People using your product start posting pictures and videos showing rashes, burns, weeping spots, and bumps.
Other users complain about the extreme pain and “second-degree chemical burns” they are experiencing.
How do you respond?
Hopefully, better than Mitchum.
The deodorant brand has been at the centre of a social media storm and stinging headlines.
Its customers took to TikTok and Instagram to share their experiences and side effects of using some of its products.
And the number of posts rapidly grew, capturing the interest of mainstream media, turning it into a full crisis media management incident.
Here’s a taste of some of the painful headlines it generated:
What has Mitchum said about the crisis?
Well, eventually, it released a statement on its social media channels.
In it, it said: “Some of you have told us that you have experienced temporary irritation after using selected batches of Mitchum 48-hour 100ml Roll-On, sold in the UK, Ireland, and South Africa.
“We are sorry to those who were impacted and for the time it took to complete the investigation.”
It went on to say the investigation revealed the issue was caused by a change in the manufacturing process of one of its raw materials altering “how the product interacts with the skin in some consumers.”
The statement added that it had now “gone back to the original process” and that it is “actively working to remove” impacted batches of the deodorant from shelves.
People who “experienced any issues” are asked to contact the customer care team so the company can “make it up to you”.
It’s a detailed statement.
It includes an apology, and there are plenty of examples of action being taken, which is a good crisis communication approach.
But it’s not a great response.
When news reports and social media posts describe users of the deodorant experiencing armpits that feel like they are being “viciously attacked” and “volcanoes irritating” – and people suffering “chemical burns” - the phrase “temporary irritation” jumps off the screen as a misguided attempt to play down the situation.
It has more than a whiff of defensiveness and lacks sensitivity.
And, understandably, it is a phrase that triggered a furious reaction.
One user replied: “'Temporary irritation' is an absolute joke, irritation is not the word. Try burns, blisters, scabs, now scars.”
And another said: “Temporary irritation” is ridiculous - people have had chemical burns, scabs, skin coming off. It’s been over a month and I still have discolouration that hasn’t faded."
It can be tricky to get the language right in crisis media management responses, particularly if you are tempted to add some form of context.
The risk, as this incident shows, is you sound like you are trying to downplay the significance of the crisis or make excuses for it.
A much better approach would have been to show more concern and empathy for those who have suffered side effects from using the deodorant.
But words that make the crisis worse are not the only problem with this response.
Mitchum apologised for the time it took to complete its investigation.
But you don’t need to wait for the investigation findings to begin communicating. You don’t need to have all the information before you address growing concerns.
The brand could have responded much earlier by saying it was aware of the reports and had launched an urgent investigation.
And then provided regular updates on the progress of that investigation until it was in a position to reveal what had been found.
This approach would have enabled it to communicate much sooner, rather than remaining silent and allowing the crisis to grow.
In the age of social media, you can’t afford to wait for an incident to go viral and for the story to be picked up by mainstream media before you respond.
You will lose all control of the narrative.
This story has grown so substantially that even after Mitchum responded, other experts are still being put forward in the media with views that create doubt about what the brand has said.
Staying quiet can also break customer trust.
Maybe if it had successfully engaged with some of the initial posts about the issue, it might not have needed to issue a full crisis response statement.
And finally on the statement, ‘contact the customer care team if you have experienced issues’, just feels vague and weak.
Make it clear how you intend to ‘make it up’. Are you offering refunds? Are you paying the prescription costs of those who have needed treatment after using your deodorant? What exactly are you offering?
It is worth adding that, as well as the delayed and poorly worded statement, it has also been suggested Mitchum initially deleted negative comments from its social media channels.
I don’t know if that accusation is true, but it would be another crisis communication misstep if it was.
Deleting comments is a bit like burying your head in the sand – it doesn’t make the crisis go away. But it might suggest you have something to hide.
Mitchum says it has found the cause of the deodorant problems.
But its poor response means it’s not just armpits that have been burning.
And its reputation may take much longer to heal.
Media First are media and communications training specialists with nearly 40 years of experience.
We have a team of trainers, each with decades of experience working as journalists, presenters, communications coaches and media trainers.
Click here to find out more about our crisis communication training courses and crisis management testing.