Posted by Amanda Laird on Thu, Sep 02, 2010
Social media experts warn that one tweet is all it takes to ignite a firestorm of online rumours. And it was just one tweet that brought the web’s attention to the Toronto International Film Festival earlier this week – and it had nothing to do with glitz or glam.
In case you haven’t heard – a Toronto writer tweeted that she had been bitten by bedbugs after watching a movie at the Scotiabank theatre in Toronto. A few days later her friend and movie journalist, James Rocchi, tweeted, “Bad, bad news from Toronto re: #TIFF10. Torontoian friend got, yes, bedbugs at the Scotiabank – aka where all press screenings are.”
An hour or so later the fest’s co-director, Cameron Bailey, responded. “Before bedbugs becomes today’s meme: we’re on it, we’re talking to Cineplex and are planning for an itch-free #TIFF10.” Cineplex also chimed in on Twitter, assuring their 3,000 followers that they were looking into the issue. Less than 24 hours after the Rocchi’s tweet, Cineplex confirmed that the theatre was pest-free.
If there’s anything that can outlive a bedbug it’s an online rumour. Countless blogs and newsites including all three of Toronto’s major dailies, Hollywood Reporter and Perez Hilton grabbed headlines about the possible infestation and a quick scan of the #TIFF10 hashtag reveals folks are still a-Twitter over the rumours.
Given how quickly TIFF responded to Rocchi’s original tweet, one can only assume that someone was listening closely to online chatter. For communicators, this should serve as a cautionary tale that you must be listening online for mentions about your brand.
Should you ever find yourself in the festival’s shoes, use this six-point checklist for responding to an online rumour.
Six Tips for Responding to an Online Rumour
- Take action immediately.
- Use the same media your audience uses use.
- Respond appropriately (it can be one-on-one, or a mass communication approach).
- Be open and transparent when you respond.
- Stay on the high road. Don’t engage in a negative way.
- Be flexible. Sometimes tactics don’t work out the way you want them to. But don’t give up… your reputation is at stake.
Posted by dna 13 on Thu, Jul 15, 2010
In my last blog entry, I argued the PR crisis BP finds itself in following its precedent-setting offshore oil spill is due in part to having virtually no profile in or contribution to the online conversations taking place about the greatest environmental disaster of the century.
In dna13’s latest white paper, we make the claim that given the power and potential of today’s tools and apps, there’s no reason not to win even the most complex PR battles.
Granted, the multi-channel universe we live in makes it tougher than ever to know where the biggest threat to your reputation may come from. The front page of the dailies? YouTube? Twitter? But the flip-side is that smart organizations are using the same channels to monitor what’s being said about them, establish relationships with key influencers and followers, and adjust strategies along the way to stay on the winning side of their PR battles.
Basic principles of communication don’t change, notwithstanding phenomena like social media. Truly competitive enterprises always know who their audiences are and what they say and think. And they always find creative ways to tap into those conversations, take part in them, and protect and build their brand awareness and value. Social media is just the latest in the ever-evolving selection of channels.
BP may have the market cornered these days on PR disasters, but they’re not the first. Think about Nortel’s woes in the past decade. Our latest white paper describes how former Nortel employee April Dunford combined strategic thinking and social media tactics to regain some of the shine on her company’s tarnished brand. How? Through simple and cost-effective and effective steps – careful monitoring of audiences, sharp analysis of data, and positioning her company as a thought leader even in a sea of setbacks and failures.
Monitoring and participating in social media is no longer an option – it’s a requirement.
Posted by dna 13 on Tue, Jul 06, 2010
Social search’s entrée into the online domain was destined to be a juggernaut for brands in crisis right from the start. For BP, whose ongoing disaster is shaping up to be the crisis of the century, social search has been a primary contributor to the company’s lack of control over its messaging, and its virtual absence in online conversations.
Case in point (as noted by TechCrunch): When you Google “BP PR” or “BP public relations,” the top search result is @BPGlobalPR, the highly publicized, widely followed “mock BP” Twitter account. As for BP’s own PR efforts in social media, it’s a lost cause: The “I’m sorry” video featuring CEO Tony Hayward was unanimously criticized as disingenuous and forced, and BP’s official Twitter account has a mere 15,000 followers (a fraction of the mock account’s 181,000).
