Beneful gets another Black Eye

By: Linda Gross

The $500,000 Dog Park Challenge

The news spread rapidly when Purina/Beneful announced a half-million dollar contest for a dream dog park in May. All the lucky winner had to do was to submit a 2 minute video showcasing why they were the most deserving of such largess. The winning entry would get a $500,000 “extreme make over” which would obviously result in one amazing facility for dogs and dog-owners. The contest began in May and this August viewers will vote for the winner.

You won’t find the Globe Park video in this coveted circle. And maybe you will decide after looking at the entries, that we didn’t deserve to be in the final ten. But like the award winning  ALLY BANK commercials which drive home the point about fair play and transparent communication, we found the Beneful contest rife with potholes for contestants trying to play by the rules.

Instead of generating good will and positive branding for the Beneful/Purina name, our experience through this process soured our opinion about the company.  Here’s why.

1: Releases.

One of the contest rules was that if you used any music in your video, it had to be copyright free, and if you used other people in your video you had to have releases from every individual. So, we used a public-domain jingle from Apple which has no copyright issues according to the Apple folks. We also included photos of 3 individuals who we were going to submit releases for, but when we searched on-line for where to provide those releases and had to call the company to get clarification on how to submit the releases,  we were told by the company rep that NO RELEASES were needed with the submittal.

Only “when we won, would they ask us for that documentation.”  What?

There was no avenue in the submittal package itself to provide this information. So how did Beneful know the music was copyright free or that the individuals in the video would approve their images? Based on what the rep told us – Beneful would ask for that information AFTER the video had been selected?

Isn’t that like telling a Miss American contestant that a background check would only be performed if she won?

2: Problems with the Upload. “Others are having problems.”

We attempted 3 times to upload the QuickTime movie clip via a MAC on both Safari and Firefox to no avail.

We called customer service who informed Darin they would look into the problem and get back to him. And at the time confirmed that “we were not the only ones having problems.” No one ever called.

We then tried uploading via a PC and Internet Explorer. This time it went through and we got the message, “Thank you for your submission.”

Yet, after 2 days when we still didn’t see the video posted on Darin’s profile we called again. It would seem that even if the video was not accepted for the public contest, it would still be viewable on the contestants page. Our concern increased when Darin got an email – after this submission – saying his profile had not yet been completed.

3: “We are not responsible for the problems you are having with our contest”

Another call to the company connected us to Mark in Customer Service.  His response to a known problem should become a textbook example of BAD form and what not to do when faced with a problem. Darin carefully outlined our process to date, our problem with submitting release forms, our problems with the upload, our concern that our entry was not even received by the Company’s website and the lack of follow through so far of anyone we’d talked to. His request to have Mark simply check to see if our video had been received met with this canned response.

Mr. Customer Service began to read a prepared script which began “Thank you for your interest in Beneful..” and proceeded to outline that part of the contest rules which said the company wasn’t responsible for anything. It was implied that this covered even problems with the Beneful system which was set up to accept contest entries.

It was a clarifying moment. And one which didn’t put Beneful in a positive light.

4: Final wrap up… Thanks for playing

We made two final attempts to confirm that YES our video had been received. We were not angling for anything more than a shot at being IN the contest. This proved to be too much to ask. In talking with Mandy of Consumer Affairs- Darin was assured that if we had gotten the message “thank you…” then it was submitted and would be reviewed before being posted to the website.

She added that if it never showed up on the website then it was likely  disqualified for some reason.

Although, this seemed more of a guess on her part than actual knowledge.

On the final day of the  contest cut off, we again asked another customer service rep if it wasn’t reasonable to expect the video to at least show up on our profile indicating it HAD made it to their servers. This was impossible she said.  She could fill out a report. We reiterated the urgency of the matter.  I asked to speak to her supervisor, to which she informed me that she “was the only one here.”

I pictured a call center meant for 500 with one lone employee manning the Beneful phones during the last day for contest submittals.

One person manning the phones on the final day of a national contest which promised a $500,000 payoff seemed like incredibly lame planning for a big-time corporate brand – or a total disregard for those you have invited to the table to play your game.

5: Another Black Eye

Beneful may have hoped to counter-act the negative press they’ve had recently regarding their dog food by putting up money for a Dream Dog Park, but if our experience with the contest is indicative of how the company deals with it’s audience, then they just succeeded in creating another public relations black eye.

What’s been your experience with Beneful Dog Food? Or the Beneful/Wagworld Dog Park Contest. We’d like to hear from you.