SOCIAL MEDIA
was, the facts that the blog was the brainchild of Walmart’s marketing agency, Edelman, and was paid for by the company, were not initially disclosed. Te backlash was swiſt and vicious. Edelman had to issue a public apology but, despite the agency taking full responsibility, the Walmart brand took the biggest reputational hit.
Te risk does not arise only from a brand’s own campaigns. In 2010 Nestle discovered the potential negative power of social media when Greenpeace produced a spoof Kit Kat advert making allegations about the company’s use of palm oil in its products and the effect this was having on orangutan habitats. Nestle’s initial response was to use trademark law to get the video taken down from YouTube. Tis prompted a backlash on platforms such as Facebook and YouTube and much wider publicity for Greenpeace’s campaign, eventually forcing Nestle to back down.
Five simple steps can help to reduce a brand owner’s chances of getting social media engagement wrong.
Know the user, know the platform
Key to avoiding risk is understanding the users of the relevant platform and their behaviour. It is no use complaining that your expensively produced clip has been shared among users who are no longer coming to your page to watch it, if the very culture of the platform is one of sharing. Any attempt by a brand to restrict such behaviour is likely to prompt a backlash. If the user community is likely to react badly to perceived heavy-handedness, then that knowledge must inform a brand’s engagement with them.
You also need to understand the rules of any third party platform used in a campaign. Typically, you give broad rights to third party platforms when
32
“IT IS NO USE COMPLAINING ABOUT A YOUTUBE USER CREATING A PARODY OF A VIDEO YOU HAVE UPLOADED THERE— YOU GRANTED AN EXPRESS LICENCE FOR HIM OR HER TO DO SO.”
First, it is illegal in most jurisdictions. For example, the US prohibits practices which are likely to mislead consumers and affect a consumer’s decision about a product or service. Tis is mirrored in Europe, where the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive lists “falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craſt or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer” as one of the 31 “black listed” practices that will always be regarded as unfair under European law.
you agree to their standard terms. Facebook terms, for example, give it a “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP” in any content uploaded to its platform. You are also prevented from imposing any additional rules on users posting on your page over and above Facebook’s usual rules.
YouTube allows its users to embed videos on third party sites and to “access (the content you upload) … and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform (the content you upload)”. It is no use complaining about a YouTube user creating a parody of a video you have uploaded there—you granted an express licence for him or her to do so.
Be transparent
Social media horror stories oſten share a common thread: an innocent lack of respect for the intelligence of the target user community. An early temptation for those engaging in social media was to disguise the commercial nature of the engagement. Tis is a big mistake.
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 1
Perhaps more important, though, is the reputational damage that will almost inevitably occur. Te social environment is such that misleading practices are punished without mercy. In the case of the Greenpeace campaign, users felt that Nestle was trying to silence fair comment and the response elevated the campaign to levels which Greenpeace could have only hoped for. Being transparent at all times and never being seen to try censorship is a good rule of thumb.
Plan your engagement and monitor
Te conversational, dynamic and fast-moving nature of social media is such that the usual checks and balances on marketing campaigns are no longer practical. A smart brand owner will therefore plan how to engage with users and how to respond (if at all—it is oſten better to say nothing, or simply issue a short factual clarification, as arguing with users rarely delivers any benefits) if the conversation goes off course.
Brands will also actively monitor what their users are doing. For example, one of the world's biggest brand owners has a four-level protocol for monitoring social media campaigns:
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60