One of the main trending topics on Twitter today is Horizon Realty. According to Mashable, the company is suing a woman for $50,000 over a tweet that one of its Chicago apartments she rented was moldy.
Mashable's story, which references an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, says that the company did not attempt to contact the woman who posted the tweet or ask her to remove it. Instead, a Horizon Realty rep, Jeffrey Michael, said, "We're a sue first, ask question later kind of an organization."
And with that, a tweet that, at best, less than two dozen people originally saw, became a topic of discussion among thousands and thousands of people on Twitter. And you can imagine the kind of commentary it has generated about Horizon. Makes you wonder how many lawsuits the company could conceivably file, given the quote above.
Here's the thing: Whether the post was factual or not, Horizon really should have done a reach out to the customer first. By launching a lawsuit, the company has drawn attention to itself and stirred up a hornets' nest of unflattering comments. No doubt more media outlets will pick up the story, inviting or encouraging more scornful commentary. That's how a PR nightmare is born. The comment about suing first really doesn't help the company's brand either. Now, it will have to expend time, money and energy trying to rehabilitate its rep, all of which it could have avoided if it chose to handle the situation differently.
Ultimately, this is another example of why you want to very carefully consider any measures you take when dealing with customers in any forum, particularly social media. Because it only takes one comment by a company rep to fan the flames of hostility on the internet and make your company internationally infamous. That's the kind of property damage you can't easily repair.
Showing posts with label communications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communications. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Pretty good guitarist strums pain of United Airlines baggage handling with his fingers
Companies sure have embraced social media, haven't they. They're tweeting this, vlogging that. They gush like gossip columnists over how wonderful life is with these tools in the world. What they forget is that consumers can use these tools to put the screws to you.
Submitted for your approval, the story of David Carroll , who constitutes 50% of the Nova Scotia-based band Sons of Maxwell. In spring of 2008, while traveling in the US to a gig, someone witnessed his $3,500 Taylor guitar being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers during a stopover in Chicago. The guitar was smashed, and Carroll took action.
Being Canadian, and thus genetically hardwired to be polite, Carroll pursued the matter through official channels. He writes about the process in vivid detail on his blog, noting that, although no one at United denied the incident took place, no one was willing to take responsibility for it.
Well, polite as we Canadians can be, Mr. Carroll's dander rose over the next nine months as airline officials played hot potato with his complaint. When a Ms. Irlweg informed him the company would not accept responsibility, and that would be her last email on the matter, he responded that he would be writing 3 songs about his experience with United. A kind of Canadian Railroad Trilogy if you will, only this one about how United smashes the guitars of Canadian musicians.
And on July 6, Carroll posted the first song of his promised trilogy, United Breaks Guitars on YouTube. It's a very witty ode to incompetence and indifference that has, as of Wednesday July 8, been watched by more than 100,000 people. The ballad of the smashed guitar has also been featured in the Chronicle Herald, Nova Scotia's main daily newspaper, and highlighted on the LA Times travel blog.
As you may have guessed, the folks at United want to talk to Carroll about the matter now that he has drawn public attention to his plight. This demonstrates how effective social media tools can be in pushing a customer complaint. The thing is, it shouldn't have taken a video to force United's hand. If the company had dealt with Carroll in an appropriate timely manner*, the situation wouldn't have escalated into a very public complaint, one that puts the company at a significant disadvantage.
For one, Carroll's story and video encourage scrutiny and discussion of United's conduct from people who are not agreeably disposed to the airline's brand. His experiences have also encouraged others to share their own grievances about United and threaten boycotts. Just look at the talk back about his YouTube video. Attendant media coverage has been unflattering and dominated by Carroll's experiences. Thus the company is stuck in reaction mode. It is wasting time and money on efforts to undo the damage of a situation it could have avoided, even resolved more efficiently and cheaply, by quietly replacing Carroll's guitar. At the very least, it should serve as a tutorial to the company on the power of social media tools to damage a brand, and how not to handle such disputes in the future.
