Category Archives: Corporate Communications

Facebook etiquette: To delete, or not to delete?

Posted on by

The following is a guest post from Lindsay M. Allen, a PR and communications pro from central Michigan. I’ve had the pleasure of connecting with her on Twitter and meeting her a few times in person this year. Enjoy. -AM

This post has been brewing for awhile — too long, really (and I bet Amy won’t disagree … ha ha ha). It started when I noticed a brand that is near and dear to my heart (and shall therefore remain nameless) making what I felt was a big ol’ Facebook boo-boo, leading me to ponder when — or whether — it’s acceptable click that “Remove” button on the Facebook pages we are called upon, as professional communicators, to moderate.

Back to the inspiration for this post …

Organization X posted on its Facebook fan page, “(Organization X) has some breaking news to officially announce… Stay posted for details.”

Unfortunately for Organization X, there were several other organizations involved in its “big news,” and the scoop was already floating around out there and being reported on by credible mainstream media outlets that regularly cover the organizations involved, including Organization X. Bottom line: Lots of people already knew the “exciting news” and began posting about it in the comments section under the post.

As I revisited the page several times to see when Organization X would finally, officially post the news, I noticed something. The fans’ comments — all positive, excited remarks about the forthcoming news, which also was positive — were being deleted almost as quickly as they were being posted. It was sort of like a a clay-pigeon shoot, communication-style: The comments kept popping up, and someone kept shooting them down … so quickly that it would’ve been impossible to get accurate screen captures of the situation.

I was stunned by, a little angry at, and quite disappointed in Organization X. But then I realized … Organization X and its Facebook gatekeeper(s) probably aren’t alone.

Really?! Are there communicators who need so badly to control their organizations’ messages that they go so far as to delete positive comments about positive news just because they haven’t posted the news yet (probably because a news release is caught up in the review process and stuck on a manager’s desk somewhere)?!

Most conversations I had with people in the aftermath of the situation yielded one opinion: In cases like these, don’t delete! Arment Dietrich PR CEO Gini Dietrich said one of the things I’d been thinking:

Gini also suggested that any deletion of tweets, comments, etc. could be unethical, but I definitely saw something on another Facebook fan page this fall that made me think that a deletion is sometimes justified:

The folks behind the Kohl’s Facebook page removed Gilbert’s comment, and I can’t say I blame them. Would you leave something like that on your company’s Facebook page? Shelby’s “Wow” comment — presumably posted with a “holy crap; I can’t believe someone posted that” sentiment – echoes the likely thoughts that others had upon reading Gilbert’s comment (myself included).

Regardless of whether it was true, would you want to read something like that about a store where you shop? I don’t know about you, but I’m a fan of Kohl’s on Facebook so I can get news about sales … not so I can read about the company’s employees’ sexual exploits with one another. Someone at Kohl’s must’ve thought that, too, since the comment was deleted.

So, the question remains: To delete, or not to delete? And under what circumstances?

The fallacy of targeting audiences on the Web

Posted on by

Memo to brands trying to reach teenage boys with raunchy campaigns: we can all see you.

Burger King’s Shower Girl is the latest in a series of misogynist social media campaigns targeted at hormonally-charged teenage boys, it seems. PepsiCo’s “Amp Up Before You Score” iPhone app this summer broke women into 24 stereotypes and gave guys tips on how to pick up each and tally their conquests. Remington’s “Face of Success” microsite and game  encouraged guys to try out pickup lines on virtual women (these fake women had Twitter profiles and followed back successful players).

Not surprisingly, these types of campaigns have drawn varying amounts of ire, from women and men alike, who feel that they’re inappropriate, don’t advance the product being hawked, and continue to promulgate objectification of women in Western culture (and that’s a post for an entirely different blog).

burger_king_shower_camThe typical “defense” often heard about campaigns like this is that they are intended only for a specific target audience. To me, that’s a fancy way of saying, “if this offends you, then you’re not our target audience, so please shut up and leave us alone.” Granted, PepsiCo did apologize for its iPhone app, but it’s hard to believe that they couldn’t have anticipated a backlash before ever launching it.

