What Mitchum's brand crisis teaches us about reputation management
The trust between a customer and their favourite brand is sacred, built over years and shattered in seconds. For Mitchum, a faulty product line became a disastrous case study in why a reactive crisis communication strategy can be a brand’s biggest downfall.
A few days is a long time in a PR crisis. That’s how long it took Mitchum to respond to a wave of viral videos showing their customers with painful chemical burns. This slow reaction was just the beginning of a fiasco that proves empathy and corporate accountability are non-negotiable.
The Mitchum deodorant scandal
On TikTok, social media backlash erupted after customers shared videos of rashes and ‘agonising weeping spots’ caused by a specific batch of the company’s 48-hour roll-on antiperspirant.
These videos and their comments revealed that those affected experienced a level of pain that ruined holidays, weddings, and even sleep, forcing them to spend their money on antibiotics and steroid creams. Unsurprisingly, once loyal customers vowed never to use the brand again.
What did Mitchum do wrong?
In the wake of such uproar, Mitchum’s statement was a lesson in what not to do. They attributed the issue to a ‘change in manufacturing process’ that affected one of the antiperspirant’s ‘raw materials.’ This technical clarification, whilst perhaps factually correct, failed to address the pain and distress felt by their customers.
Mitchum’s biggest misstep was their choice of sterile, corporate language. Their statement described the extreme rashes as ‘temporary irritations’ that only affected ‘some customers.’ For the plethora of people experiencing burns and ‘scabbing’, this phrasing grossly minimized their suffering.
To make matters worse, Mitchum’s assurance that ‘your wellbeing means everything to us’ stood in stark contrast to their actions. They failed to issue a formal product recall, instead opting to quietly remove the product from shelves.
This passive approach was mirrored by their customer service, where a promise of 72-hour response times stretched into two weeks for some customers. Understandably, this left many wondering if this was a genuine effort to protect customers or a quiet attempt to sweep the problem under the rug.
What a good PR crisis response looks like
This clear disconnect between Mitchum’s public message and operational priorities proves their crisis communications to be purely reactive. A far more effective response would have put empathy and accountability first.
A heartfelt apology: Acknowledging the pain and distress caused instead of just a ‘temporary irritation’.
A swift and full product recall: Demonstrating corporate accountability and signalling that safety is the brand’s number one priority, even at a significant financial cost. M&S did this to great effect earlier in the year when they experienced a significant cyber attack.
Proactive communication: Use social media channels to deliver continuous updates on the investigation, recall process, and address customer queries.
Had Mitchum employed these crisis management tactics from the beginning, they could have rebuilt customer trust and perhaps videos of people forcefully throwing Mitchum products into the bin would not be trending on TikTok.
A PR crisis isn’t just about damage control; it’s a test of a brand’s integrity. Mitchum’s lack of customer empathy and transparent communication damaged their brand reputation more than any product flaw could. In a world where every phone is a microphone, accountability isn’t just a choice, it’s mandatory to safeguard your brand’s future.
If your organisation is needing to sharpen its crisis management strategy, speak to us.
