This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
BRAND STRATEGY


joined in, using the hashtag to link to a story accusing McDonald’s of


separated meat (which it promptly denied).


McDonald’s tried to pull its disastrous campaign just two hours later but by this time, ‘McDStories’ had gone viral and was still being talked about online almost a week later.


Undeterred by the McDonald’s misadventure, Starbucks launched the festive hashtag ‘#spreadthecheer’ in December last year with equally disastrous consequences.


Te coffee chain had purchased advertising space at London’s Natural History Museum—home to an outdoor ice rink during the festive season— which it used to display a live feed of tweets using this hashtag.


Instead of celebrating the warm spice of a gingerbread latte, Twitter users hijacked the phrase and used it to berate the company for allegedly failing to pay its corporation tax. Due to a technical glitch, offensive tweets were not filtered and skaters were treated to a rolling feed of insults such as ‘Hey @Starbucks! PAY YOUR F****ING TAX!’.


Avoiding embarrassment


For any brand engaged in controversy or that incites a mixed public reaction, hashtags are almost guaranteed to lead to widespread ridicule or abuse, which means as a promotional tool, they’re best leſt to scandal-free businesses with high levels of customer satisfaction—UK supermarket Waitrose, for example.


In September last year, Waitrose asked Twitter users to finish the sentence ‘I shop at Waitrose because …’ using the hashtag ‘#WaitroseReasons’. Within minutes, the retailer was inundated with comments such as ‘because I think food must automatically be better if it costs three times as much’ and ‘because I absolutely detest being surrounded by poor people’.


Waitrose’s campaign was hailed as a disaster, but it attracted global media attention and reinforced the image of Waitrose as the affluent shopper’s destination of choice; largely because users had little scathing to say about it. But as Waitrose discovered, even the most positive hashtags are likely to be mocked by users, so to avoid unnecessary embarrassment, it’s wise to think of the worst way the hashtag could be misused before deciding to post it online.


Parody accounts


In July 2012, environmental charity Greenpeace launched Arctic Ready, a spoof site designed to look


22


like Shell Oil’s but featuring fake advertisements about oil drilling in the Arctic. One image featured a photograph of the polar ice caps accompanied by the slogan ‘It’s time to melt some ice’, while another used a lone polar bear with the caption ‘He can’t run forever’. A fake Twitter account and Facebook page were also set up.


Te Internet is full of parodies, most of which are humorous and/or clearly identified as fake. But for Shell, there was a real danger of consumers mistaking the site for its own. But while it could have pursued legal action against Greenpeace for trademark infringement or defamation, there is no guarantee it would have been successful. When it comes to parodies, says Dan Smith, head of Wragge & Co’s advertising and marketing law team, doing nothing is oſten the best policy.


“Brand owners might not be able to laugh along with parodies but they do need to develop a thick skin. Any action against a parody account owner is likely to draw more attention to the issue and risk causing more PR damage in the long run,” he explains.


“Tat said, there are clearly occasions when it is necessary to have an account removed—for example, when there is an element of phishing involved, or when the account is being used for a genuinely damaging campaign of defamation, particularly where the joke is not obvious and there is widespread and harmful confusion,” he adds.


Whether it’s a light-hearted joke or something more serious, Smith says brand owners need to consider whether taking action will risk that brand looking as though it has no sense of humour, can’t take criticism or even has something to hide.


Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 2, Issue 2 “THE MORE


PROACTIVE A BRAND IS IN HANDLING A CRISIS, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS TO RECOVER FROM IT.”


using mechanically


“For Shell, taking action against a campaigning group like Greenpeace would usually be counterproductive,” he adds.


Employee misdemeanours


Te viral nature of social media makes it easier than ever before for brands to reach a global audience. But it also means that just one inappropriate post can cause an international outrage.


In July last year, a Burger King employee posted a picture of himself standing in bowls of lettuce with the caption ‘Tis is the lettuce you eat at Burger King’ on image board 4Chan.


4Chan users were disgusted and within 15 minutes, had used GPS data


to locate the


offending employee in the US state of Cleveland. Burger King was also quick to react, firing the staff member involved and sending a statement confirming it had done so to national and international media outlets. By the time it did so, however, the picture had been tweeted, shared and used to create a range of memes and spoof videos using the Burger King slogan ‘have it your way’.


An employee at cookware shop Kitchen Aid also incited outrage last year when he accidentally sent a tweet from the store’s official account, rather than his personal one, which joked about the death of President Barack Obama’s grandmother using the hashtag ‘#nbcpolitics’.


Te employee responsible was fired but instead of delivering the news via a press release, Cynthia Soledad, Kitchen Aid’s vice president, took to Twitter to apologise personally and invite offended users to contact her directly.


For Burger King and Kitchen Aid, their employees’ pranks caused global embarrassment in a matter of minutes. But by taking immediate action, both brands successfully minimised the risk of lasting or serious damage.


Hacking


Burger King has also been the victim of hacking. In February this year, its logo on Twitter was replaced with the McDonald’s one and its bio altered to include a claim that it had been sold to its rival. Te anonymous hacker then tweeted details of McDonald’s promotions from Burger King’s account.


Te hack was short-lived and it did have some positive consequences—as news of


spread, Burger King gained 30,000 new Twitter followers. But it was also a worrying reminder of how vulnerable brands are on social media and how easily their trademarks can be abused.


www.worldipreview.com the hack


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