Archive for the ‘Facebook’ Category

Is Facebook Evil, or Just Clueless?

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Shall I quit Facebook?

Facebook’s recent fumble along policy, technology, and PR lines has many asking the question for the first time. Not just privacy activists or technophobes. But, regular people who are pretty savvy about the social Web. The perception is morphing from irritation to doubts about its integrity. That’s not a good thing.

I’ve never been a privacy freak. In my book, anyone who decides to live online is responsible for that choice, and no one’s forcing us to (over)share. But the recent flap is more serious than previous ones. True, Facebook users tend to resist change (ironic, isn’t it?), and the company has a history of clumsy and self-serving privacy moves. But with Quit Facebook Day looming, something is different this time. Loyal users feel misled by the “everyone can see everything” default and confused by the new settings. Privacy advocates smell blood. Even formerly apathetic Facebookers are on the fence. Has Facebook gone too far this time? Is it just clueless, or actually evil?

Two months ago, a close relative of mine who is, like me, an adoptive mom, was contacted on Facebook by the birth mother of her son. The birth mom had been out of touch with our family for over a decade. Her note was tactful and sensitive. But, my relative was startled by what was gleaned about our family, even with supposedly stringent privacy settings on our end. And when we set out to find out more about her before responding, we were amazed by how much we learned with little effort.

Neither of us had been friended by the young woman, and we had no friends in common. But within an hour, we learned where she worked, her complicated marital history, and the age, name, and gender of her young baby. We also pieced together other, less factual details about her life, including a recent family conflict. 

My little experiment was nothing compared to the findings of bloggers who’ve set out to test Facebook’s privacy parameters. If you want an eye-opener, check out PC World’s post about the intimate secrets of perfect strangers here. But, the experience, coupled with fresh headlines about Facebook’s tone-deaf handling of the latest changes, has chipped away at my confidence. And I’m someone who makes a living counseling clients on how to harness the power of Facebook as a brand marketing platform.

This week, Mark Zuckerberg mounted a belated charm offensive, admitting mistakes, penning op-ed pieces, and pledging the change that the community demands. If Facebook follows through with real changes, instead of empty statements, it will probably blow over. This time. But, Facebook is vulnerable to a creeping mistrust in its commitment to users. And though I won’t be canceling my account any time soon, it’s a little less fun than it used to be.

When Fans Attack: How To Defend A Brand’s Reputation Online

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

A social media presence can morph from asset to liability in the time it takes to say “brandjacking.” The recent takeover of Nestle’s Facebook page by Greenpeace activists has many brand marketers dusting off their crisis programs.  But the world has changed. How do you defend your brand if, despite good business and communications practices, you become a target? What can you do if your brand is attacked on its own turf, or in a public online forum?

First, anticipate. If your crisis plan was last updated in 1993, or even two years ago, it’s not relevant. Have an online listening post, focus on the most likely criticisms and complaint scenarios, and make sure your messages are current.

Ramp up customer service. Would you put an intern on the phone to handle a client complaint? Don’t do it online either. Make sure your communications team is trained in customer relations, and vice versa. Not every company is ready to jump into Social CRM, but the line between communications and customer service is getting blurrier every day.

Stay calm. When the heat is on, sarcasm and anger are not your friend. Don’t be funny or flippant either. Use of humor is a classic apology PR tactic for an individual under fire, but a corporation should take legitimate customer criticism very, very seriously.

Be transparent. In most attack situations, it’s not worth closing off comments or trying to astroturf your way out of trouble. It rarely works and is often exposed.

Be timely. Nothing pours kerosene on a customer complaint fire like silence. A timely answer, even if not the desired response, is better than the void.

Take it offline. When complaints cascade anonymously, it’s often impossible to deal with them offline. But, on Facebook and other sites where comments are transparent, offline resolutions may be possible, and the complaint chain may be interrupted.  

Apologize. If the situation warrants. Though the public apology is being rapidly commoditized, a sincere, factual, and personalized apology beats silence, defensiveness, or apathy.

