|
|
Pushing boundaries and bringing brands directly to the consumer has long been the motivation for brands’ social media engagement. However, when something goes wrong in this public forum or a crisis unfolds online, the risk is often not worth the reward.
So, how could brands that stumbled in 2015 have done better? And what can we learn from these gaffes to prepare us for next year?
AskJPM
|
|
Where they went wrong: JP Morgan, like many brands, had good intentions when it launched its AskJPM Twitter series, a live Twitter Q&A with senior executives. However, before going live, the brand should have listened better to the industry and conversation happening online, realizing that the time was not right to put a banking executive out there for an open Q&A. And while the brand pulled the concept immediately, the damage was done.
What they could have done? Clearly, the social sphere has concerns about the industry and banking practices. AskJPM could have focused on one of these issues and addressed it via a blog or Periscope. This way, it was focusing the conversation on an issue, not just an open forum for customer complaints.
Lesson learned? Listen better, and listen always. Listening first may have saved the brand from a hijacked account and posts like: “Can I have my house back? #AskJPM”
Volkswagen Emissions Scandal
Where they went wrong: Earlier this year, the EPA issued a notice of violation to Volkswagen regarding an emissions scandal; almost immediately, the brand set itself up for a social media witch-hunt by going silent and hiding from the issue. For about a week, the normally vocal brand hunkered down and allowed fans the time to ruminate and get angry.
What they could have done? Volkswagen knew the EPA news was coming, so it could have timed its communication with the news. Even if Volkswagen could not say much, saying nothing allowed its passionate consumers to create their own story.
Lesson learned? You can’t run or hide.
Deflategate
Where they went wrong: Deflategate blew up well beyond what the NFL and Patriots probably ever imagined. Both parties — including Tom Brady — remained quiet and waited for the final report to become public. Neither used their powerful reach on social media to tell their side of the story; they allowed the accusations to lead the news.
What they could have done? There was a period of weeks where each party could have showed how they were putting practices in place to ensure this would never be an issue again. Proactive communications and more transparency could have kept some of the negativity at bay. Instead the fans and the report led the conversation, and put Brady and others at third and long with little option but to punt.
Lesson learned? Leverage social dialogue to get ahead of the news, and tell your story.
Coke and The Global Energy Balance Network
Where they went wrong: The Coke brand went to great lengths — $1.5 million — to invest in research from Global Energy Balance Network to counter the campaign for taxation of unhealthy foods — one of which is Coke — and to promote messages that directly benefit the brand. The issue here is that Coke did this with zero transparency, and expected no one to find out. When the network started posting healthy snacks that included a small soda, people got suspicious. And Coke executives were not shy about putting all of this in emails, now obtained by the media.
What they could have done? Be transparent and announce the partnership, not as a means to deceive, but as a means to point to holistic health needs that the Global Energy Balance Network could talk about. The brand needed to use this as a means to educate, rather than downplay the products’ obesity legacy.
Lesson learned? Be transparent.
Lane Bryant
Where they went wrong: Lane Bryant meant well when it hosted its #AskLaneBryant Twitter chat just last week, but it backfired when consumers used the platform to discuss grievances with the brand in regards to inclusivity and diversity. The brand, which says it celebrates women of all sizes, was caught off guard with questions like why it never has size 22 models and why much of its product is slimming wear. Some praised the brand for starting the conversations, but it was definitely a Pandora’s box of issues for Lane Bryant.
What could they have done? Next time the brand should focus its chat on some of the issues its consumers are having and have raised in the past. Address the issue head-on and don’t just open it up to any and all questions. In addition, Lane Bryant could have brought on one of its models to field questions about the clothes, fits, etc. Authenticity is key.
Lesson learned? Make sure your product and pitch stands up to your platform.
Subway and Jared
Where they went wrong: Subway could have managed a few issues better when news of the FBI investigation into spokesperson Jared Fogle broke. First, there appeared to be no game plan for the company, despite rumors about Jared, which surfaced more than eight years ago. Second, and most damaging, Subway's responses on social channels as the FBI investigation played out was not consistent and offered very little to its consumers, franchisees or employees.
What they could have done? Plan better, for starters. But aside from that, Subway needed to be more consistent and decisive in its outbound messaging. Social posts were confusing and ended with “no further comment.” The brand should have communicated its sympathy for the victims and families, and needed to stand behind its decision to part ways.
Lesson learned? Have a game plan, and never say never.
* * *
Maggie O’Neill is a Partner and Managing Director at Peppercomm.
There’s a fine line between newsjacking and taking advantage, aka ambulance chasing. Our job as PR professionals is to tread it carefully.
PR firms need to be mindful of ways their work product may be protected by the attorney-client privilege whenever working with a client’s internal legal team or its external legal counsel.
Manuel Rocha, former US ambassador and intenational business advisor to LLYC, plans to plead guilty to charges that he was a secret agent for Cuba.
CEO mentoring is an often-overlooked aspect of why CEOs are able to make good decisions, and sometimes make bad ones—all of which intersects with the role and duties of a board. 
How organizations can anticipate, prepare and respond to crises in an increasingly complex world where a convergent landscape of global challenges, threats and risks seem to arrive at an unrelenting pace.
Have a comment? Send it to 
No comments have been submitted for this story yet.