So, if you take anything from this story, it should be this: treat your customers with respect, take responsibility for your actions, and make sure private matters remain private. You never know when you're going to come up against a talented musician with an ax to grind, and a forum in which to grind it.
*I had said proactive + private when I originally posted this, but on reflection, those words seemed ill-chosen...
Submitted for your approval, the story of David Carroll , who constitutes 50% of the Nova Scotia-based band Sons of Maxwell. In spring of 2008, while traveling in the US to a gig, someone witnessed his $3,500 Taylor guitar being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers during a stopover in Chicago. The guitar was smashed, and Carroll took action.
Being Canadian, and thus genetically hardwired to be polite, Carroll pursued the matter through official channels. He writes about the process in vivid detail on his blog, noting that, although no one at United denied the incident took place, no one was willing to take responsibility for it.
Well, polite as we Canadians can be, Mr. Carroll's dander rose over the next nine months as airline officials played hot potato with his complaint. When a Ms. Irlweg informed him the company would not accept responsibility, and that would be her last email on the matter, he responded that he would be writing 3 songs about his experience with United. A kind of Canadian Railroad Trilogy if you will, only this one about how United smashes the guitars of Canadian musicians.
And on July 6, Carroll posted the first song of his promised trilogy, United Breaks Guitars on YouTube. It's a very witty ode to incompetence and indifference that has, as of Wednesday July 8, been watched by more than 100,000 people. The ballad of the smashed guitar has also been featured in the Chronicle Herald, Nova Scotia's main daily newspaper, and highlighted on the LA Times travel blog.
As you may have guessed, the folks at United want to talk to Carroll about the matter now that he has drawn public attention to his plight. This demonstrates how effective social media tools can be in pushing a customer complaint. The thing is, it shouldn't have taken a video to force United's hand. If the company had dealt with Carroll in an appropriate timely manner*, the situation wouldn't have escalated into a very public complaint, one that puts the company at a significant disadvantage.
For one, Carroll's story and video encourage scrutiny and discussion of United's conduct from people who are not agreeably disposed to the airline's brand. His experiences have also encouraged others to share their own grievances about United and threaten boycotts. Just look at the talk back about his YouTube video. Attendant media coverage has been unflattering and dominated by Carroll's experiences. Thus the company is stuck in reaction mode. It is wasting time and money on efforts to undo the damage of a situation it could have avoided, even resolved more efficiently and cheaply, by quietly replacing Carroll's guitar. At the very least, it should serve as a tutorial to the company on the power of social media tools to damage a brand, and how not to handle such disputes in the future.
So, if you take anything from this story, it should be this: treat your customers with respect, take responsibility for your actions, and make sure private matters remain private. You never know when you're going to come up against a talented musician with an ax to grind, and a forum in which to grind it.
*I had said proactive + private when I originally posted this, but on reflection, those words seemed ill-chosen...
My horn. Tooting it.
If you have been reading this blog lately, you'll know I've been doling out some tough love to GM on its Reinvention. Well, today I'm in the Chronicle Herald's Marketing Monitor saying that GM's reinvention needs someone to stage an intervention . Sure, it's what I've been saying all along, only this time it is in a convenient, easy-to-carry format.
My opinion differs from some of my colleagues, so let me know your thoughts - am I right or wrong?
My opinion differs from some of my colleagues, so let me know your thoughts - am I right or wrong?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
All night, she was a Young Republican
Think before you post. It's not 'one to grow on', but it's brilliant in its simplicity. We've so many wonderful tools and apps that allow us to spew crazy brilliance without much delay between thought and expression, it's overwhelming. And most of us, even I, pump out impulsive notions that occur to us through avenues such as Facebook, Twitter with alarming alacrity, never stopping think about, as Men At Work once succinctly put it 'the implications/of diving in too deep/and possibly the complications."
That's certainly true of Audra Shay who, at the age of 38 is pushing the boundaries of Junior Chamber membership, much less the Vice Chairmanship of the Young Republicans. According to The Daily Beast, Shay responded to a post on her Facebook page, saying that America needed to be reclaimed from 'coons' and 'illegals', with 'you tell them... lol.'