Use the media. Be ready to produce a response commensurate with the attack – through online commentary, video, and social media news releases.

Look for – and leverage - the opportunity. A negative situation doesn’t always spell lasting damage. In fact, it can be an opportunity to tout positive change, clear up a misimpression, and build customer engagement. No one is more loyal than a grateful customer. If the problem can’t be fixed, a fair hearing can still go a long way.

Betty White Is One Petition We Can Believe In

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010


Facebook petitions are like email jokes. They may be novel and intriguing at first, but they get old quickly. E-petitions in general have always had a sketchy reputation. They’re easily faked, often misdirected, and frequently about causes that don’t hinge on public opinion. Some think they encourage “slacktivism” by lulling us into mindset that we’re doing something when we’re not.

But, now there’s Betty White, who may have restored our faith in social media’s power to effect change. I’m kidding, but only half. The unsinkable White will host “Saturday Night Live” this weekend. And as the world knows, the idea behind her Mother’s Day eve appearance was born in a Facebook petition that garnered over half a million supporters since last December. The momentum and publicity generated by “Betty White To Host SNL: please?” was apparently impressive enough to convince SNL to give her the host gig. 

Pundits are calling it more proof of the power of social media. Yet, on reflection, it probably doesn’t prove much about those sites and pages that lobby for everything from gay marriage to Domino’s pizza deliveries in helicopters. It’s hard to find examples that really demonstrate the success of e-petitions. Facebook helps with fraud concerns, but the most compelling online petitions tap into a passionate cult following, a pop culture trend, or a serious social or political issue where many other influences are at work.

I loved how fans of the NBC show “Chuck” leveraged social media to save their hero, but the show was never actually cancelled in the first place. And despite websites that record e-petition successes, the examples are…well, random. Like the move to allow Jackson, Mississippi student Nathan Warmack to wear his kilt to a high school dance. Or the current petition to name William Shatner as Canada’s next Governor General. That’s got my vote.

The Betty White Facebook campaign is less a social media win than a statement about the power and popularity of Betty. Clearly, the 88 -year-old actress is having what Simon Cowell would call a Moment. It was actually kicked off by traditional media – the Snickers Super Bowl ad in which she and fellow octagenarian Abe Vigoda played football. (At the time, the Daily News cheered, “The New Orleans Saints might have won the game, but Betty White won the Super Bowl.”)

The campaign was then advanced on Facebook and shrewdly promoted by White’s PR team, who were busy last week worrying about overexposure and coyly refusing to do nudity. And, you have to hand it to NBC for seeing a Golden opportunity. In a demographic balancing act, it’s paired White with Jay-Z as musical guest.

So, the lesson of Betty White may be more about the message than the medium. But, like Conan O’Brien’s Twitter campaign, it’s a perfect marriage of brand personality, timing, and media mix. Should be a good show.

After Sea World and Nestle, How Risky is Social Media?

Monday, April 5th, 2010

I once had a client whose CEO was so PR-averse that his response to requests for media interviews was the Zen-like platitude, “The spouting whale gets harpooned.” That unfortunate phrase popped into my head as I read stories like “Shamu Attack Exposes Social Media Risks.” The Orlando Sentinel and others recounted how @Shamu, the Twitter feed set up by Sea World, morphed from a branding platform into a business and marketing liability after the tragic drowning death of a killer whale trainer.

A month later, Nestle’s Facebook page was brandjacked by Greenpeace activists in a well-orchestrated protest against its use of palm oil.  It’s been hailed by PR and digital marketing experts as a social media fail for Nestle, with plenty of mainstream coverage. The move promises to usher in a new era of online activism. As digital media strategist Jeremiah Owyang blogs, “Facebook page brandjacking is the new form of tree-hugging.”

So, what’s a brand to do? Is social media simply too risky for some categories or companies? My answer is no, for several reasons.

