [responsibility] of the MTRCB."

Now let us ask Mr. Ed Sunico, did you really say this? Is it true that your primary concern as to where you will place your ads is the ratings? You mean you do not care even if the shows you place your money on, money that came from your consumers, help destroy the country hosting your business? Please clarify, before your reputation and products suffer.