Creative Concepts

This week, the mainstream media has been blanketed by news coverage of BP’s oil spill off the US gulf coast.

With ecological, economic and political repercussions being hotly debated, Erik Sass at MediaPost capitalized on the zeitgeist by turning it into a social media case study — namely, how BP failed to manage to the overwhelmingly negative coverage of the disaster.

Really?

Let’s be honest: we’re a social media agency.  We love social media, and we make a living at it.

But we also have some perspective.

And when a massive oil spill may or may not threaten the ecology and economy of a huge swath of the United States, we understand a few implicit truths about the situation:

• Containing the spill and minimizing potential damage is everyone’s top priority.
• Issuing accurate & honest information is always more important than spin.
• No amount of spin can absolve a company from an eco-disaster as it’s happening.

Sure, Sass admits that PR may seem trivial compared to the tangible challenges presented by the spill.  But he also believes that BP should have had a pro-active spin team in place long before the incident, so that negative news and perception about the spill didn’t spiral out of control.

On paper, that makes sense.

In reality, Sass greatly overestimates PR’s ability to save the day.

Let’s Not Overinflate PR’s Role, Shall We?

Public relations exists to manage the public’s perception of a brand’s reputation.

The key word here?

Manage.

Public relations doesn’t create the public’s perception of your brand.

Public relations doesn’t save the public’s perception of your brand.

Your actions dictate the public’s long-term perception of your brand.

Yes, good PR can blunt the short-term effects of a bad decision.  And yes, good PR can ensure that your brand’s upside isn’t lost amid a swirling sea of negative publicity.

But does anybody truly believe that BP’s reputation would be any better today if they’d better managed their Facebook page last week?

Nonsense.

Why Does Everybody Forget the “Relations” Part of Public Relations?

Olivier Blanchard recently blogged an excellent 2-part piece on Nestle’s public tussle with Greenpeace on Facebook.

His key point?  Nestle botched its response to Greenpeace’s “invasion” of the Nestle Facebook page.  If they’d had a proper social media plan in place, Blanchard reckons, they could have contained the negative sentiment spurred by Greenpeace and capitalized on an opportunity for proactive engagement with a passionate, if skeptical, public.

See, like BP, Exxon and most other multinational conglomerates, Nestle is “too big to fail” in PR terms.  No matter what they do wrong, they have the experience, reach and resources to rebound politically and economically in the long run.

A failure to engage the public proactively is the real missed opportunity in Blanchard’s example.  Sass echoes this sentiment when he admonishes BP for not making use of this catastrophe to directly engage the people who are most enraged (and, therefore, engaged) by the spill.

But here’s the kicker: engaging the public only works when a company wants to engage the public, and is prepared to assimilate the public’s feedback.  Otherwise, it’s just spin, and spin amounts to white noise.

Even the Best PR Can’t Save You from Yourself

Good PR can make your company seem like the greatest brand on the planet.

Good PR can also rescue your company from the depths of public hate.

But no amount of PR will trump the actions you take during a crisis, or the actions you take on a daily basis.

Actions ALWAYS trump spin.

Dan Zarrella spends more time crunching the numbers on social media than anyone else we know. He recently proposed something he calls Zarrella’s Hierarchy of Contagiousness, which breaks down thusly:

• First, someone must be able to receive your message
• Then, they must be interested in your message
• And then they must be motivated to take action

Zarrella’s analysis makes sense to us. But, as he admits, that means there are pitfalls every step of the way.

If you want someone to see your message, they have to know you exist.

If you want someone to pay attention, you have to give them a reason to care.

And if you want someone to take action, you have to provide a value or solve a problem that they recognize as a problem in the first place.

Yes, you can work diligently to improve your message’s odds of being noticed, cared about or acted upon. But in order to do that most effectively, you need to understand your audience. Otherwise, you’re shooting in the dark.

Lead Generation Isn’t Customer Retention

In a guest post for Lauren Fernandez’s blog, Mack Collier makes 6 great points about how to build a successful online community.  But Mack’s definition of “success” is fairly altruistic: he champions values like interaction, engagement, loyalty and respect.

Do you?

Social media makes it easy to share your message with millions.  But broadcasting to numbers is different than broadcasting to people.

You may have an email list with 20,000 names on it… but how many of those names do you know?

How many of those names know you?