Out of sight is not out of mind. If an organized activist movement is like war, a single protest is like a brushfire. If you tamp it down in one place, it just flares up somewhere else. The anti-deforestation movement didn’t even start on Nestle’s Facebook page. It migrated there only after Nestle removed a Greenpeace protest video from YouTube. Nestle might have been better off engaging with protesters directly or creating its own YouTube channel. But, the learning here is that having no Facebook presence won’t prevent an orchestrated protest.

You need allies. Another reason not to hide from the social media dialogue is that it robs a brand of a natural constituency that might be mobilized in its defense. Olivier Blanchard makes this point in an excellent and thoughtful post on the Nestle response. I’d add that a brand with Nestle’s history of boycotts has even greater reason to engage with its core customers and nurture those relationships. They tend to come in handy when the heat is on.

A brand community is a listening post. A Facebook or Twitter presence is a practical move for a company with vocal detractors. It’s easier to monitor, listen, and respond when the action’s on your own turf. The palm oil-deforestation issue isn’t new. The key here is effective and experienced community management, along with good planning.

It’s a mouthpiece in a crisis. Or, it can be. As seen in the Sea World incident, a sudden, tragic occurence is vastly different from an organized boycott. But controversy around wild animals in captivity – a big part of the online dialogue after the incident – isn’t new. Again, Sea World should be accustomed to protests, and to communicating its position under pressure.

In this case, it showed. Sea World immediately suspended the Shamu Twitter feed after the incident. But, it continued with the dialogue, directing it to the more appropriate (and generic) @SeaWorld_Parks and its moderated blog. It’s still posting both lighthearted updates as well as serious statements about the incident, the measures being taken since February 24th, and the future of  whale Tilikum. Its Facebook page, after being briefly overrun by ghoulish posts and images, was quickly transformed into a forum for mostly civil discussion.

It takes time to build. As all PR professionals know, the most vehement attacks aren’t easily resolved through civil dialogue. But, that’s when a planned and organized response is most needed. Though they usually simmer slowly, most precipitating crisis incidents happen suddenly, and the response window is a matter of hours, not days. You can’t transform inexperienced staffers into battle-seasoned community managers. And, you can’t build a social media following from scratch when you need it most.   

Facebook Wants You To Like This – All Over The Web

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Does Facebook have a problem with commitment? Or, on the flipside, has it fallen in like so hard that it wants to own both the word and the concept all over the Web?

There are a couple of ways to look at this week’s announcement that the Facebook fan page will soon be a thing of the past. Instead of clicking to become an actual fan of a brand or company – that is, really engaging with it – we’ll only be able to “like” it the same way we do personal updates.

I think of “liking” something, in Facebook terms, as fairly tepid, even lazy. Sure, it’s more natural, as Facebook executives point out. They say users click to “like” something twice as often as they become a fan of a page. But, to me, it’s the social media equivalent of a greeting card. It’s what you do when you have no time or can’t think of anything much to say.

So, why the thumbs up for like? Clearly, Facebook intends to create more opportunities for corporate advertisers. “Liking” a brand lacks the psychological hurdle of becoming a fan, and users can “like” the page’s content also, so the move will presumably expand page interaction and ad revenues. AdAge has a summary of the implications here. It’s not without problems, and there will surely be confusion among both users and marketers.

My first response to the move was that it devalues and dilutes the relationship between a Facebook user and a favorite brand. True, it might actually be good for small businesses like, say, a creative PR firm. It’s easier to put out content that others endorse (however casually) than it is to generate thousands of fans. But, if I’m Coca-Cola, I want to know where my hardcore enthusiasts live.

But, Facebook has big plans for that “like” button. As developers have heard, Facebook wants to expand it throughout the Web. It has visions of browsers instantly “liking” all kinds of content virtually anywhere. That way, Facebook can funnel more engagement onto its pages and enhance the virality of just about anything. Once the “like” button is popularized outside of Facebook, it’ll be easier for users to find the “most liked” content – as well as the preferred products and services – in their areas.

