PR Squared

About

Blogroll

PR 2.0 Tactics

PR Squared

You know I think you're right and they're ignorant to how a corporation should behave in the social world. My hope is that you have or will convince them that being human is okay.

Unfortunately, the Catch-22 of the situation is that social media and the social web has emerged largely because of the fact that big corporations lost (or never exhibited) their humanity. While the 15 people in the room have worked hard to protecting and improving the reputation of that company, they've probably done so at the expense of their humanity. "Why would we dignify that with a response," is the kind of thing I would expect a company with no humanity to say.

And it's not necessarily that the CMO has no humanity, but that his or her company doesn't see human beings in their customers. They only see red or black at the bottom of a ledger sheet. After a while, you start drinking the Kool-Aid and become a marketer and not a person. The only difference in 10 years ago and now is that if you aren't human, you aren't relevant.

Good luck convincing them.

I know the "ouch" you're talking about and have seen it's impact. However, only in rare occasions to I ever recommend a direct response. Normally, I'd address these issues through a few different communication outlets (newsletters, newspapers and internal communications). This is partially because we don't want to give too much credibility to this source and because we don't want to be on defense all the time.
It sounds like though you're saying it's worth while to directly respond to many problems raised. If you're a large organization, how would you go about 1) answering ALL of the criticism and 2)maintaining the image the higher-ups want?

Interesting questions Todd, as usual...

A few thoughts: one, I think while painful, it's good for marketers and PR practitioners to see this negative stuff. Being faced with what the general public thinks about your brand is different than trade press--and a YouTube video is more "real" than looking at a corporate reputation survey and thinking, "okay, we can manage this."

Two, finding the right person to be human in a response would be key. I think a lot of times being unflappable is a worthwhile response, as it is likely masking an understandably defensive reaction--really, who likes to see his/her company attacked? Discretion being the better part of valor, and all that. If, however, you find the person who can frame things the way you did in the example, that would be beneficial to the company.

Not everyone can do that, especially within a short time frame (kind of like my dad's recommendation that you sleep on things for a night before writing a letter to the editor). When responding to things on the Internet, the feeling is that it must be done fast-fast-fast. That doesn't lend itself to the objectivity and perspective needed to craft a response that is engaged and acknowledges the hurt without being defensive.

To so many corporate and fellow PR folk, they views these things as they view many international happenings, "it's going on outside my realm, why should I care?" "What does it matter what people think who I don't know or respect?" "They can keep their opinions to themselves" "They're just venting"

I'm currently working through a tough situation with a client and some extra bad online PR coming from a very large community. Thankfully some people, like this client, immediately asked that responses be recorded/observed and the sentiment analyzed within the team. We get our own hands dirty so that we can get them cleaned.

Rock on Todd.

You know what this blog post reminds me of? The office episode where the paper gets sold with dirty images on it and Michael Scott goes in crisis communication mode, holds a press conference and creates a you-tube video apology.

I know it's completely different and as communication professionals we all cringe watching it- but thinking about it the whole you-tube concept actually a strategic move by Michael- obviously would have been better had a PR person been there- but it reminds me of David Neeleman's apology after the grounding of 1100 flights from ice storms.

I think he successfully was able to show people that he cared and helped put humanity back into the airline industry by adding a sincere face to the apology not just a letter on a website. I definitely think we need to stress that importance to our clients and show that social media can help corporate reputation not only hurt.

Here is the link to David Neeleman's apology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_PIg7EAUw

I think you bring up an interesting debate among corporate circles, especially those with a public image that's more like a big bullseye. I think it's important that companies take negative comments, videos, etc seriously. A single negative video could make it's way through YouTube, Digg, blogs, and other sites and within a day there could be millions of views. This is a serious problem for a company. It's a lot different than just word-of-mouth as it was before viral marketing via the Internet was as big as it is today.

Also, when companies come out and respond to such incidents it shows a more personal side of the company. I would much rather do business with a company that I can identify with then one that I feel doesn't care about me.

No one likes to lose control. I think this is a common reaction. I mean when the game has been relatively easy, and then you realize it's been turned upside down, well, that just sucks. I understand their pain.

Good one, Todd. Isn't it all about people even more thse days? So yeah, we definitely like to see more humanity!
This brings me to the question on how to deal with the not so positive news a company sometimes have. Are the 'not-so-human' companies reserved in this as well? Is there a relation between the two? So not bringing all the news, but only the positive, and not responding to not-so-nice publications, pretending it never happened?