If you’re marketing to strangers, you’re forever playing catch-up.  But the more aware you are of who’s listening to you, what they like and what they need, the better the chances that the solutions you provide them with will stand out.

And when you prove that you care about your customers, your actions invite them to care about your business the same way you care about your business.

You do care about your business… don’t you?

If you enjoy our blog, subscribe now and you’ll never miss a tip!

So, what happens when your company wants to use social media, but everybody’s worried about what’s “okay” for them to say?

It can be daunting (and expensive) to determine which employees should be allowed to engage the public, speak candidly or answer questions.  And explaining which kinds of employee behaviors and proprietary information are strictly off-limits can be downright awkward.

Fortunately, there’s a solution that helps ease the friction: PolicyTool.

Simply enter your company’s name and some relevant information, and PolicyTool will generate your very own customizable social media policy in twelve short clicks!

Although PolicyTool’s service is not intended as legal advice, the policy it generates does provide a good starting point for your company’s continued embellishment.  Your HR department, tech experts and legal team can add or revise sections as desired, or you can simply opt to implement the generated policy as-is.

Here at Creative Concepts, we instituted our own social media policy prior to the creation of PolicyTool.  But if we’d had a useful template to start from, it would have helped shape our own internal discussions about best practices.

And really, that’s the whole point: PolicyTool may not solve every problem, but if it gets your company talking about the best ways to govern and maximize your social media channels, it’s worth every penny.  (Oh, and it’s free.)

Image by Gregory James Walsh via Flickr.

If you enjoy our weekly blog, subscribe now and you’ll never miss a tip!

1. Let’s make this more effective.
2. Let’s make this more entertaining.
3. Let’s make this easier to understand.
4. Let’s solve someone’s problem.
5. Let’s eliminate our redundancies.
6. Let’s thank someone who deserves it.
7. Let’s learn more about our customers.
8. Let’s learn more about ourselves.
9. Let’s ask “why?”
10. Let’s listen.

Photo attribution:

Do you hear that panicked murmur rumbling up from the masses?  It’s worse than fear — it’s failure!  It’s catastrophe!  It’s the absolute Armageddon of social media business strategy!

According to Edelman’s annual Trust Barometer survey, no one trusts anyone!

(Which is ironic, considering Chris Brogan and Julien Smith’s Trust Agents was a bestseller during the same year this survey was conducted.  But I digress…)

Here’s what happened:

Last year, 47 percent of respondents to the survey claimed to trust information from their peers (aka “people like me”), fueling the tendencies of social media gurus to target peers (and especially “influencers”) as a way to gain visibility for the brands they represent.  This year?  Only 27 percent made that same claim.

So much for social media, right?

Wrong.

According to Edelman, trust in TV is down 20 points as well.  Radio and newspapers also dropped.  Across the U.S., faith in media as a whole is in the basement.  Media and insurance were tied as the two least-trusted industries in America.

(Ironically, of the sources mentioned above, newspapers actually ranked highest in terms of respondents’ trust, at a scant 32 percent.  Surely that’ll make hundreds of downsized reporters feel better this winter…)

So… so much for media itself, right?

Still wrong.

Keep in mind that we’ve just survived one of the most tempestuous political years in American history, one in which our ruling parties have become ever more ideologically opposed.  Town halls and tea parties have proven that we’re increasingly incapable of having rational debates about even the most basic elements of our social fabric.  No wonder trust in “people like me” is down — trust in everyone, across all facets of the system, is down.  The only people we seem comfortable trusting anymore are ourselves.

And that explains why a book like Trust Agents can find an audience: because people are desperate to connect.  People want to trust each other, and they want to be able to trust the media that feeds them their information.  They’re just skeptical of everyone’s motives and transparencies, including that of their peers, whom (we’ve all finally realized) have access to the same unreliable media as everyone else.

Instead of seeing this report as a death blow to the legitimacy of the media empires, those same empires should be taking this study as an opportunity to refocus on what their audience actually wants: clear, unbiased, reliable information.

As for the social media campaigns of the world, congratulations: now you don’t have to worry about “going viral” or targeting those pesky influencers anymore.  Now you just have to appeal to every human being, one at a time, and treat them like valuable individuals.  Now you have to earn their trust.

And in that case, maybe there’s a silver lining to all this skepticism after all.