So, Facebook becomes not only a social utility, but a search engine that harnesses the power of social recommendations, which can be a great tool for marketers, and a benefit for consumers. Most of all, it helps Facebook. As TechCrunch and other sources explain it, Facebook will become more like Google. Yet, while Google spends billions to index the Web, Facebook is trying to get the Web – or a big chunk of it – to index itself. And, what’s not to like about that?

Ford Leads the Way for Influencer Marketing

Saturday, March 20th, 2010

As I’ve previously blogged, I get a charge out of the Fiesta Movement, Ford’s nontraditional campaign to promote its new subcompact car. Not because it’s innovative, although it’s undoubtedly a departure for the automotive category. I admire it precisely because it’s not groundbreaking in the truest sense. It’s something better.

The Fiesta Movement is a great example of  a simple idea and a classic public relations strategy – influencer marketing – adapted to the age of the social Web.  And, it’s a template for how a multi-platform social media campaign should be done. By offering cars to 100 carefully selected heavy users of social media, and letting their “agents” market the car for them, Ford has proven that social media can sell cars.

The company’s been very forthcoming about the results of the first six months of the movement. It’s already racked up 6000 pre-orders well in advance of the subcompact’s US launch. What’s more, it’s ignited interest among 100,000 more prospective customers. Those may not be huge numbers, but for a category like this one, in a year like the one we’ve just had, it’s pretty powerful. And it’s proof that social media can drive brand engagement as well as actual sales.

As Ford’s Scott Monty reminds us, this is all without a car in the showroom, and without spending on conventional advertising. “Social media can mean more than just Facebook and Twitter, if it’s done in an integrated way.” The PR mileage, as measured in traditional media coverage, has been pretty impressive as well.

The next leg of the campaign doesn’t sound quite as simple as the first one, which was part of its beauty. Apparently Ford will enlist 20 additional “agents,” who will engage in competitions in local markets that bring to mind “Amazing Race”-style antics. Except that the local contests are meant to “immerse them in cultural movements, allowing them to ignite passion into their communities through social media while opening the discussion about Fiesta.”

Hmmm. I’m not sure what that’s about. But, given the grassroots groundswell surrounding the first Fiesta campaign, we can probably count on more milestones in the near future. At this juncture, the Movement’s about more than just Ford or its subcompact; it’s become a symbol of marketers getting the customer religion. What’s wonderfully ironic is that it took an uncool, utilitarian brand from a tired and crumbling industry to show us the way.

What We Can Learn From “Undercover Boss”

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

When I was 23 years old I worked for a PR entrepreneur who insisted we accompany the sales reps of a large client company on their customer calls at retail. He said it was the only way to learn how the company’s products got to market and to gain a real-world perspective on our PR planning.

What an education. My field experience was a permanent lesson in how even the most strategic marketing and PR programs can miss the mark if they’re developed in isolation.

That’s why I was interested in the CBS reality show “Undercover Boss.” You know the one, about disconnected CEOs who get down with the workforce on the front lines. It also made me think about our business. Getting your hands dirty is not only valuable, it’s more necessary than ever.

It’s not a new idea, actually. HBR reports that more than forty years ago, legendary Avis Rent-a-Car CEO Robert Townsend insisted that each senior executive spend time every month behind a rental counter. Last year, Jeff Bezos spent a week working in an Amazon distribution center in Kentucky. Some enlightened companies even make every employee spend a week per year inside that Siberia of business functions, customer service.

But, customer service means something different today. In a small way, we’ve learned just how different by creating and managing a Facebook community for a major technology brand. Most of the inquiries we field have nothing directly to do with PR. Many aren’t related to positioning or brand attributes, of course. Lots come from outside the U.S. – not our purview. None of this is really our job.

Except that it is. And, in dealing directly with consumers and working closely with our client’s customer service team, we’ve learned enormously about how consumers perceive product quality. And how the quality of even the smallest interaction with the brand has an impact on its reputation.

Many have written about the growing intersection of PR, brand reputation, and customer service. As more customers post, tweet, blog, and shout their dissatisfaction on the social Web, the risks to brand reputation grow. And, with the disintermediation of the traditional press, PR and communications has a new set of rules.