Shay has countered that she was not responding directly to that post, but to a previous post by the same individual, a fact the Daily Beast disputes based on the time that passed between postings. She removed the exchange from her Facebook page (which you can find around the web in the form of screen shots). She posted a subsequent Facebook update saying she would not condone t such racially disparaging remarks. Yet she raised suspicions by defriending Facebook colleagues who challenged her on her inexcusable post.
Shay, it should be noted, is a front runner for the chair of the Young Republicans, a position that will be filled this Saturday. Naturally, she's made her apologies for her comments, but it is worth asking how much that was motivated by the need to save face versus genuine contrition. Her attempt to divert attention from her actions by accusing her YR rivals of political attacks suggests she made her statements out of necessity.
Any such suspicions are damaging for her and for the Republicans, given similar high profile racial insensitivities and slurs committed in recent weeks by individuals such as Rusty DePass, Sherri Goforth and Chip Saltzman. Shay's thoughtlessness only serves to reinforce negative perceptions people have that the Republican party's brand of politics are unfavorable to anyone who is not white, straight or affluent.
Given that Shay undermined her best possible chance at redemption - a straight and genuine apology - by deflecting attention, the best possible action she could take to protect her reputation, and that of her party, is to resign. Any action she would take, any comment she could make, as chair of the YR is going to be scrutinized in light of this incident. Media interest will ensure that the focus this weekend will be on her suitability, GOP racial issues and anything but the election of the new YR chair.
This is supposed to be a time of rebuilding for the Republicans, a chance to reach out and reengage Americans, an opportunity to build the kind of support necessary to win the next election. Like any organization, the party can't move ahead so long as its members perpetuate longstanding negative perceptions.
It'll be interesting to see how this story plays out, and the PR/communications efforts that Shay and the YR undertake to mitigate the damage resulting from her insensitivity, to build integrity and trust, to save face, as it were. I think it won't be easy and any attempt, however sincere, is going to be met with skepticism. Regardless, it's one more timely reminder to always think before you post. The political scandal you prevent may be your own.
That's certainly true of Audra Shay who, at the age of 38 is pushing the boundaries of Junior Chamber membership, much less the Vice Chairmanship of the Young Republicans. According to The Daily Beast, Shay responded to a post on her Facebook page, saying that America needed to be reclaimed from 'coons' and 'illegals', with 'you tell them... lol.'
Shay has countered that she was not responding directly to that post, but to a previous post by the same individual, a fact the Daily Beast disputes based on the time that passed between postings. She removed the exchange from her Facebook page (which you can find around the web in the form of screen shots). She posted a subsequent Facebook update saying she would not condone t such racially disparaging remarks. Yet she raised suspicions by defriending Facebook colleagues who challenged her on her inexcusable post.
Shay, it should be noted, is a front runner for the chair of the Young Republicans, a position that will be filled this Saturday. Naturally, she's made her apologies for her comments, but it is worth asking how much that was motivated by the need to save face versus genuine contrition. Her attempt to divert attention from her actions by accusing her YR rivals of political attacks suggests she made her statements out of necessity.
Any such suspicions are damaging for her and for the Republicans, given similar high profile racial insensitivities and slurs committed in recent weeks by individuals such as Rusty DePass, Sherri Goforth and Chip Saltzman. Shay's thoughtlessness only serves to reinforce negative perceptions people have that the Republican party's brand of politics are unfavorable to anyone who is not white, straight or affluent.
Given that Shay undermined her best possible chance at redemption - a straight and genuine apology - by deflecting attention, the best possible action she could take to protect her reputation, and that of her party, is to resign. Any action she would take, any comment she could make, as chair of the YR is going to be scrutinized in light of this incident. Media interest will ensure that the focus this weekend will be on her suitability, GOP racial issues and anything but the election of the new YR chair.