Hi all -
Thanks so much for the interesting responses, and please accept my apologies for the late reply. I wrote this post in an airport terminal and haven't been back to the computer much since then.

@Aaron, re: "should you respond to EVERYTHING?" I would have to say that even for a large company that would be tough to scale up: likely the company would need to set some minimum benchmarks for a response. They would ALSO need to know when to fold their cards: no sense getting into a pissing match with anyone.

@Jen, I agree it's important to find the right person for the job. You need someone who has the maturity and presence of mind to respond quickly yet with the capacity to do so AS IF they'd had "a night to sleep on it." Not always easy.

@Erik - it comes down to consistency. The more "humanized" the company, the more its communications across all channels will be expected to be consistent. To have a very human Social Media manager for blogosphere responses but, a very Corporate means of communicating news will seem increasingly discombobulated to such companies' most engaged audiences.

Again, thanks to all for participating. Great stuff.

Seems to me that what makes seeing the "hard stuff" on YouTube and the like so difficult for businesses is because it reinforces that "control of your brand is an illusion," as you point out, Todd.

The problem with this reality is that it flies in the face of decades of corporate thinking(what these businesses have known to be true)--that marketing/PR efforts can, in large part, control the dialogue and the way consumers perceive a brand.

I'm watching our clients learn to engage and, more importantly, realize they can/should want to engage, but it's a slow, humbling, and sometimes even foot-stomping, process. Many are frustrated that they HAVE to participate. It may be cliche, but social media has really moved a lot of corporate cheese.

Great discussion.

Todd, I hear the "Why should we dignify this with a response" line ALL the time. Word for word. I think it's become a knee-jerk reaction to anything the leaders of an organization don't want to address. Maybe someone can explain how a clarification, a response, or a comment "dignifies" the offending content.

As others have noted, doing so puts the right information on the record forever (and as discoverable in a search as the original video/post/whatever). It also starts a conversation. The organization may not want a conversation with the producer of the video, but dialogue with people who stumble on it and view it can be invaluable, improving the perception of the organization above and beyond how they believe they were being viewed in the first place.

@Shel - You just summed up my own response in a nutshell (but with fewer words, and more grace).

Great post Todd. It's funny how things can really always be boiled down to relationships. The person posting the nasty video probably either feels hard-done by the company in the relationship he/she has with them or maybe feels like there is no relationship at all and anything he/she says can be said without any response.

The situation could also remind one of the traditional bully scenario where the kid is mouthing off about someone but the someone is not fighting back or at least responding in some way. Yes there will be those that side with the bully and join in on the supposed fun. And there will be those that want to stick up for the someone but maybe are afraid. And finally there will be those in the middle who haven't picked sides but know the bully has probably gone too far and that the someone should be doing "something " about it.

In all 3 of these cases the fact that the someone is letting the situation fester and not responding in some way is hurting that someone's reputation (even if they didn't start it and/or didn't deserve it).

People want to see some sort of engagement generally and they want to see it earlier rather than later. It doesn't mean fighting or stooping to the level of the bully but starting the discussion and seeing where it goes.

The only way to truly understand why the bully is doing what he/she's doing is to listen/engage. Most people are human (and not totally irrational) so engagement would probably produce some sort of understanding of a situation (though not necessarily agreement) 90% of the time. Those are pretty good odds.

So while it may seem like a good time to be saddened by a perceived attack on one's company you really never know until you start to dig a little deeper though the process of opening up a relationship. My two cents to the discussion anywho. Thanks for getting the discussion going Todd.

Hi Todd,
This post is interesting and brings to the forefront several issues.

The CMO’s perspective and Aaron's comment "we don't want to give too much credibility to this source and we don't want to be on defense" resonates with loud familiarity. Those are the traditional assumptions. They are based on traditional assumptions about how the mass and institutional media has more power, authority and influence over, and instead of, individuals’ perspective. The assumptions also rooted in the issues of humanity that Jason and you talk about. However, I’ll take it one step further: Those responses are rooted in beliefs (and business practices) that institutions, logic, management and rational thought count for more than people and those things we often see as messy, unmanageable, certainly less understandable human emotion and perceptions. As Jen points out, these things are tough…but they are real.

