Back in the day...Kings AND Queens were known to kill the messenger if the message they carried was to the Royal Person's disliking.
Corporate brands may be our royalty today. Because it seems we may have a similar situation today.
BusinessWeek had a post titled Beware Social Media Snake Oil.
It's well-written as you'd expect from an article at BusinessWeek. It starts with the pros of social media:
As millions of people flock to these online services to chat, flirt, swap photos, and network, companies have the chance to tune in to billions of digital conversations.
Starbucks (SBUX), Dell (DELL), and Ford Motor (F) have all testified to the magic social media can create.
Then it follows to the cons of social media:
But the same tools carry risks. Employees encouraged to tap social networking sites can fritter away hours, or worse. They can spill company secrets or harm corporate relationships by denigrating partners. What's more, with one misstep, one clumsy entrée, companies can quickly find themselves victims of the forces they were trying to master. Thousands of bloggers attacked Motrin last year because of an advertisement from the Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) brand they found demeaning to mothers.
It was interesting that the examples included were from only Fortune 500 companies as if their use of this tool gave it validity. But, then again, Fortune 500 remains our country's royalty in many respects with special privileges (affordable healthcare, tax breaks, anyone?)
But, that's not what I found most interesting.
The most interesting part of the paragraph warning readers of the perils in that bottle of elixir titled social media was its encouragement to shoot the social media messenger. Don't like the message being shared about your brand on twitter, facebook, blogs, etal? Shoot 'em. Shoot the social media tools.
Social media is merely the messenger. And a very effective messenger it is, too. In an instant, one clumsy entree from a brand that should know better, can create a global community of customer vigilantes more than willing to share how insulting is one clumsy entree from both a well-financed (at least financially) brand and its ad agency that consisted of ads and sites and messages that were not only truly clueless but amazingly insulting in both tone and message. ( And I'm not a mom and I found Motrin's ads patronizing to an astonishing, self-congratulatory,aren't we cool, degree.
But social media only carried the message inspired by the creation of that ...one clumsy entree. (That term...makes it sound like a pickle was mistakenly placed where the olives usually are on a Perkins buffet.)
Social media only carries a company's secrets that one of its stakeholders has been inspired, motivated, to share. The problem is not social media or its ease of use. The problem is why that stakeholder was motivated to share those secrets or why that stakeholder was a stakeholder when their loyalties were so clearly absent. Surely there were clues that should have been noticed by other stakeholders if they cared their brand.
Social media doesn't denigrate partners or their communities. Childish, churlish, petulant employees denigrate partners and their partners' communities.
Clumsy entrees, disloyal stakeholders, and pouty employees have always existed. And so have their decisions and their impact on brands, communities, careers, partners and vendors.
The difference now is that brands are being embarrassed publicly, globally.
And that means managers and supervisors, leaders and their ad agencies, are being embarrassed. A brand's patronizing attitude towards their customers can now be seen globally and discussed globally. Social media didn't make that Motrin condescend to its most fervent, connected, vocal customer group: moms. Motrin and its agency did that all by their lonesomes.
Social media did not insist the employee or agency of a major company headquartered in Memphis go out and dis the town of Memphis in a tweet. That employee, agency, did it on their own.
Likewise, the customers and fans of those Fortune 500 companies showcased as social media successes, used social media to share their experience. Neither did social media insist that supporters of democracy, human dignity share the stories of how Iranian authorities abused their own citizens who wanted...democracy and human dignity.
Social media didn't make them do it. But people were inspired to use social media to share their experiences and those of others.
The common principle here, overlooked by the article's author, is that social media is but the messenger. The message, its content, is inspired by brands and our experiences with those brands. Social media's use is inspired by our experiences.
Some brands provide positive experiences for their stakeholders. And those stakeholders use social media to share their positive experiences.
Some brand provide insulting, patronizing, experiences to their stakeholders. And those stakeholders share their experiences.
Brands (and traditional media): Don't shoot social media. It's only accelerating the spread of messages deliver or inspired by your actions, campaigns, customer service, employee policies, layoffs, motivations, leadership, vision, purpose and articles.
***********************************
Likewise social media didn't insist I write this critique of the
article. The article amused, inspired, me to write it. At other times,
BusinessWeek articles have inspired me to praise their content. Either
way, I'm accelerating the spread of the conversation about their
content. And we're all learning.




Recent Comments