So, whatever you think about reality TV, the “undercover” concept has real relevance to what we do. The customer experience is out there. It’s public, it’s dynamic, and it’s a growing part of brand reputation. As formerly behind-the-scenes strategists and communicators, we can’t hide behind the media any longer. Our cover’s been blown. We’ve been outed, too, and, like the White Castle CEO, we’d better put on another hat and learn the ropes.

 


Facebook Privacy Fix Is A Very Public Problem

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

As the mother of social networks, Facebook has struggled with privacy issues. It hasn’t gotten credit for many of the tools it offers, possibly because many users don’t understand them. So, the bar was raised a while back when CEO Mark Zuckerberg promised “a simpler model for privacy control.”

What happened instead was a very mixed reaction to its new privacy settings, and a fresh PR problem for the company. This time, it’s not just the user backlash that greets any Facebook change. There’s a measure of genuine confusion, doubt about its intentions, and a modest public relations blunder by Zuckerberg himself.

Given the build-up to the unveiling of the new privacy tool, the expectation was that Facebook would help users tighten their controls and limit the information they share with the world. Instead, the opposite message was communicated. It’s not all bad. The transition wizard forces you to examine your settings. That’s good, because many people, like me, signed up ages ago and have forgotten what we did then, if anything.

But instead of offering options based on a user’s current settings, the transition tool encourages its own recommendations. And, guess what? The recommended defaults nearly always urge sharing with “friends of friends” or “everyone.” I don’t know about you, but I’m not eager for “everyone” to see photos of my young daughter. But, that’s what Facebook recommends.

So does did CEO Mark Zuckerberg. To call attention to the change, Zuckerberg adjusted his own settings. Good PR move, right? But perhaps he didn’t realize that his family photos and contacts would be available to “friends of friends.” Or maybe he was just setting an example in following the recommended defaults. Facebook claims that he always meant to make certain areas accessible to everyone. Yet, mysteriously, after gawker.com and others rifled through them and posted many online, Zuckerberg’s settings were changed to make personal photos off-limits.

I can’t blame Zuckerberg for his about-face. Who wouldn’t want to keep their personal photos safe from prying eyes…and snarky gossip websites? The good news for users is that the online community has jumped into the breach. Within a day or two of the launch of the new settings, hundreds of blog posts appeared with clear, how-to tips and guidelines on protecting privacy and identity on Facebook. And, to be fair, Facebook’s put plenty of information on its own site.

In explaining the default, Facebook told Reuters that making updates available to everyone is “the way the world is moving.” That may be true, but in pushing members to open up online, Facebook is both becoming more Twitter-like, and seeming to bow to pressure to monetize the wealth of personal user information on the site. Both risk eliminating the very thing that many members found so appealing about it in the first place.

Sarah Reloaded: Palin's PR Offensive

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

palin2

“She’s not retreating, she’s reloading.” That’s how Sarah Palin, quoting her father, describes her re-emergence on the scene at the end of her memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life.

It’s also a pretty fair description of the preparation for the PR offensive mounted to promote the book. Palin’s come out with guns blazing. Some reviewers have dismissed the book as little more than a rehash of her life story, with a generous helping of score-settling. But, that’s not the point. What’s far more interesting is how Palin has packaged herself, and her message, for what some see as a warm-up for the 2012 election. Though I’m not at all convinced she’s gearing up to run for President, it’s clear that Going Rogue is the launching pad for the “new and improved” Sarah Palin brand.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m not a fan of Palin’s politics. But, my first two PR jobs were in book publishing, and I can appreciate the brand platform that a book provides. Though the marketing campaign kicked off today with a hugely hyped interview with Oprah, and a taped sit-down with Barbara Walters, the team has taken pains to point out that it’s not a typical promotional campaign. Instead of the customary major market media or satellite tour, the woman who made “maverick” a catch word is following a different playbook. In a move dubbed the “Wal-Mart” strategy, the Palin PR team has rejected the big (liberal?) markets in favor of what she calls “the real America,” starting with Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

Ring a bell? Michigan was an early battleground state for Palin. The battle was between her and the McCain campaign, which opted to skip it in favor of bigger and more certain electoral victories. Clearly, Palin wants to get in her shots at the McCain team. But, what better way to court those “real Americans”  – and snub the bicoastal media elites – than to kick off her appearances in, um, flyover country? They’ll travel by bus, of course. Call it the Heartland Maverick-mobile Marketing Tour.  