The company’s misguided “everything but the kitchen sink” approach to social media (it’s also using Flickr and YouTube to spread its messages) isn’t doing anything in the way of bolstering its presence in search results. As we recently noted, the only thing they have been able to do in the way of search visibility is pay for it, with some reports estimating their investment to be in the neighborhood of $50 million.
While we acknowledged the strategic thinking behind the paid search approach, this whole situation is making us wonder how much longer paid search will even exist as social media conversations increasingly drive results. It’s definitely a point worth considering—especially if you’re thinking of sinking $50 million into paid search anytime soon.
Posted by dna 13 on Wed, Jun 23, 2010
According to a new report from brand measurement firm General Sentiment, BP's brand value has taken an estimated $1-billion hit as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 21st, and the subsequent oil spill that continues to wreak havoc in the Gulf of Mexico-this based on a sentiment analysis of relevant conversations taking place in online channels since April (see image, courtesy of TechCrunch).
With the world watching in horror as the crisis continues to unfold, no one should be surprised that the estimated decrease in BP's brand value is so staggering (it's congruent with the massive plummet in the company's stock, after all). Most interesting to us, though, is the report's calculation that, since June 1st, the average loss surpasses $32 million a day.
Then again, this isn't surprising either when you consider the events that have transpired since June 1st-namely, BP's obvious reluctance to provide straightforward answers to the public. In the congressional hearings last week on Capitol Hill, BP CEO Tony Hayward sidestepped questions surrounding the cause of the spill and who was to blame. "I had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well, none whatsoever," he said during the hearing, as reported by New York Times.
This air of vagueness that borders on apathy, coupled with his recent weekend of yachting and a comment that he "would like [his] life back," certainly isn't helping the company's efforts to triage its devastated reputation. Then again, neither are the PR and advertising campaigns, which continue to pump out faceless corporate messaging that smacks of ambiguity.
In an era of instant information online and consumer-created content, the public equates brand quality with corporate transparency and personal responsibility. Given BP's do either, the colossal hits to its brand and bottom line are simply the cost of doing business badly.
Posted by dna 13 on Fri, Jun 11, 2010
The metaphysical principle of Occam's razor tells us that the simplest solution is usually the best solution, but it fails to acknowledge one key point: all too often, the simplest solution is also the easiest one to overlook.
This is what came to mind when we heard BP's latest crisis communications tactic: buying the top search results for "oil spill" on Google and Yahoo, and then linking to its "Gulf of Mexico response" Web page.
Obviously this approach isn't going to do anything in the way of resurrecting its damned brand and reputation, nor does it intend to. What it does achieve, however, is getting BP's own messages (as misinformed or hopeless as they may be) to appear alongside the unbranded information currently ranking in the top search results-a tactic that's so obvious, it's a wonder that more brands-in-crisis don't do it.
Granted, managing crisis communications is a moot point when the crisis in question is of this magnitude (as Mr. Stick-aka @BPGlobalPR-so wisely suggested, just focus on fixing the problem, because energy spent on anything else is just wasted). But we think it's a smart, simple tactic that should be part of every brand's crisis management toolkit, as it's the best-and often the only-way to have your message heard when "it" hits the proverbial fan. (Of course, the best crisis plan is actually an issues management/risk mitigation plan, which serves to proactively identify and triage issues before they escalate to full-blown crises.)
What about you? Do you have any examples of companies buying search terms to help manage their messaging in the midst of a crisis? We'd love to hear them!
Posted by dna 13 on Mon, Jun 07, 2010
The recent pseudo-unveiling of the man behind @BPGlobalPR has the PR industry all a-Twitter with the "who/what/where/when/why and how" of the situation at hand and, more importantly, its implications on brand/reputation management during times of crisis.
The owner of the Twitter handle in question, who used the alias "Leroy Stick" to pen blog post on Street Giant last week, launched his satirical tweetstream in the weeks following the oil rig explosion that prompted the worst oil spill in U.S. history. As his profile gained followers (as of this writing, the audience is in excess of 134,000), the media took notice-after all, his highly critical, sardonic tone all but guaranteed the source of the tweets was not an official BP spokesperson (see image below).