If there’s one recurring reason companies are reluctant to embrace social media, it’s that “something could go wrong.”  But when something else goes wrong in your company, are you prepared to use social media as a way to steady the ship?

Eileen O’Brien has an excellent summary of Johnson & Johnson’s recent use of social media to help manage the information flow surrounding their recall of Tylenol and other medications.  And while Twitter and blogs aren’t the only resources a company should turn to in times of crisis, savvy communicators realize that their customers sometimes rely on social media for real-time news.

Consider Wyclef Jean’s response to doubts about the financial clarity of his charity, YELE, after an article in The Smoking Gun called its accounting practices into question.  Instead of ignoring the mounting firestorm, Wyclef issued an official statement at a formal press conference (which may not necessarily have helped alleviate concerns).  But he also posted a video to YouTube regarding his feelings about the situation, which, at the time of this post, has been viewed over 300,00 times — and that’s not counting the numerous duplicates spread around the web.

The lesson?  People love to share information, and in times of crisis, you’d like that information to be coming from you.

These days, being able to deliver pertinent, accurate information to people when and where they expect to see it is safer than expecting them to be herded to a single focal point.  Twitter moves at the speed of misinformation, and the last thing your company needs during a potential crisis is to lose control of the facts due to rapidly spreading inaccuracies.  Better to have a contingency plan in place to mitigate misinformation in advance than to cobble together a response after the story’s already been told.

No business is immune to mistakes, because businesses are made of people, and human beings are notoriously imperfect.  Disasters strike.  Accidents happen.  But not being prepared for the unknown is no one’s idea of a smart business plan.

The Buzz Bin’s Mike Mulvihill kicks off the new year with an excellent observation about social media: the way companies obsess over “controlling the message” is strangling the industry.  In Mulvihill’s own words (emphasis mine):

I’d love to see a survey of how many of the 91 percent of companies using social media are failing miserably because they still just don’t get the fact that every employee is an ambassador, whether at the supermarket, a cocktail party, the kids soccer match or when active on a social media site. They trust their salesmen to represent the company unsupervised, but can’t trust their employees to use social media responsibly. Seems like there’s still a lot of growing up to be done in 2010.

Social media agencies have lamented clients’ unrealistic focus on “controlling the message” for years now.  (We’ve even chimed in on the topic ourselves, including a quote from Scott Monty that puts it all in appropriately absurd perspective.)  But no matter how many times companies are told that a free-flowing discussion about their business is the best thing that could happen to them, they still seem more comfortable spending money on ad campaigns designed to plant specific messages in the audience’s mind, rather than allowing their customers (and employees) to speak freely.

But what are companies so afraid of?

What could possibly be divulged by your employees that could give the public a worse impression of your business than the knowledge that you refuse to grant your employees the freedom to discuss your company?

On the other hand, when the public sees that you, the employer, value your team’s insights and trust them to behave responsibly, you set a standard that consumers (and other companies) appreciate.  The world is comprised of people, not facades.  And people like doing business with people, not images.

This year, why not grant your customers — and your employees — the freedom to speak openly about your brand?  At worst, you’ll discover some flaws worth correcting.  At best, you’ll learn what you really are doing right — and where to build for the future.

In Andrew Cherwenka’s recent case study, he explains how AT&T used Facebook to defend themselves against Verizon’s claims of a better 3G network,  and how that plan backfired when the very customers AT&T expected to rally to their defense instead fell silent while the conversation was dominated by Verizon fans.  (At one point, 89% of the sentiment on the forum was pro-Verizon, prompting one poster to comment, “You’re basically maintaining a fan page for Verizon.”)

Whoops.

Yet while Cherwenka is correct in surmising that the 2-way nature of the web has eroded a company’s ability to control the messaging surrounding their brand, there is one positive that AT&T should be taking away from this experience:

Now they know what their biggest problems are.

Granted, those problems may be technological in nature (like spotty cell coverage) or they may be matters of negative consumer perception.  That’s up to AT&T to decide (or admit).  But because AT&T has a record of what the public really thinks about its service, they can now choose to fix those problems head-on, OR they can choose to ignore them and hope the public eventually loses interest, which often happens.

