Not All Social Media Fun & Games
Today I was honored to address the Chief Marketing Officer of a FORTUNE 500 corporation.
In the course of the presentation, I pulled up some videos from YouTube in which the creators attacked the company by remixing the company’s slickly-produced television advertisements.
A spirited debate ensued. “Why would we dignify this with a response?” was the CMO’s troubled question.
The core points of my response (as long-time readers will expect):
“Control of your brand is an illusion. You might know that you’ll never, ever convince the video’s creators that you are not an evil empire. You might know that the majority of the people who find this YouTube video are likely predisposed to agree with that negative opinion. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t be worthwhile to engage: by humanizing the corporation with a candid response, you ensure that ‘your side of the story’ is appended to this hateful video for as long as it’s findable online. It’s easier to abhor a faceless corporation than a helpful human.” Etc.
(Along with many other smart folks, I discussed this topic of so-called “brand ownership” with Chris Brogan during the 2nd Radian6 twebinar, if you care to see me bloviate in-person.)
For all of that “typical” talk about branding, I felt it was also important to note the humanity in the room. Along with the CMO, there were about 15 additional Marketing staff in the room. These were human beings who have largely dedicated their careers to protecting and improving the reputation of this American institution. Quite simply, it SUCKED to watch that video with them. They were crestfallen. Not shocked. Just sad.
It’s okay to acknowledge that pain, if you ask me – even online. While I hope to make a strong case for engagement-for-engagement’s-sake, part of that “humanization” means being actually and truly human. If I were the person tasked with responding to that video, I’d want to acknowledge, “Wow. That video was really well done. I know that because it actually hurt to watch. Now, I hope you don’t mind if I share some information about some of the not-even-close-to-evil stuff that we’re doing?”
I don’t think that most corporate community relations types would feel comfortable acknowledging the sting caused by flaming comments or content. Folks like @comcastcares and @RichardatDELL seem preternaturally patient in the face of withering criticism. That’s good for their brands, but having had good experiences with these (very real) people, I sometimes feel a desire to stick up for them. I secretly wait for the moment when they crack (just a little; these guys are pros) and acknowledge the “ouch.”
What do you think? Must corporate community relations pros remain unflappable, or does showing their humanity make them – and their brands – that much stronger?
Subscribe by Email
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.