This is supposed to be a time of rebuilding for the Republicans, a chance to reach out and reengage Americans, an opportunity to build the kind of support necessary to win the next election. Like any organization, the party can't move ahead so long as its members perpetuate longstanding negative perceptions.
It'll be interesting to see how this story plays out, and the PR/communications efforts that Shay and the YR undertake to mitigate the damage resulting from her insensitivity, to build integrity and trust, to save face, as it were. I think it won't be easy and any attempt, however sincere, is going to be met with skepticism. Regardless, it's one more timely reminder to always think before you post. The political scandal you prevent may be your own.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Not-so-close shave with Remington
Like most people, I'm impetuous. If I have a bad brand experience, I typically take my money elsewhere.
Like today. A few weeks ago, my trusted Philips electric razor lost its will to live after many years of faithful service. Disappointed, I gave it a decent burial and headed out to a bargain behemoth to purchase a new one. I know, I get what I deserve for being cheap when it comes to my pretty face, but these are tough times. Pennies will be pinched.
So, I buy a Remington razor, bring it home, charge it and the next morning I eagerly apply it to face after a gentle wash. I stretch the skin, apply both blades, do a little circular motion. Yet despite my best efforts, it's not giving me a nice, smooth even shave. There are stubborn little patches all along my neck and around my jaw that prove impervious to the double row of blades.
The booklet says to give it about three weeks, but I wasn't noticing any improvement. I constantly had to take a trimmer and run it all over my neck and face to clear out the many stragglers. So I decide to call Remington to voice my concern about the product's performance. I explain what I bought, that I'd been using it for about three weeks and that I hadn't encountered such an ineffective electric razor before. That was that. The person on the other end, huffy, shut down the call by telling me to take it back to the store where I bought it if I was unhappy. And that was that.
Despite my disappointment with the razor, I was willing to hear out Remington to see if they had suggestions to get better results, if there had been problems with that product, anything to address my experience or concerns. No dice. And they made no attempt to ask any questions about the product or how I used it. In short, the company acted like it didn't care that I had a negative experience and wanted to be done with me.
Now, you may see nothing wrong with what Remington did. I was an unhappy customer and they told me to return the product. Which I concede I could have done. But I figured they'd want to know if someone was unhappy with their product and have a chance to do something about it. Instead, I'm sharing my experience with you and a few hundred people on Twitter, and telling you I won't be buying Remington products again.
It comes down to this: if you care about and stand behind your products or services, then you do so when someone isn't happy with them. You make an attempt to uphold their brand integrity, or set things right. You work to please that customer with an eye to ensuring he or she remains a loyal customer. You hear out his or her concerns. You make some effort to address them. It creates a positive association. The customer feels better about the situation and may be willing to work with you to a resolution. Do it right and you not only retain a customer, you enjoy positive word of mouth.
But if you shrug and dismiss concerns, you lose that opportunity to engage a customer, to transform a negative experience and to avoid poor word of mouth. Word of mouth that, I might add, spreads further and faster than ever thanks to the world wide web and its wonderful social media tools. Word of mouth that damages your brand.
So now several hundred people know my experience with Remington. Will it influence their purchasing decisions? Who knows. But why take that risk if you don't have to. Make the effort; show you care about your products and customers. It's one way to ensure your reputation remains blemish-free and looking good.
Like today. A few weeks ago, my trusted Philips electric razor lost its will to live after many years of faithful service. Disappointed, I gave it a decent burial and headed out to a bargain behemoth to purchase a new one. I know, I get what I deserve for being cheap when it comes to my pretty face, but these are tough times. Pennies will be pinched.
So, I buy a Remington razor, bring it home, charge it and the next morning I eagerly apply it to face after a gentle wash. I stretch the skin, apply both blades, do a little circular motion. Yet despite my best efforts, it's not giving me a nice, smooth even shave. There are stubborn little patches all along my neck and around my jaw that prove impervious to the double row of blades.
