Social Media Might Not Fix Really Big Problems
On Friday I read a story written by CNET reporter Caroline McCarthy, “Corporate Responsibility in a Post-BP Digital Age,” which recapped the #Promise Conference which occurred in tandem with Internet Week New York. I did not attend the conference, but found her overview pretty compelling, particularly the apparent disagreement of how BP has handled itself in response to public outrage over the oil spill. I’m reluctant to comment on a conference I was nowhere near, but one quote caught my eye (and rolled it a little.) If I’m completely off base or taken anything out of context, I welcome the feedback.
From McCarthy’s post: “Imagine if when (the BP) disaster happened, think about what would have happened if they embraced the social networks,” Ogilvy planning director Evan Slater said during a panel at #Promise. “Instead of telling people, ‘you can’t come research this’…imagine if they had gone out to the social networks and said, ‘We’re going to take $30 million and put out a reward for the group of individuals, the organization, the company, that can find a solution to this problem.’ I think the difference would have been phenomenal.”
Really though? I’m not sure how Slater intended that strategy should be executed tactically and I’m confident he’s savvy at social strategy, but I can only imagine what might have happened had that been posted on a staffed Twitter account, Facebook fan page (dislike button would work well here) or a comment-enabled blog. Self-initiated execution no doubt. Twitterers in scores would demand answers, ask questions and tweet obscenities in the thousands. The idea behind social media is to engage, but how on earth could anyone, especially a company tasked with fixing one of the most significant environmental catastrophes ever, sit back and respond to all of that dialogue. And then would come the fallout of said company spending time tweeting and Facebooking when an ecosphere is dying! Or that said company wasn’t responding – which would probably happen due to the influx of messages. This is not customer service, this is an unseen environmental tragedy that needs to be fixed.
When I commented on McCarthy’s post in a similar fashion, she reminded me that much of the public’s scrutiny on their response was on the massive cost of the traditional advertising that BP did to defend themselves that could be allocated to fixing the problem or caring for those affected –social media is essentially free making it a better solution. Absolutely agree with the unnecessary cost, but I still don’t think social media would change public opinion, ingratiate the company or provide the best platform for a fix– again, I think the reverse could happen. If they wanted to save money but still get the message out, I can think of a few dozen reporters who would sit and chat with management – I’ll take some liberties and guess every major network on the planet would chomp at the bit for that story. No ad buy required.
I’m a huge believer in the access that social media gives us regular folk in speaking to companies and becoming involved in issues that matter. I also believe BP made some huge mistakes in its communication strategy. My point is simply that in this day, sometimes we are too eager to propose social media as a cure all for brand repair. A calculated communication strategy looks at the problem, the objectives and the anticipated outcome, and that may not always mean opening the floodgates to dialogue. I agree with Slater that seeking any and all solutions to fix this problem is a good thing, I just don’t agree that social media is the best way to find that – taking the time to weed through thousands of messages driven by emotion to find the few that may have tangible ideas. May not be the most efficient tactic.
Am I wrong? How do you think BP should use social media to solve this problem? Are there other vehicles that make better sense? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Photo credit: GoodZach
Thank you, Rachel for the common sense and reality approach to social media. You are spot on. There is nothing BP could have done social media-wise to fix this problem. To suggest otherwise is to put one’s ignorance on display for the entire world to see.
The only thing that BP can do is apologize and fix the problem. That’s it. To suggest that we hold a Facebook contest to plug the leak? Please.
Great post, Rachel. You made a lot of interesting points about the detrimental side of social media in crises like the BP oil spill. I agree with your take on the Facebook and comment-enabled blog – it could have turned into a PR nightmare.
In delicate situations like these, I think social media is needed but on a more subdued scale. For instance, BP could have set up a Twitter account at the start of the crisis. This account would have enabled interested followers to gather real time information on the clean-up efforts.
I know social media at its core is about interaction and engagement, but sometimes it needs to be used as a broadcasting tool. Having these updates would have shown the public that BP is concerned with the clean-up efforts and it would have put a “face” to the brand.
Would love to know what everyone else thinks.
Rachel,
Good discussion here. I think that you’re spot on, but what you didn’t point out is the fall out from an oil company (and a public one at that) essentially admitting that they need help fixing this problem, and they’re willing to pay anyone a set amount for their ideas. How inept does that make the company look from the word go? The perception problem created by that type of social media initiative would have been a death sentence to the company. It goes back to the old saying, “it’s better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Totally agree that BP hasn’t handled this well, but involving the SM community in such an emotional and catastrophic event would have only made things much, much worse for their communications team. Typically when you involve your SM communities you want defenders and supporters out there speaking on your behalf, that was not going to be the case in this example.
Rachel, you bring up some very interesting points especially from a big-picture perspective. Professional communicators need to understand that social media does not provide the magic silver-bullet to slay the crisis communication werewolf.
I like where Alanna was going with a broadcast-style Twitter profile, but ultimately they would have been ridiculed for that as well. Playing it out hypothetically, a profile would have been created to share relief and clean-up efforts. The profile would have received the @ replies of all types (most of which would have been unsupportive regardless of the transparency of corporate tweets.) The company would carry on in a futile attempt to send messages.
You may be on to something with the idea that a company just might not have enough social capital to weather a storm like this.
Thanks for sharing and getting the conversation going.
- @vedo
This is a massively difficult situation at the moment, both for BP and the government, and simply saying, “Let’s throw social media at this and see what solutions people come up with,” is not a wise strategy from a communications or even a business standpoint.
The one big downside to the giant rush of social media usage by companies and brands is that the use of Twitter, facebook, blogs, etc. often come with a haphazard approach. And having BP merely tweet out a request for ideas with a monetary award is just that – haphazard. It does little to reassure a very worried public, not to mention investors and government agencies. And quite frankly, as Jay pointed out above, it makes the company seem even more inept than it probably already is.
But worse than that, and this is the crux of the issue that many social media gurus often miss, BP is a publicly-traded company that has investors throughout the world, many of whom are not accustomed to what Americans and some Europeans now accept as the culture of complete transparency (or at least the call for it) by companies. While BP has certainly done some things that will haunt the company for many years to come in terms of legal battles, if I were on the BP communications team, I’d be quick to point out that public disclosing a tweet of the nature suggested might implicate the company in some rather large legal battles.
And while I’m not the biggest fan of a company’s legal team getting involved with certain tactics of social media, a company that is in the midst of probably the biggest corporate crisis of this generation has to be extremely careful about what it does and does not disclose.
The Wall Street Journal had a great article today (http://ht.ly/1Yqwd) chronicling some of BP’s public and private communications around the spill, and in the article, it’s noted that technically, BP can no longer make any type of statement about the spill – public or private (e.g. to investors) without prior approval of the US government.
We’re in unprecedented territory right now in terms of crisis communications on a massive scale within the digital age, and I certainly agree with you that’s not merely as simple as BP tweeting for help from the masses. In this case, social media may need to take a backseat to real, true experts.
I think you’re spot on here.
Social media can be a very useful tool, but it is not some sort of magic potion that can cure all ills, or as you pointed out fix really big problems. Too many are drinking what the snake oil salesman is selling I’m afraid.