I’m not sure the numbers are there in the electoral sense, but it’s shrewd positioning. What’s more, team Palin is working furiously to both leverage the mainstream press, and disintermediate it at the same time. Though they’ve granted those national TV interviews, there’s also a clear plan to go directly to her fans through use of Google keyword ads and social media. She uses her Facebook page to lambast the fact-checking efforts of Associated Press, accusing the AP of “making things up.” It’s a nice populist move.

But, Palin’s non-candidate status has enabled a softer and more contemporary brand of populism, tinged with post-feminist self-reliance. Unhampered by the need to cram for foreign policy pop quizzes, she’s free to focus for maximum resonance. Her “blame-the-other-guys” talking points are well-crafted to stretch her appeal beyond the core conservative base. They paint her campaign experience as that of a regular gal, frustrated and constrained by the out-of-touch McCain staff and jaded Washington consultants who tried – and failed - to package her like a commodity. It’s a neat packaging trick of her own. Choose the losing team as your opponent (in addition to the liberal press, of course), cast yourself as the innocent rebel, and you can come out as a winner. More importantly, it positions the Palin brand as authentic, her original core attribute.

Palin is accused by her opponents of substituting the personal for the political. But, when it comes to the new and improved Sarah Palin, there’s nothing but the personal. Which is why I  think she’s really aiming to be a kind of right-of-center Oprah, not the future Ms. President. But, we’ll see. One thing seems clear. Palin’s only just begun her brand offensive. You betcha.

Facebook's PR Dilemma: "I Can Friend Dead People"

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

fanpage

So close to Halloween, how can I resist blogging about the latest complaint by Facebook users? I noticed it, um, in passing, earlier this week. A ”reconnect” feature is part of the site’s new home page, but Facebook’s being haunted by the persistence of its algorithm. It automatically generates notices urging users to reconnect with dormant contacts. Inevitably, those include someone who’s deceased. As one user who was invited to reconnect with a friend who had died earlier in the year explained, “I hadn’t un-friended him, because that would be weird.”

But, what’s weirder – and genuinely distressing - is being invited to connect with a dead friend, not just once, but dozens of times. Others report irksome suggestions that they connect with ex-spouses or lovers, parents, or pets, prompting #FacebookFail hashtags on Twitter. As one mashable.com commenter put it, “I really don’t need Facebook to remind me that I’m ignoring you.”

Beyond the handful of #fail hashtaggers, there’s a broader issue here. What actually happens to profiles of Facebookers who have passed on? Who should have access, if anyone? Under pressure to spell out its privacy policy around these questions, Facebook took the opportunity this week to re-announce its memorialized profiles. They serve as a tribute to the deceased, but also solve the reconnect problem by taking the individual out of the Suggestions stream.

In a moving blog post that recounts the tragic death of a friend and colleague, Facebook’s Max Mon explains how the memorialized profiles work and urges friends and family of deceased users to contact them (with proper verification, of course) to set up a page. The beauty of the system is that only friends can see the profile or locate it in search, and sensitive content like contact information and updates are removed. No one can log into a memorialized profile, but friends and family can still post on the profile Wall in remembrance. If a family wants a profile taken down, it will be.

Facebook’s move to outline its policy in greater detail not only shows sensitivity, but it’s good public relations and good business. It seems to be ahead of its social networking competitors in offering a procedure that mirrors real-world mourning and remembrance, while protecting the privacy of those who cannot do it for themselves.

But, as one poster suggests, you can’t really blame the Facebook algorithm for not knowing that someone has died…or that you broke up with them six months before. And, wouldn’t it be far creepier if it did?