The booklet says to give it about three weeks, but I wasn't noticing any improvement. I constantly had to take a trimmer and run it all over my neck and face to clear out the many stragglers. So I decide to call Remington to voice my concern about the product's performance. I explain what I bought, that I'd been using it for about three weeks and that I hadn't encountered such an ineffective electric razor before. That was that. The person on the other end, huffy, shut down the call by telling me to take it back to the store where I bought it if I was unhappy. And that was that.
Despite my disappointment with the razor, I was willing to hear out Remington to see if they had suggestions to get better results, if there had been problems with that product, anything to address my experience or concerns. No dice. And they made no attempt to ask any questions about the product or how I used it. In short, the company acted like it didn't care that I had a negative experience and wanted to be done with me.
Now, you may see nothing wrong with what Remington did. I was an unhappy customer and they told me to return the product. Which I concede I could have done. But I figured they'd want to know if someone was unhappy with their product and have a chance to do something about it. Instead, I'm sharing my experience with you and a few hundred people on Twitter, and telling you I won't be buying Remington products again.
It comes down to this: if you care about and stand behind your products or services, then you do so when someone isn't happy with them. You make an attempt to uphold their brand integrity, or set things right. You work to please that customer with an eye to ensuring he or she remains a loyal customer. You hear out his or her concerns. You make some effort to address them. It creates a positive association. The customer feels better about the situation and may be willing to work with you to a resolution. Do it right and you not only retain a customer, you enjoy positive word of mouth.
But if you shrug and dismiss concerns, you lose that opportunity to engage a customer, to transform a negative experience and to avoid poor word of mouth. Word of mouth that, I might add, spreads further and faster than ever thanks to the world wide web and its wonderful social media tools. Word of mouth that damages your brand.
So now several hundred people know my experience with Remington. Will it influence their purchasing decisions? Who knows. But why take that risk if you don't have to. Make the effort; show you care about your products and customers. It's one way to ensure your reputation remains blemish-free and looking good.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tooting my own horn, again
Just wanted to share a little something I worked on recently with The Wright Agency in Saint John, NB - it's promotional item meant to get people to look at the community of Saint John in a whole new light. Go ahead, take your best shot!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Best Job in the World
The Best Job in the World campaign, created by CumminsNitro, was feted with the PR Lions Grand Prix by Cannes and Direct Lions Grand Prix at Cannes. Thought I'd rerun what I wrote about it in January on my website:
It’s pretty tough to live up to the billing of Best Job in the World. But that’s what Tourism Queensland representatives are promising in an effort to promote the Australian state.
Officially, the position is called Caretaker of the Islands of the Great Barrier Reef. One lucky person will spend six months on Hamilton Island enjoying and blogging about its pleasures and receive $122,000 Cdn for his or her efforts. Gimmicky as it may seem, there is a real job up for grabs, and 11 people will be flown to the Island in May to compete for the position.
It sounds like my dream job, and thousands, apparently agree. Officials say they had 200,000 applications within 24 hours of the campaign launch. Equally impressive is the fact that Tourism Queensland has garnered millions of dollars in media coverage for what must have been a very modest investment. Thanks to stories on BBC and Yahoo the campaign has reached more than 29 million people, meaning greater awareness of and interest in Queensland.
Granted, that interest may not translate into immediate increases in bookings and tourism revenue, but I think the campaign will generate benefits over the long run. The content the blogger creates is likely to have more appeal or be more convincing to potential visitors than content generated by Tourism Queensland. After all, it will be content developed by an actual visitor blogging his or her experiences, all of which can be archived and used for years to come. Moreover, flying 11 contestants in to compete for the position is a shrewd move. It means there will be, potentially, 11 people spreading positive messages about the region to colleagues online and otherwise. And media from the markets where contestants live will likely cover the story, giving the campaign added life and reach.
Simply put, I think this marketing campaign is brilliant. And I’m not just saying that in hopes that Tourism Queensland will invite me down to see the beauty of the region first hand. Though I wouldn’t turn them down if they did.
It’s pretty tough to live up to the billing of Best Job in the World. But that’s what Tourism Queensland representatives are promising in an effort to promote the Australian state.