Nothing is truly targeted on the Web anymore. It’s too easy for people to share and pass along links to content, no matter where that content originates. That means campaigns that are edgy or risque are just as likely to find an easily-offended audience as they are to find their “target audience” online. Organizations can’t assume that only their target audience is going to see and interpret their campaign.

I’m not purporting that all marketing campaigns should be so sanitized and boring so as to make sure no one is offended. Often edgy campaigns are the most effective; they merit attention by being different. But there’s a difference between “edgy” and “in poor taste.”

There’s no “section” of the Interwebz reserved for 16-year-old boys (or any other demographic, for that matter). Your content should definitely speak to the interests and sensibilities (or lack thereof) of the core group you’re trying to reach, but let’s not forget that it can speak to just about everyone else online, too.

Get your social media horse out from behind that cart

Posted on by

“Let’s send out direct mail postcards with discount codes to potential customers.”

“Let’s sponsor a conference and have our CEO speak at it.”

“Let’s create a referral program for our current customers to help us generate new business.”

Most savvy marketers could read the three statements above and instantly recognize them all as tactics, not strategies. All of those actions might be a good idea, but it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Most organizations know they at least need to start with a strategy, a goal, before embarking on a marketing or PR campaign. You don’t just jump to tactics.

Now replace postcards, conference, and referral program in the above statements with Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Still tactics, right? So why are so many erstwhile savvy marketers thinking that these three platforms constitute a social media strategy?

Cart before the horse

A strategy starts with business goals. Are you trying to sell more product? Reduce costs? Attract more members? Repair a damaged brand reputation? Your marketing and social media activities should match up with these business goals. What does success look like and how do you measure it?

After goals are defined, determine who you’re trying to reach, where they are online and what you’re trying to get them to do. If your target audience is not using Twitter, don’t make Twitter the crux of your marketing campaign. You wouldn’t send a direct mail piece about mortgage refinancing to a bunch of apartment renters. So don’t try to reach teens and college students on LinkedIn.

I’ve been talking with too many organizations lately that want to skip right to implementing social media tactics. Maybe it’s because they’re caught up in the hype and buzz surrounding social media or feel that they’re behind the game and need to get moving. Perhaps their competitor has implemented and seen success with social media and they don’t want to be left behind. It still doesn’t mean that skipping the strategy part is okay, though. Even if you see “results”, without a strategy you won’t know what those results are achieving.

Stop. Take a step back. Start with strategy.

Photo via Flickr user Emilio Labrador

How NYS could have made its license plate less ugly

Posted on by

It’s not exactly the best of times for The Great State of New York right now. The financial crisis has hit the state hard and one of the “solutions” for coming up with some extra cash is to make all New Yorkers get rid of their perfectly acceptable license plates and re-register for a higher plate fee and get new plates.

New York State Gold License Plate

Today the DMV released the new plate design. Some people have noted that it’s “retro” and seem to like it. I’m among the many voices, however, who think they’re hideous.

I also view this as a missed opportunity. How cool would it have been for New York State (the stodgy DMV, no less) to crowdsource the design of its new plate and have people vote on a new design? They could have accepted submissions for a few weeks, eliminated designs that were too complicated, whittled it down to five or 10 choices and had residents vote for the new plate, or used a voting/ranking system for all the submissions (like myStarbucks idea). They could have had a handful of out-of-work graphic artists each submit a design and profiled each person.

The result would probably be the same (some people would like the new design and some would hate it), but it would have been a way to get people engaged in the process and make the whole idea of having to buck up for new plates a little more palatable (only a little).

Organizations often have to make changes that are difficult or unpopular. Making sure stakeholders feel invested and involved in the process is one way to make the rebellion ever-so-slightly less hostile when those changes come about.