Social media changes the game. Its different. Traditional assumptions and practices do not necessarily produce the same results we expected in the past. That YouTube video already has credibility because it’s there. Those individuals felt strongly enough to make it. It’s been seen by others.

While it may not be eating away at the company’s reputation at the level of a negative Wall Street Journal story, it is impacting their reputation beyond just some individual’s family and friends. Whether the company knows it or not, it’s already on the defensive – the question is really how much credibility is the video garnering and for how long. My experience is that YouTube video’s (and stories on the web) have nine lives. Your showing the CMO and his team will neither be the first time, nor the last time, they will get to discuss whether to respond or not.

Brian’s point about how we have traditionally viewed this as “they are just venting” and the desire to ensure the YouTube video is not credible reminds me of the old expression "perception is reality." Social media gives that expression new and nuanced meanings that are very powerful. Perceptions are no longer just reality. They are real. Emotions, perceptions, what people experience and what they believe increasingly have value and become “the new facts.” Perceptions, my experience, my views are quickly gaining legitimacy as a part of the larger community’s “facts.” I touched on the the importance (and inherent value) of perceptions in social media here:
http://richardatdell.blogspot.com/2008/01/three-dirty-little-blogging-secrets.html

Im not always sure about the best approach to these kinds of situations. There is no rule and it is a gamble. You have to assess each one; act; and then you get to see where you get taken. Sometimes you get taken where you didn’t want to go, but if you are honest and sincere, hopefully the ride is not too rough. If that YouTube video is dead wrong and full of B.S. why not be forthright and say so. If the video is rooted in a mistake by the business…why not recognize it, fix your business and thank them for pointing it out so that your business demonstrates it’s in touch with the world and cares about what people say and think?

As I say from time to time, “No one is perfect. I hope that when people look at our company, some of what they think about us will be based not on our mistakes but on our actions to respond to our imperfections. And, as I said at the Twebinar the other day, I have yet to hear an argument from anyone about why businesses should not be more engaged with customers, taking advantage of the Web and all the opportunity it offers to listen, learn and engage with people.

Finally, you raised a question about the humanization of business in the context of community managers acknowledging the hurt of some of what we see and confront on the web.
I think LionelatDell, JohnatDell and lots of othersatDell might tell you RichardatDell is not "preternaturally patient in the face of withering criticism." There are situations where that "withering criticism" makes the adrenalin flow, and ignites my own perceptions and beliefs about Dell and what we are doing to engage with people online. That's my reality. Perhaps it's my own raw emotion too. That's real and some on the web have seen it.

Interesting comments from @RichardatDELL. Perhaps should be part of CEO 101 course on engaging customers. Sort of proud now to own my new Dell 24" ultrasharp widescreen monitor.

Thanks Monica, and thank you for being a customer. We share the pride with you :-)

OK, great that they asked you to come in. However, I'm surprised they didn't know the negative video was out there already.

But let's take an important step back - they are Fortune 500 and probably aren't headed for the scrap heap if they chose to ignore the negative YouTubers. I'm guessing most of their stakeholders/investors aren't that worried about the video - they are more concerned about cash flows and market development.

So, do the show and tell with them, but I hope your meeting went a little beyond responding to YouTube (besides, any response video is bound to suck) and giving them some insight into deeper customer engagement and conversion online. What else is taking place in your meetings?

As a much smaller company in the service business, one that deals with the misanthropic young artist no less, I feel for this CMO.

We sometimes come across feedback in the form of criticism and satire, much of it pretty thoughtless and nearly always in the form of "venting". We recognize that the poster is passionate and cares enough to put that kind of effort into such a response and have learned that, especially in cases where we've made a mistake, that it is best to take the poster head on and at least appear to take their beef seriously.

I can see how a big brand would take this as a sign of weakness, there is much more at stake and more to consider.

However, in nearly all cases, to ignore it is a worse move, it reinforces the persona of the corporate veil, the heartless corporation. Even worse is to address it but defensively, and the worst among worst is to prop up some sort of manufactured positive response from a "3rd party"; the public can smell that a mile away.

In the end, the social media and interconnectivity of it really does put a tremendous amount of power in the user's hands, to dismiss it is to alienate other users that may feel the same way. But to respond to it does present pitfalls if it isn't done professionally.

To show emotion in your response isn't necessarily a humanizing of the company but a humanization of the people who WORK at the company, which to me is a big difference, and perhaps another topic entirely.