With last week's blog post, Mr. Stick shed some light on his motive for becoming a sharp-tongued brand imposter:
"I started @BPGlobalPR, because the oil spill had been going on for almost a month and all BP had to offer were bullshit PR statements. No solutions, no urgency, no sincerity, no nothing. That's why I decided to relate to the public for them. I started off just making jokes at their expense with a few friends, but now it has turned into something of a movement."
He then shifted his vitriol from BP to PR professionals at large, writing:
"I've read a bunch of articles and blogs about this whole situation by publicists and marketing folk wondering what BP should do to save their brand from @BPGlobalPR. First of all, who cares? Second of all, what kind of business are you in? I'm trashing a company that is literally trashing the ocean, and these idiots are trying to figure out how to protect that company? One pickledick actually suggested that BP approach me and try to incorporate me into their actual PR outreach. That has got to be the dumbest, most head-up-the-ass solution anyone could possibly offer."
His sophomoric language aside, he actually raises some interesting questions about the role PR plays in the modern communications environment. If brands' identities are actually owned and defined by individuals' own interpretations of them (and Mr. Stick suggests they are), then is there really anything PR/communications can do during a crisis like BP's? If you agree with Stick, the answer is "no." So, what do you think? Here's a final thought from Mr. @BPGlobalPR to consider while you decide:
"The point is, FORGET YOUR BRAND. You don't own it because it is literally nothing. You can spend all sorts of time and money trying to manufacture public opinion, but ultimately, that's up to the public, now isn't it?"
Posted by dna 13 on Tue, Jun 01, 2010
With the news that its latest attempt to stop the Gulf of Mexico oil leak failed, BP's stock took another massive tumble in markets around the world-down 11% in the U.S. and 14% on the London Stock Exchange-bringing the overall decline in value to nearly 40% since the April 20th explosion. As a result, an estimated 19,000 barrels continue to pour into the Gulf every day-enough for the current crisis to officially bypass the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and become the worst in U.S. history.
But interestingly enough, for as maligned as Exxon was in the years-if not decades-following its infamous "oil letting," the market reaction was notably slower and less severe than that currently felt by BP. As noted in Wall Street Journal reports, the first two weeks after the 1989 crash, Exxon shares lost 3.9%, but the losses were recouped after four weeks. One possible reason for the disparity, according to Pavel Molchanov, energy analyst with Raymond James: "the fact that there is simply more day-to-day ‘headline risk' than 20 years ago, a function of the dramatically accelerated flow of information in the market."
The comment is striking given the challenges companies face in managing their reputations-not to mention any crises that befall them-in the age of 24/7/365, news courtesy of online media's ubiquity. But that's not the only difference between now and then: Transparency is now known to be critical, both as a mechanism for crisis management and as a preventative measure. Molchanov actually defended BP's transparency in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, underscoring the monumental challenge at hand:
"'They're in many ways a model for how a company needs to act in a crisis management mode - as opposed to Exxon after Valdez,' said Molchanov. Still, transparency alone isn't going to turn BP's stock price around. "It's hard to fight the tape when the tape is that bad.'"
Do you agree that BP's behavior has been commendably transparent, all things considered?
Posted by dna 13 on Thu, May 27, 2010
Controversy surrounding Facebook's admittedly haphazard approach to privacy and user information has been swirling for some time, but recent tweaks to the platform's setting have prompted a particularly sharp spike in critics' vitriol. Following the negative coverage and conversations that snowballed last week, CEO Mark Zuckerberg-who basically pronounced privacy dead during an interview with TechCrunch in January 2010-sent a note to tech blogger Robert Scoble on Sunday (May 23) acknowledging that the company has made "a bunch of mistakes" regarding privacy. On Monday, the Washington Post ran an op-ed penned by Zuckerberg, in which he announced plans for simplified privacy settings that debuted two days later.
Even with the new settings, media criticism is still pervasive, which brings to light interesting questions surrounding the brand's tolerance for widespread condemnation. After all, for most companies, an issue of this magnitude would be a monumental crisis with long-lasting, debilitating effects on their reputation. But not for Facebook-at least according to an online sentiment analysis conducted by Gregory | FCA Communications, which revealed that, despite the current media and political backlash, consumer sentiment is unaffected (note that Zuckerberg's mea culpa and the release of simplified privacy settings came after this analysis was done).