Update Nov. 16:
The Buffalo News is reporting that the state has thrown in the towel on this new license plate plan. Though likely, not because of this post. ;-)

Five reasons corporations are failing at social media

Posted on by

rocket“It’s not rocket surgery.”

That malapropism became a bit of a mantra at last week’s Inbound Marketing Summit.

Social media isn’t complicated. When you boil it down it’s about listening to your customers, being helpful by offering your knowledge and giving them interesting content to share and thereby advocate for you. The IMS speakers shared several case studies (yes, too many of them mentioned Comcast and Zappos) on how organizations have embraced social media to connect with and built trust and affection among customers. None of the examples required hyper-specialized knowledge or technology for a company to connect with people.

So why is it so difficult for so many companies to successfully integrate social media? I dug through my (30 pages of) notes to try and find some themes in what the speakers shared and came up with a this list of why organizations might be getting hung up.

1. They can’t talk about anything broader than their own products

Chris Brogan shared how Citrix Online created the Workshifting community to address the rise of telecommuting and remote work. Sure, it ties in with Citrix’s GoToMeeting/Webinar/PC product line, but the blog isn’t a commercial for its products. The same holds true for Kodak’s photography blog that Chief Blogger Jenny Cisney talked about. It’s about photography and creativity in general, not about Kodak cameras. Greg Matthews shared how Humana developed the Freewheelin bicycle sharing communities with plenty of online and “real life” components to the program. Bicycles don’t have much to do with health insurance specifically, but they are about being healthy. If a company is only talking online about its specific products and not looking for ways to connect to the bigger picture, it’s pretty difficult for people to be engaged.

2. They listen to customers but don’t take any action

If you’re going to listen to your customers, you’d better be ready to do something about what you hear. Valeria Maltoni noted that if a company creates an online presence that’s open and allows customer feedback, it creates the expectation that the company is going to do something with that feedback. Worse than not being heard is being heard and then ignored. Paula Berg from Southwest Airlines shared how a simple blog post stating the airline was considering assigned seating amassed tons of customer comments showing a lack of support for the idea. This feedback changed the direction of their internal debate and led to a new boarding procedure that maintained the open seating arrangement.

3. They aren’t calibrated internally with the technology

Jason Falls chastised corporate Web sites for being little more than online brochures. Customers expect interaction. Content creation is key to social media success, and every company should have a Web site with a content management system that allows for quick, easy content creation without the IT department needing to recode a Web site. Anyone in the organization should be able to publish via a CMS. And companies can’t expect to have a strong social media presence when social sites are blocked internally to employees.

4. They’re not framing risk accurately

Dharmesh Shah reminded us all that a corporate blog has never been fatal to an organization. NBC cameraman Jim Long said the often a company’s entry into social media is a clumsy, shotgun blast and that there’s an equal chance of looking foolish by having a ham-fisted marketing department launch a social media presence as there is if a rogue employee “goes off” on Twitter. The risk of social media is not abated by not participating. And really, while there have certainly been some hiccups and miscues along the way, social media has yet to be the undoing of any company.

5. Their internal culture isn’t aligned for social media success

In Shiv Singh’s presentation, he discussed how the customer should be at the core of the brand. When policies, procedures, products and processes become more important than the customer, there’s no way social media efforts can be effective. When your employees are more concerned with what’s in or out of their job description than doing the right thing to help the customer, that’s not a culture that’s likely to build trust and advocacy for your brand. Yes, Zappos was cited time and again as a case study, but largely because it has a culture that makes social media work. All of its employees are focused on customer service at the core. The same holds true for Southwest Airlines.

I could go on and on. So many of the speakers at IMS shared great examples of simple, effective social media strategies that have humanized organizations and allowed them to build better relationships with customers. But time and again companies are either rejecting social media or participating in a way that defeats the purpose.

It’s not rocket surgery.

Image via Flickr user StephenHackett