I've always wondered if anyone cared if the henchmen that get killed off in a James Bond film (who aren't the hero or the ultimate villain) had families that would miss them. The same might be said for how people feel about the litany of customer service and other people at major corporations.

But showing some honest emotion in responding to the public may make some people stop and think of the organization of people they are blasting rather than the faceless corporate icon.

RichardatDELL,

Thanks for taking the time to lay it out. Best thing I've read in weeks. You captured the spirit of why so many people have gotten involved with social media, personally and professionally. There are many super smart and fascinating people in the world, but for me the magic of understanding and appreciation comes from exchanges we have with one another....not from knowing we did the RIGHT thing or know the RIGHT answer. I believe that's why we moved from Greek Myths to dramas, tragedies and comedies, wrapped by/with life, reality and all they have to offer.

Hat tip!

Enjoyed seeing you on the Twebinar 2.

There are some great points here, but I think there's also an elephant in the room.

It's one thing to be human and acknowledge the pain caused by an attack, and to be savvy about pointing out the "not-evil" things that a corpation does. Those are great progressive tactics that are very well alligned with the social media ethic.

But social media isn't just a communications technique. It's a social phenomenon in which consumers are finding a voice to question the behavior of corporations in ways they haven't been challenged before. Some of those attacks are specious and juvenile, but some are spot on. The video on Apple's iPod battery policy a few years ago comes to mind.

I don't know what Fortune 500 you're talking about, or the video in question, but if the attack video is about irresponsible corporate behavior then there's a dillemma that goes beyond brand management--and beyond the purview of the CMO. No response, however human, and no redirection to the great things a company does will be well received if they're not accompanied by a genuine willingness to change behavior. That's called white-washing--or greenwashing now that so many companies are foisting environmental flags to distract from other bad behavior--and consumers tend to be quite savvy these days about sniffing it out.

I don't want to take away from your point that simply ignoring social media attacks is a questionable communications strategy. But in situations where a response is simply a savvy PR ploy that doesn't address an authentic complaint, I don't think the company is going to win any points in the long run.

The increased scrutiny and accountability that social media is driving is not just forcing a change in communications, it's forcing a change in behavior as well.

Great discussion.

Todd,

I was just turned on to this site and think it's really great. Thanks for sharing.

I've had similar experiences to the one you have described above and have found more often than not the choice to not respond stems more from a lack of familiarity with this new interpersonal medium and less from ego.

CMO's need to pay attention to the the videos but EVEN MORE attention to the video makers. Those videos take a lot of work and these creators could be converted into real assets. Most of them "do it" for the fun and credit and not for the money. Companies should reach out and let them know they're being heard and appreciated, not ignored. Works like a charm. Sit back and watch how quickly they sing your praises.

In responding to any customer's complaint in a public forum, the company must protect the customer's privacy. Even when the customer isn't telling the public the truth.

In my company, government regulations not only require this, so do our privacy policies.

I'd be interested in hearing participants in this forum discuss how they balance the need to protect the privacy rights of the customer with the need to protect the company's reputation, especially when it's been unfairly or falsely maligned.

I continue to be blown away by your comments. Thanks so much for the time, and of course for the insights. (And thanks again, Richard, for your special appearance!)

@Adam - Of course that is not ALL we talked about. Please. That was 2 minutes out of an hour+ meeting. But I thought that that particular moment in time bore further exploration.

@Chris - Yes, I completely see that elephant in the room! The burden to "do the right thing" as a company is increased in our transparent era. Great point.

Again, thank you all!

Gotcha. Still, the reaction video would have been up there with the Kermit that @DougH can share with you some day.

Hi Todd,

Great to see this discussion continue...and Im really appreciating the different considerations and points of view. Maybe its food for your next several blog posts...didnt I see somewhere you were wondering what to blog about this week?

Oh and Todd....please! Hardly a special appearance. You know I go where the conversations take me.

You raised important issues. Ones we all struggle with. As I noted the "old" rules do not necessarily apply and the new rules are not clear. In addition, connecting, sharing and engaging on the web is forcing business and other institutions into unfamiliar waters. We are all familiar with "institutional" methods and means of connecting. The concept of people connecting with people with or without awareness and involvement by the company....well, OMG.

John raises an important consideration too. Because of our privacy policies I completely avoid personal customer information in the online discussion. You can usually deal with allegations about your corp rep without getting into customer info.