Regardless of what AT&T chooses to do, your company can embrace this same lesson.  Yes, your social efforts may occasionally backfire.  Yes, the public may sometimes provide you with opinions and suggestions you’d rather not have to hear.  But this feedback is actually the most important information that you could hope to receive, because this is what helps you understand what you need to improve in order to grow as a company.

The better your product actually is, the more loyalty and evangelism you’ll see from your customers — and the more money you’ll be able to save on advertising to convince people you really are that remarkable.

Your social media presence is only as useful as the change it triggers in your business. To that end, here are 3 recent case studies we’ve found, along with the lessons explained (or implied) by each:

• The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) called in its bloggers to head off a potential PR disaster stemming from one blogger’s (misinformation-driven?) post about her baby being seized during airport screening.  (Lesson: Companies large and small are realizing that web-driven PR fires need to be addressed immediately.)
• Michael Bissell gives a blow-by-blow account of how an offhanded web comment resulted in LinkedIn considering a change to the way they process information.  (Lesson: Consumers, speak up; you never know who’s listening.)
• Network Solutions assigned one employee to manage a wave of customer dissatisfaction on Twitter.  The result?  A flip from 58% negative commentary to 18%, and several positive blog mentions of individual outreach.  (Lesson: Even a small effort toward improving your customers’ experience can help turn the tide of dissatisfaction.)

In each example, companies are proving that engaging dissatisfied (or downright angry) customers directly can mitigate the potential PR damage caused by consumer aggravation.  And while those concerns are normally specific to a time, place and incident, the goodwill engendered by such outreach is a long-standing example that reminds customers at large how much your company does care about their experience — and it shows them that you’re not afraid to use the same tools they do to ensure that their needs are met.

Last week, Amy Mengel brilliantly summarized 5 Reasons Corporations Fail at Social Media.  Those lessons (which she gleaned at the 2009 Inbound Marketing Summit) are entirely valid concerns for any company that’s navigating its way through the mostly uncharted waters of social media.  But, in our experience, there are five other equally dangerous pitfalls that can dash your company’s messaging and branding hopes before its ship even leaves the shore:

• You don’t really care what your customers think. Sure, you monitor what they’re saying about your brand, but not only do you not take action on their suggestions, you never had any intention of actually listening.  Your interest in “understanding your customers’ concerns” was just a shell game; your actual goal was merely to verify that people were already talking about you.  (And if they are, then your existing products and services must be working perfectly, right?)
• You confuse social media with a static advertisement. Instead of embracing the tools for what they are — real-time connections to the endlessly-changing sentiments of the consumer landscape — you establish profiles full of content borrowed from other media and then you stubbornly refuse to update, adapt or interact with your audience. By failing to engage with your customers in the manner they’ve come to expect, you prove that you cannot be bothered with their own interests because you’ve pre-determined your own.
• Your company is exclusively reactive. Rather than working to intuit your customers’ needs, you rely solely on consumer praise and complaints to inform your next plan of action. This ensures that you’ll never be able to use social media as anything more than a validation (or repudiation) of other people’s hunches, or as baseline damage control — so don’t be surprised when your company’s decision-makers come to view social media as a bellwether of mostly bad news.
• You refuse to be interesting. The concept of innovation is deemed (at best) too risky or (at worst) an unnecessary allocation of funds better spent on actions proven to produce results.  As such, the “information” you make available via social media channels is the same retreaded copy that consumers can already find on billboards, magazine ads and product labels.  In an age where audiences are increasingly interested in how products are made, who’s making them and why, your company has opted to remain as impersonal and inscrutable as possible — and your results have predictably flatlined.
• Your voice lacks passion. Maybe you have one employee dedicated to “evangelizing your brand.”  Maybe you have an entire agency.  Or maybe you have an in-house team, ready to pounce on audience feedback at a moment’s notice… except there’s never any pouncing taking place, because there’s never any passion in the message.  The individuals you’ve made responsible for ensuring that others care about your brand haven’t been sufficiently energized by your brand in the first place. Instead of projecting a personality that shows your customers how much you do care about their experience, your telegraphed disinterest provides them with an escape clause and a mandate to find another company whose values and attitude more closely resemble their own.

Social media “isn’t rocket surgery,” as Mengel’s article wryly notes.  The tools that comprise this medium are deceptively simple, and can be mastered by anyone who takes the time and effort to understand how (and why) they work.  But even a rowboat can be scuttled if everyone aboard isn’t working together.