In an age of rampant viral marketing even Woolworths can create a buzz by picking the right cause – but could the success of this stunt be the worst PR ever?

In late December, Woolworths CEO Michael Luscombe announced the Woolworths National Drought Action Day. On 23 January Woolworths will donate all profits from Australian Woolworths and Safeway supermarkets to the Country Women’s Association and research into sustainable farming practices. The Woolies boss says he expects to raise over $3 million.

Struggling farmers, big bad drought, women’s association, sustainable farming, $3 million in relief – how could the PR go wrong?

No doubt the Woolies PR team is patting themselves on the back right now. And, on the face of it, so they should.

For one, the stunt positions Woolworths as a good Samaritan graciously foregoing profits to help those in need.

Even better still, the “one-day super giveaway” puts the responsibility for the plight of the “struggling farmers” firmly on the shoulders of an uncontrollable force of nature – The Drought.

Farmers aren’t struggling because of rock bottom wholesale prices engineered by the big two supermarkets or because of Woolworths’ expensive auditing requirements, which take our farmer friends hours to fill in each week. Nope. It’s because the rains ain’t here.

But it’s not the irony of the cause chosen which worries me. I’m more worried about the fact this PR stunt will get seriously out of hand.

Already the viral effects are clear. Blogs are rapidly filling with posts advising anyone and everyone to head to Woolies on 23 January to support the worthy drought relief cause.

Emails are spreading like wildfire from inbox to inbox telling recipients if they have just a shred of Australian pride they should be shopping at Woolies come 23 January.

So what? I hear you muse. Isn’t that the sort of publicity money can’t buy? What’s the problem?

Think about it. Every man, woman and their dogs will head to Woolies on 23 January. Those of you who have made that last minute dash to buy a juicy Turkey on Christmas Eve will know where I’m going with this.

It’s going to be mayhem. Trolley crashes, missing toddlers, fainting pensioners, spills in aisle three and seven with no hope of mop-up because the staff are too busy manning cash registers and managing crowds, and those cues that extend right through fruit & veg and wrap around into dairy.

As any good marketer will confirm - you can tell consumers how good your brand is until you’re blue in the face, but it’s the “customer experience” that counts.

Goodwill counts for squat when you’ve given people the memory of a supermarket trip from hell.

Story by: Mark Chenery

From a Freedom pov, its obvious that no farmer should be told what to grow. But we do have to look seriously at the cost to production if we devote resources (both finacial and environmental) to production that isn’t going to work.

There should be no law against a farmer buying a vineyard and tearing it down to start growing cranberries, but he shouldn’t be surprised to find his application for enough water to harvest them denied.

It doesn’t take long to figure out that rational use of resources isn’t the highest concern of most people though, go down to your local grocer and count the out of season produce on sale.

I believe it is much better for the environment if we eat produce which is produced as close as possible to where we live. This saves on the use of fuel for transport, and produce generally would be fresher.

I don’t know about you - but fresh food is an important part of my diet, one I don’t want to go without.

- where does “empowerment” and “choice” fit into this? If a farmer wants to farm product X even though it’s unproductive, should he/she be entitled to? Consider what you would do if, while working in a developing community, that community consistentlly said that what they wanted most was a TV. They want a TV, even though they don’t even have electricity. How would you respond? (This is not unheard of, by the way!)

- where does a systemic analysis fit into this? I mean, why is a farmer planting an unprofitable crop? Where else might it be grown if not on that property? Would you and I buy it (a) knowing of how and where it was produced? and (b) even if we did know, would we still buy it?

If product X is not going to be profitably produced on farm X, keeping the money flowing so he can continue to grow X is a waste. Giving him money so that he can start to produce Y is money very well spent.

I’m not saying that giving money to farmers to continue to try producing X is wrong, it just seams that Woolworths thinks it is and is doing it anyway