Jaron, you are right. The fundamental importance is the people...but arent we all so accustom to dealing with "media" or "interest groups" that people have kind of fallen by the way side? Maybe we have forgotten public = lots of people.

Chris, that was part of my point. Be authentic and fix your business if the allegations are rooted in some "fact"....and let them know you heard them and took corrective action. How cool is that when they hear that from you. I have a saying that I use often which is "you cant PR your way of the tough issues"...and social media really makes that true!

Elliot, nicely done. Its a fine point on humanizing "the company" or simply putting a face to the company through real people....but and important fine point nevertheless.

Adam, knowing Todd, of course they talked about a lot more and in a real and important way, but its like a barrier to entry. If you are stuck in the "old" response on something as simple but moving as an effective YouTube video, maybe you are not going any further...and engagement is not real. Speculation on my part...but a reasonable consideration, I suspect.

kene, thanks for the positive feedback.I think Ill keep going down this route, as a result :-)

Great post, Todd! Ignoring such criticism doesn’t make the problem go away. On the other hand, responding to negative feedback and showing some emotion shows that you truly care about your customers and what they think about your company and the way it does business. It’s sad that some folks at big corporations still don’t get how powerful social media is. And that in the hands of angry customers it can be deadly to their brands.

As a Comcast PR guy during the day, I sure ain't unflappable. I show sincere reactions to folks who take cheap shots and thank all the folks who share honest reaction. But maybe it's a bit harder to show reaction on a web site, where folks can't see your face and can only react to type. I'm surely more willing to be flappable on the phone where I can go back and forth with someone.

Your experience not withstanding, I think wildly growing numbers of us in business PR recognize the value of all this comment and reaction. But in another part of my life - as a local elected official - I do get the sick look on my face that you describe with the corporate marketing folks. And I don't apologize for having that look at all. I am genuinely worried.

Blogging has a heavily tech and retail focus, but surely social media is coming to local government and public policy involving everything from police to parks. I'm not sure we are ready. For example, in my town, we got a guy who dresses up as a priest and who has a long record of harassing girls and women. He writes extensively about our city and comes from a mental place where you would expect someone to come from with that criminal record. His e-comments affect the city's brand .. and this is the part that worries me more as a government official than as a corporate PR guy. Right now we all seem to be under the illusion that all these consumer blog posts and videos are sincerely and produced by folks as (hopefully) stable as us. But some folks are not giving the kind of honest feedback that Comcast and Dell dream of .. they're just toxic.

So how can we mentally filter a clever YouTube video produced by an honestly disenchanted consumer or taxpayer vs. a video produced by an extortionist or crazy person? Do the people who watch YouTube have the mental muscles yet to watch skeptically for that?

In business, we know blogging is balanced by comments; if someone made a wild claim about Dell, someone in theory is around to correct them. But in my local government example, folks who know the truth about this guy would be personally afraid to say anything.

We seem to be in an age where PR folks and elected officials are supposed to take all media produced by "the groundswell" as the same. How will our society adjust to apparently sane social media produced by the loons? That part does trouble me ... about this subject, to use wording from the original post, I am crestfallen and sad. Would loved to be cheered up by the obviously thoughtful people in this post's blogging community ...

Great post, Walter. Social Media is coming to all public (and many private!) venues. My response is always that as a brand, if you don't participate, you implicitly condone and thereby affirm existing social commentary. Paul Rand, at Zocalo, talks about the determined detractor: try as you might, you will not change this person. The best you can do is counter, not as tit-for-tat (that's a loser) but rather as in "making sure all sides of the story get told.

As to your question of determining who the poster really is, about the only thing that helps there is activley using the channels. First, this puts a larger conversation in play, so the outliers...look like outliers. Second, it sharpens one's own senses, just as playing more poker sharpens ones ability to spot a "tell" that signals a bluff.

Social media is something we all need to get better at. It's here to stay, and it's coming to a town near you. ;-)

D

Walter,

Without knowing more specifics its hard for me to suggest a fix, so let me just try to cheer you up.

You got a big heart.

It hurts when you passionately work towards something only to have professional complainers attempt to bring you down. While most of the video makers or youtubers or whatever we're calling them today are the mentally stable, wishing you to engage them, there will always be those that want to ruin your day so that they are not alone.

These are the exceptions.

Stay positive and don't let the poison in.

I don't know where you serve, but I feel a little better knowing people like you are out there serving.