by -Good-natured approach stands out
We asked; they replied. Lamely. Wondering how businesses would reply to the ridiculous, my business-partner brother and I spent 18 months sending off-the-wall letters to organizations worldwide, posing the most ridiculous – but just possibly legitimate – questions we could concoct. Our letters got noticed and were taken seriously.
In a letter to the makers of Listerine, we claimed to have sampled some delicious hors-d’oeuvres at a dinner party that were “Listerine Balls.” We enthusiastically requested a Listerine recipe booklet. Listerine played it safe, saying “you must be mistaken,” betraying neither bemusement nor belief in our odd request. But Listerine can breathe easy; they were far from being the only sober respondent in our peculiar experiment.
When we asked Shulton, makers of Old Spice, if it were possible to become dependent upon their deodorant, since applying it several times a day gave us “a clearheaded feeling of invincibility,” they straight-facedly disclaimed any chance of addiction and advised us to see a physician. Could Purina comment on a rumored new dog food brand called “Squirrel Blend”? Not really; the company issued us a flat denial. Would Hertz please check its lost-and-found for a customer’s elderly mother, left in the rear seat of a rental vehicle by mistake? Noted Hertz without a trace of irony, “We are not responsible for lost items.”
Yes, we were kidding, but what of the legitimate letter-writing eccentrics, or even normal consumer complaintants out there? What kind of treatment can they expect? Fear of litigation and the pressure for politically correct communication offers a rare glimpse into the process of how corporate letters are presently composed. Say what you will about our maturity level, what we found in the pranking process revealed much more than met the eye about how corporations communicate with the unwashed masses. Responses yielded four distinct reactions:
“The cold shoulder.” Apart from ignoring an oddball question, a rude dismissal made an unfriendly and unnecessary point. When we asked if Switzerland’s Cheese Union could develop an artificial, non-cheese fondue for Americans, their written reply, in its entirety was: “We are not interested.” Ouch. Posing as eccentric travelers, we asked Cunard Lines if our manservant, practitioner of a dubious religion, could bring a ceremonial vase of hog entrails on board the QE2. We never heard back. What if we’d been legit, billionaire whackos ready to spend, spend, spend?
“A form letter is enough.” Standardized responses communicate little more than the fact that the sender doesn’t have time to reply. For example, we submitted an unsolicited “Dewar’s Profile” to the Scotch importer, and received a generic thank you note. The “hero” of our profile was described as a misanthrope whose hobby was cataloging livestock diseases. We couldn’t be sure if they’d actually read what we’d sent. Since form letters create an illusion of having addressed consumer needs, they’re useless. Marketers should never pass on golden opportunities to correspond (even with goofballs). After all, a little personal attention can promote lifelong brand loyalties.
“We can help!” These were solicitous responses of those taken in by the prank. Some of the most bizarre requests got helpful, if puzzled, answers demonstrating not only the respondent’s self-confidence but especially their wish to stay in a dialogue. A letter to a cleaners asked if they could launder a whaleskin nine inches thick. Their reply: “Let us clean it.” Learjet Corporation shared the maximum taxiing speed of their aircraft, but admitted they didn’t know which countries also permit small jets also to be used as highway vehicles.
“We’re not above a little fun ourselves.” Our favorite response category, these were refreshing, enthusiastic replies. Not only did these responses directly address our “needs,” they managed to show that the company didn’t take itself too seriously.
• TWA entered a dog in its frequent flyer program.
• Executive Book Summaries said they couldn’t provide us a 15-minute recap of Faust, but that they were busy developing an eight-page summary of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Cartier in London went along with us when we asked for an appointment to show them a line of jewelry for farm animals.
• A real estate agency, asked to find a house in the shape of the letter W promptly replied that a J, O, K or E would be easier.
It’s this final category that reinforced our faith in human nature and compelled us to stick with the project in the first place. An organization that might otherwise be perceived as gray and bureaucratic can take on a lively personality through the actions of just one person representing it. It puts a face on the firm, making an impersonal entity seem more human and approachable. And that’s one of the best corporate communications strategies we know of.
Media comments about Drop Us A Line… Sucker:
“…the deadpan and gullible responses from major corporations, especially when read aloud, brings on fits of laughter.”
- The New York Times Book Review
“As a hobby, Stuart and James Wade like to write letters proposing something silly just to see what sort of answer they get.”
- Charles Osgood, CBS Radio Network
“There is no truth to the rumor that Ralston Purina has a dog food called Squirrel Blend.” — Austin American Statesman
“Test[s] the limits of outlandishness…their joy doesn’t come from wounding someone’s pride…[but] from seeing the written reaction to their absurdity.”
- Washington (DC) City Paper
“Prankster brothers who get their kicks out of tweaking humorless companies…”
- Associated Press
“…masterfully constructed.”
- Reuters
“The sort of people customer relations folks want to strangle.”
- Crain’s
“Tip for customer relations departments…a little levity can promote brand loyalty, even from goofballs.”
- Chicago Tribune
“I give top marks to those companies that responded promptly and with generosity.”
- Lucy Kellaway, Financial Times of London
Stuart Wade 
2 Comments