User-generated content. A power-to-the-people revolution. Free speech. The un-bribable blogosphere. All these are very scary words for many brands. And that's understandable. After all, even some of the biggest global brands with the largest marketing budgets and cleverest people behind them have fallen foul of the hawk-eyed online communities, incurring their wrath, McDonald's, Wal-Mart and Dell, to name just a few.
As a result of these highly publicised PR disasters in the social networking world, marketers are holding back from getting involved with the hugely popular user-generated content (UGC) sites, such as MySpace and Facebook. Agencies report that clients are paralysed by fear about potential negative consumer feedback and what to do about it. But - whether a brand chooses to get involved or not - these conversations are going on and, by not responding, marketers are actually adding fuel to the fire.
Take the Best Buy debacle. (Or perhaps I should say "one of" the debacles because, as you can see from www.ihatebestbuy.com, there are plenty to choose from.) A blogger bought an LCD screen from the American supermarket chain and it broke. He took it back to the store and complained. He was refused his money back. Incensed, he started furiously tapping away at his keyboard, recording his frustrations on his blog. "He had about 100,000 readers reading and commenting on it. Eventually, Best Buy had to respond from the top. The blogger had managed to embarrass Best Buy into responding, but if Best Buy had been more proactive, it could have nipped the situation in the bud much more quickly," says Henry Elliss, head of search agency Tamar's newly formed social media consultancy.
Delta Airlines experienced a similar situation, which also shows clearly that, in the democratic online environment, ignoring negative feedback is not a wise strategy. Comedian Ze Frank was put up in a hotel with a stranger after Delta Airlines cancelled his flight. Afterwards, the airline refused to award him compensation. Again, he quickly vented his anger online on his popular daily blog The Show and the comic monologue is still online more than a year later, continuing to berate the airline (www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/05/051506.html). This example also reflects that in this new era of marketing, individuals can wield significant power over even the biggest brands, particularly if they have a fan base or a media profile.
The biggest online scandals have resulted from corporations lying about, or hiding, their true identity. This is a sure-fire way to inflame the world of bloggers and social networkers: if there's one thing they can't stomach, it's deception. Another American supermarket chain, Wal-Mart, received a huge amount of flak when it attempted to launch its own social network.
Called 'The Hub', this networking site was aimed at school kids and set out to be a place where they could meet and make friends. However, visitors to the site quickly smelt a rat when they read some of the profiles, which were overwhelmingly, sickeningly positive about the supermarket brand. Many of them were clearly written by marketing professionals and not, as they claimed, school kids. As a result, the site closed down after only four months.
Flogging it
Wal-Mart was also vilified for its involvement in a fake blog (or "flog"). A freelance journalist wrote a blog about her travels across America in a mobile home staying in Wal-Mart car parks. She gave the impression that her quirky adventure had nothing to do with the retail chain. Naturally, the community of anti-Wal-Mart bloggers had a field day when it was exposed that she was, in fact, being sponsored by the corporation. The site has now been taken down.
McDonald's was also caught out using flogs in one of its marketing campaigns. The blog appeared to be written by a security guard who was so fascinated by a promotion that he wrote about it in his blog. However, another blog called Consumerist exposed the flog as the work of a PR agency.
Another golden rule of operating in the UGC environment - which quickly follows the 'never lie' rule - is to admit responsibility when you've made a mistake. As founder of online PR agency No Flannel and former journalist, Claire Armitt, says: "If a brand has done something wrong, it needs to hold its hands up, say 'sorry' and fix it. This kills the story to a certain extent. Denial will only fuel negative comments and heighten interest, and when you are found out it will cause irreparable damage."
Besides, if your brand is just having a bad day and the incident is not generally reflective of your product or service, you will find that the community will rally around and defend the brand in the face of negative comments. As MySpace director of corporate communications for Europe, Chris McCafferty, says: "Often it is the brand champions who leap to the defence of a brand if negative threads do spring up. And a consumer/fan defending your brand and talking up the positives can have so much more value and authenticity than corporates defending themselves."