The positive sentiment score is certainly surprising given the present volume of criticism. While it would be interesting to see more in-depth, systematic analyses, this snapshot is still compelling. We are anxious to see what happens on May 31-"Quit Facebook Day"- when some 22,000+ users have pledged to delete their profiles from Facebook as an act of protest.
In the meantime, we're interested to hear what you think of this sentiment analysis. Does it make sense that Facebook has a disproportionately high threshold for criticism, or is there still part of this story that remains to be told?
Posted by dna 13 on Tue, May 18, 2010
Nestlé's recent run-in with Greenpeace over its palm oil-deforestation controversy has already become a modern-day social media crisis case study, joining the ranks of Domino's, United Airlines and, once upon a time, Dell (whether it will eventually rise from the ashes to become the quintessential digital darling like the latter did remains to be seen). Now, according to a statement from Greenpeace itself, the confectionary company has agreed to activists' demands, formally announcing a "zero deforestation" policy in partnership with The Forest Trust.
Which can only mean one thing: Greenpeace has its sights set on a new target, and this time, the bull's eye is on a bank-HSBC, to be exact.
Greenpeace has had its eye on HSBC for some time over its investments in Sinar Mas, the Indonesian conglomerate that sources palm oil for companies like Nestlé. For its part, HSBC's stance on environmental protection seems pretty clear: According to its Web site, "HSBC has a long standing commitment to protecting the environment and believes it is fundamental to a thriving society and sound economy - upon which business depends."
Of course, this doesn't stand up to Greenpeace's allegations. Our question, though, is how its campaign against HSBC will play out. For Nestlé, as we know, the battleground was the brand's own Facebook page. But HSBC's branded social media ecosystem is less cohesive. Its First Direct online banking solution has a social media newsroom and, more importantly, a real-time, public-facing monitoring dashboard. But there isn't a Masterbrand Facebook page or Twitter profile, for example.
What tactics do you expect Greenpeace to take against HSBC in the social media realm? And will their approach to real-time monitoring and transparency vis-à-vis First Direct apply if the issue reaches critical mass?
Posted by dna 13 on Thu, May 06, 2010
A photo from a NASA satellite showed the silvery swirling oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico on April 25.
Photo credit: European Pressphoto Agency, via Wall Street Journal With regard to BP’s uphill PR battle surrounding the wrecked drilling rig that has been hemorrhaging oil into the Gulf of Mexico for more than two weeks, we think an article posted today to Wall Street Journal’s “The Source” blog sums it up best: “[When] “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart is cracking jokes about you in which the punch line is ‘Goldman Sachs,’ you know you’ve got an image problem.”
Indeed, there isn’t any good news in sight for the company—or, more importantly, for the shoreline and surrounding communities—as crews struggle to contain the spill, which is the result of the April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. As urgency to contain the spill increases and more details emerge, BP’s role in the disaster and subsequent fallout has been murky, to say the least: For starters, the rig was owned and operated by Transocean and leased by BP, which was the basis for BP’s
position that Transocean—not BP—was responsible for the accident (a statement that was met with criticism).
More recently, though,
reports show that a plan BP filed with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well, dated February 2009, repeatedly said it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities." This news cast a shadow on BP’s massive mobilization to contain the spill (which, according to various reports, has been
relatively effective).
Unlikely or not, BP now faces the seemingly insurmountable task not only of stopping the oil flow and limiting its impact ashore, but of rebuilding its reputation in the wake of shattered public trust. According to the
New York Times, “Now, the discussion with BP on Capitol Hill is certain to intensify pressure on the company, which is facing a crisis similar to what the
Toyota Motor Company had with uncontrolled acceleration — despite its efforts to control the damage to its reputation as a corporate citizen, the problem may be worsening.”
With all hands on deck to accelerate the cleanup and minimize the damage, it’s safe to say that the best PR strategy for now is to stay focused on the task at hand. But then what?
We’d be interested to hear what all the PR professionals out there think—did deflecting responsibility worsen BP’s image, or was it the appropriate response given the situation? And where does the reputation cleanup start once the oil cleanup ends?