A PR Cuckoo’s Nest
The PR drama between a $15,000 automaton bird in Brooklyn and an American celebrity.
A war of words has broken out between a small business in Brooklyn and an American celebrity over whether a $15,000 automaton bird could be purchased, and whether a salesperson was rude, Pretty Woman style, assuming she could not afford it.
Yep, an automaton bird named Molly, created by the artist and inventor Bliss Kolb.
The exchange intensified when the small business issued a short statement in response to the celebrity’s post. I won’t name them, as they have been inundated with hate tweets and posts since, but the statement had a brilliant twist at the end:
“We’re going to keep our heads down, and hopefully, we can clear things up with [said celebrity] someday. As a talented popular singer once wrote, ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.’”
You have probably figured out the celebrity with that one. I burst out laughing. I do love sassy PR, and I am glad we have grown out of the polite rebuttals of yore.
Intrigued, I scrolled down to a second statement from said small business and another from the celebrity.
Planning to jump into the fray, I could not make heads or tails (no pun intended) as to where the truth was.
Was it an over-entitled celebrity, or rude customer service, which seems to be the norm in the US nowadays?
Notably, the store was conducting a PR dance around not mentioning customer service in their statements, so one could assume that was the real issue.
The celebrity said she had received “the elevator treatment” with the eyes and was led to a comparable bird of lesser value, after which she left the store.
Some have argued that this is a normal customer service response, as most people could not afford a $15,000 automaton bird, and the attempt to avoid offense by suggesting a less valuable version ($2,000) is understandable, especially in this dire economy.
There are two valuable PR lessons here.
What you leave out is just as important as what you say.
When a company tries to sidestep the core issue, the public often assumes there is something to hide. Even when there is legal, privacy, or reputational reasons for limiting public comment, communicators should recognize that audiences are actively interpreting those omissions.
If you cannot address an allegation directly, acknowledge the concern rather than appearing to ignore it. The public will notice the gap, and they will often fill it with their own assumptions.
In this case, the store’s witty and well-crafted responses generated attention and sympathy.
However, by dancing around the customer service question, they left the most important part of the narrative open for interpretation.
Once that happens, communicators are no longer managing the story. They are reacting to the stories others create. As is happening with Molly-gate, a reactive message loop starts building steam, similar to a schoolyard fight.
Avoid the loop entirely by asking the following questions of yourself and your team before you release any statements:
Who is your audience?
For the store, its customers and the public (potential customers).
What is your audience’s primary concern/question?
Do you employ surly front-office staff who might insult me?
Have you answered that concern/question directly?
In this case, no. A better option would have been to acknowledge it and state that follow-up steps have been taken.
If not, have we explained why we cannot?
Maybe you need time to talk to all staff involved. A holding statement would then be appropriate: “We take customer service seriously and are investigating the incident.”
Pick up your phone before you pick up new followers.
One aspect of the story that received less attention was the speed with which a private customer service dispute became a public spectacle.
Before statements, counter-statements, online commentary, and thousands of social media reactions, there was an opportunity for a direct conversation between the celebrity and the business owner.
Whether the issue stemmed from misunderstanding, poor service, assumptions, or bruised egos, it was ultimately a dispute that might have been resolved through dialogue rather than public denunciation.
For anyone with a large platform, there is also a reputational risk.
Public complaints may generate attention, but they can also invite scrutiny of your own behavior and credibility.
When a celebrity, influencer, executive, or public figure criticizes a small business online, the power imbalance can be significant. Even if the complaint is legitimate, the resulting attention can quickly escalate into harassment, review-bombing, threats, and reputational damage far beyond the original offense.
Not every grievance needs an audience.
A direct outreach to a business owner often provides an opportunity to clarify, apologize, explain, or resolve a misunderstanding before millions of others become involved.
Once a dispute goes public, both parties become invested in defending their version of events, making resolution far more difficult and encouraging more scrutiny of both sides.
Unfortunately for the celebrity, at the time of writing this, former employees from her talk show are coming forward commenting on her behind-the-scenes behavior.
As I warn clients, generating visibility can help you, but remember that your detractors have been waiting for a platform to air their grievances against you.
Be careful with how you create that platform.