The best example of this is the case of low-cost American airline Jet Blue. Earlier this year, over Valentine's weekend, many of Jet Blue's New York flights were delayed or cancelled due to bad weather, leaving passengers stranded and angry. The airline was lauded for its speedy apology. Chief executive, David Neeleman, appeared on YouTube soon after the crisis, reassuring customers that the terrible service levels would never be repeated, and the company took pains to listen to as much feedback from customers as possible.
Consequently, customers posted positive messages on YouTube after Neeleman's apology, with many emailing the company directly pledging their support. As one YouTube comment reads: "Honest communication is appreciated even when things haven't always been smooth. We always make the airline our choice for flying now."
Helen Nowicka, director of online PR consultancy Shiny Red, stresses that "adopting the right tone" is crucial when trying to strike up a dialogue with users of UGC sites. "Forums and blogs are generally written in a chatty way, so don't use lots of corporate speak," she says. "Instead, use ordinary language and be discursive, not assertive. Ideally, don't just drop in once but keep ongoing dialogue."
When Shiny Red worked on the trade launch of digital music download site We7, it was important to manage people's expectations of how ad-funded music downloads would work. The agency advised its client to respond to nine out of ten discussions on UGC sites about the launch. For example, We7 chief executive, Steve Purdham, replies to criticisms posted on http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9726153-1.html. He opens his post with a friendly "Hi guys", promptly followed by his introduction as chief executive and the reason for taking part in the conversation ("Just thought I would jump in with a couple of answers and points," he says.) He then goes on to directly address the criticism and updates readers on new developments, before closing his message by thanking people for reading.
Stand well back
However, there are times when a rational response from a brand will merely spur some online enthusiasts into even longer rants about their experience. In these cases, experts agree it is best to respond briefly and politely, but not to get drawn into an argument. Online consultancy Precedent's director of strategy, Neil Davis, suggests saying something along the lines of: "We really would like to improve our service. If you could give us anything constructive to work on, we'd be delighted to improve."
"If you become defensive or negative it turns into a brawl and you will end up worse for wear," says Davis. He adds that companies need to credit consumers with more intelligence to make up their own mind, too. In many cases, particularly if the complainant appears irrational or confused, the reader will not hold too much stock in the opinion.
It's a different matter, however, if the complainants are consistently saying the same thing about a product or service. "Think of the web as a reflection of your company, like a mirror. Don't blame the mirror if you don't like what you see. Respond by taking positive action, not ignoring the comments," suggests Davis.
In a bid to gauge the general feeling of online communities towards certain brands, interactive agency Blast Radius has set up not-for-profit web site http://sutori.co.uk. The idea is that this site provides a real-time barometer of attitudes towards companies and brands giving a rating from 'I'm in love' to 'I'm livid with rage'. Consumers share their experiences of products and services, while brands are invited to respond. "While there are many ways to comment on things online, there is no way to truly galvanise the opinions of many people across many cultures and countries. Our 'Goodwill Meter' shows not just if a brand had a bad day, but if 10,000 people are consistently saying: 'This organisation is not treating us well'," says Gurval Caer, chief executive, Blast Radius.
Feedback, especially of the negative variety, provides a golden opportunity for companies to improve their businesses. Savvy brands are building UGC feedback into their CRM strategies. Snack brand Doritos, for example, feeds UGC campaigns directly into NPD by getting feedback on new crisp flavours.
Negative feedback also serves another role: it adds authenticity to a site. As Caer says: "If you go to a site and there's 100 per cent agreement, it doesn't smell genuine. Negative comments give more credence to the positive ones."
Brands are slowly cottoning on to this and taking the plunge into the sometimes-rough seas of UGC. Waitrose recently launched a forum on its web site through agency Twentysix London. As Lindsay Edge, assistant marketing manager, internet and e-commerce, says: "If negative postings are dealt with quickly and effectively with a good moderating system as back-up, then UGC can be a very positive influence on your brand. It not only shows honesty in your communications, but opens up a much more interesting dialogue with your customers."
