It took the likes of a Rolling Stone article that called the (formerly) embattled financial giant Goldman Sachs, “a great vampire squid wrapped around humanity” and NY’s Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo’s denouncement of banking industry pay practices in general, for Goldman Sachs to wake up and find its way to a PR counselor’s door.

And, of course, in the 4^th quarter, just a bit ahead of their plan to pay out an obscene dollar amount of bonuses, which Associated Press reports as $16.7 billion, so far this year.

Apparently the company’s PR plan is to expand lobbying expenses and have their CEO give fuzzy and warm speeches explaining, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, “it is important that we explain our business model to a wider audience, why what we do matters, and why and how we pay our people.”

Tell that to the Americans who have suffered massive unemployment, foreclosures and business failures, the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression. They will also not forget that barely a year ago, this company received a $10 billion capital infusion from the government.  Although Goldman invested wisely and repaid its government debt, it’s clear that without that infusion, there would have been failure, with few recourses.

Goldman is now sending their CEO on a charm offensive, a public relations campaign full of media interviews geared specifically, to minimize the public’s expected vociferous outcry against the bonus announcement soon to come – that same CEO who, himself, is in line to receive a mega sum at the end of this recessionary year.  The company could have shown more social responsibility by proposing several constructive and sustainable PR programs.

Here is a thought…

Their PR advisers could suggest that the company allocate a percentage of all payout bonuses toward seeding start up companies, basically turning their staff into investment angels and helping spur entrepreneurism and ingenuity.  This then, would make a story that would humanize the company and hold off those who would vilify Goldman Sachs for being successful.

Americans would buy it… It would be much more powerful in turning around negative perceptions than the planned self-serving explanatory speeches.  It really would be a win for Goldman and our economy…

No, this is not a riddle, but a point of contention if you are Haagen-Dazs and have decreased the size of “pints” from 16 ounces to 14 ounces. 

The issue is that competitor Ben and Jerry’s is making ‘hay’ out of this and holding Haagen-Dazs up for ridicule.  According to Emily Bryson York’s article in AdAge.com, “Ben and Jerry ’s is mounting a pint-sized assault on rival ounces and calls out Haagen-Dazs on the shrinkage.”  It’s not really pint sized — calling the competitor’s move to sell 14-ounce pints, “Downright Wrong.”

I agree that a 14 is never a 16, unless you are myopic and then change in packaging size, being so slight, goes unnoticed.  But Haagen-Dazs is not alone in shrinking product.  Have you noticed how 16 ounces of coffee have become 12, and that a dozen eggs, have become 10?  What about potato chips that barely fill half a bag?  Several brands have begun decreasing package sizes, hoping that it will go unnoticed.  Driven by increased pressure from consumers to have lower prices, retailers have turned on package-food companies to comply with demand.  And so shrinkage happens…

But the public is not duped.  Brand loyalty starts to waiver.  A pint’s size is what it is – a pint.  Standard measurement.

However, in principle, I agree with Haagen-Dazs that it is preferable to shrink a portion, rather than raise the price, especially now. This, I think, consumers can bear and support if they are told up front, which they were not.  The company relied on its website statement that talked about the costs of things, listing gasoline and increased ingredient and manufacturing costs.

That’s not what I think a loyal customer wants to hear.

My sense is that what they want to hear is that everyone is in this economic plight together, including large brands such as Haagen-Dazs and that the ice cream company cares for its customer in not sacrificing its high quality and taste, nor raising its prices but, of necessity, shrinking size.

Just like that.  Straight forward.

I believe that Haagen-Dazs, with just a little more transparency and better choice of language in how they told their size-pinching story, could have avoided both competitor’s ridicule and consumers’ ire.

Ben and Jerry’s thinks size matters.  I disagree. I think being straight matters.  Call it something else, but pints don’t change their ounces.