TIMES ONLINE FACES UP TO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
When the Times Online relaunched its web site in February, it was plagued with technical problems making it hard for readers to view the new content. One of the objectives of the relaunch was to encourage more reader feedback and, indeed, the newspaper got plenty of this on its first day. Unfortunately, feedback was predominantly negative, focusing on these technical glitches.
According to Tamara Littleton, chief executive of UGC moderation company EModeration, some of the comments were particularly "uncharitable and vitriolic". Nevertheless, the newspaper published them all, unless they breached the editorial policy on libel, obscenity or gross offensiveness.
"Instead of removing the comments or hiding them and pretending everything was fine, all were published, addressed and fixed. The Times was very keen to embrace the opportunity for encouraging feedback and the key thing is that, because you have this open dialogue, you have to take on board what people are saying," she says.
The biggest challenge for Tom Whitwell, Times Online communities editor, came when, he says: "The Guardian ran a slightly snooty piece about our relaunch, just as the site was having huge trouble dealing with all the relaunch traffic."
Rather than ignoring these comments and the subsequent posts the article prompted, Whitwell went on to the site and left a comment apologising and explaining who he was and what was going on. He was careful to strike the right tone and be as honest and straightforward as possible.
"Immediately, the tone of the debate changed - they started attacking Times Online's web hosting, rather than Times Online itself," he says.
For instance, one post in response to The Guardian's "snooty" article reads: "Oh it's so easy to gloat but, come on, if you work in 'new media' hasn't something similar, albeit on a smaller scale, happened to you? Shouldn't we feel a certain sympathy and empathy for those who have worked so hard on the relaunch?"
Whitwell warns brands against issuing official statements or complaining about negative comments. "The moment you do this, you're lost," he says.
DISILLUSIONED CUSTOMERS GANG UP ON DELL
In June 2005, blogger Jeff Jarvis (for full thread, see www.buzzmachine.com/?tag=dell) bought a Dell computer. It didn't work to his satisfaction and, when he contacted Dell's customer services, they were less than helpful. He then wrote a blog entitled: "Dell lies. Dell sucks."
His frustrations hit a chord with hundreds of other consumers and his blog was quickly inundated with stories of similar woeful experiences. Initially, Dell chose to ignore all the blog posts and Jarvis' repeated complaints. Big mistake. The saga kept gathering momentum, with coverage on other blogs, newspapers and magazines. At the same time, Dell's customer satisfaction rating, market share and share price in the US plummeted.
Finally, at this point, Dell realised it needed to respond. A year ago, it launched its own blog Direct2Dell (www.direct2dell.com), in an attempt to engage the public in dialogue. Again, the way it approached this initially sparked criticism for completely avoiding any mention of Jarvis. As one blogger and PR man Steve Rubel commented on his blog www.micropersuasion.com: "If Dell were serious about using their blog as 'an online meeting place where we welcome our customers around the globe ... one at a time' (their words, not mine), then it would have been great if they started with one of their most outspoken critics. A blog interview with Jarvis would have said reams about their willingness to be open to criticism. Instead, the Dell blog reads like a corporate brochure."
The turning point came when Dell's chief blogger, Lionel Menchaca, got online and addressed Dell's difficulties head on. This move instantly reaped the respect of the online community, not least Jarvis himself who, in a recent article for The Guardian, wrote appreciatively of Mechaca's "honest, direct, humble and human voice".
Jarvis then went on applauding Dell for - albeit belatedly - listening and reacting to its customers in setting up a site called IdeaStorm where customers can give feedback.
The moral of the story? If you ignore them, angry web surfers will not just go away. They will come back fighting, with many more individuals like them in tow. As Jarvis says: "I was merely the agent of coalescence. That's what you have to watch for on the internet. That's what the internet enables."
.jpg)
.jpg)