Officially, the position is called Caretaker of the Islands of the Great Barrier Reef. One lucky person will spend six months on Hamilton Island enjoying and blogging about its pleasures and receive $122,000 Cdn for his or her efforts. Gimmicky as it may seem, there is a real job up for grabs, and 11 people will be flown to the Island in May to compete for the position.
It sounds like my dream job, and thousands, apparently agree. Officials say they had 200,000 applications within 24 hours of the campaign launch. Equally impressive is the fact that Tourism Queensland has garnered millions of dollars in media coverage for what must have been a very modest investment. Thanks to stories on BBC and Yahoo the campaign has reached more than 29 million people, meaning greater awareness of and interest in Queensland.
Granted, that interest may not translate into immediate increases in bookings and tourism revenue, but I think the campaign will generate benefits over the long run. The content the blogger creates is likely to have more appeal or be more convincing to potential visitors than content generated by Tourism Queensland. After all, it will be content developed by an actual visitor blogging his or her experiences, all of which can be archived and used for years to come. Moreover, flying 11 contestants in to compete for the position is a shrewd move. It means there will be, potentially, 11 people spreading positive messages about the region to colleagues online and otherwise. And media from the markets where contestants live will likely cover the story, giving the campaign added life and reach.
Simply put, I think this marketing campaign is brilliant. And I’m not just saying that in hopes that Tourism Queensland will invite me down to see the beauty of the region first hand. Though I wouldn’t turn them down if they did.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Worthy Award- for June 19
If you have been reading this blog on a regular basis, you'll know I've been ranting about marketing, communications and public relations items that have rubbed me the wrong way. All that negativity does something to a person, to use impersonal language, so I've decided that I want to be positive for a change. Not only that, on a sustained basis.
So today, I'm starting something new - the Worthy Award. There's no real award per se - we're a frugal organization here at the Words' Worth lab - but what I offer is a shout out to organizations and individuals who are exemplifying or engaged in progressive, ethical, commendable or downright amusing PR, Marketing or Communications practices or campaigns.
Today, I'm giving the first Worthy Award to Pixar. Why? Because, and you'll need a hankie for this - the company fulfilled the dying wish of a 10-year-old-girl. It arranged a private DVD showing of its latest film Up for her. Seven hours later, the girl passed away. If that doesn't move you, you either have no pulse or no heart.
I don't know much about Pixar beyond what I see and read in the media, but it has always struck me as a company that is very committed to producing only the highest quality entertainment - entertainment that can be enjoyed by every member of the family. It has also seemed to me to be a company that sees its employees and their families as part of a big Pixar family. One Pixar tradition is to list the names of all the babies born to employees during the production of a particular film in the closing credits.
By responding to a call from a mother wanting to make her daughter's wish come true, Pixar reinforced the positive brand attributes I associate with the company. But here's what impresses me most about Pixar as regards this story: they declined to comment for the news story.
Normally, I'd say no comment is the wrong approach to take. In this context, any comment by Pixar might have come off as a canned self-congratulatory, opportunistic or self-promotional tract. That kind of false modesty where a company really wants to bask in the media spotlight for its own benefit. By design or inadvertently, Pixar let the family tell its tragic, yet touching, story without hijacking it.
Sure, the company may not have wanted to encourage more such incidents - it couldn't fulfill every such request - but I like to think it realized that this was not the time or place to solicit attention for a good deed. Besides, anything the company could have said would not have had the impact or appeal as the family describing just what that one act of kindness meant for a little girl. You couldn't ask, pay, or create a better endorsement.
So, let me wipe that pesky tear from my eye and say that, Pixar, you are truly Words' Worthy.
So today, I'm starting something new - the Worthy Award. There's no real award per se - we're a frugal organization here at the Words' Worth lab - but what I offer is a shout out to organizations and individuals who are exemplifying or engaged in progressive, ethical, commendable or downright amusing PR, Marketing or Communications practices or campaigns.
Today, I'm giving the first Worthy Award to Pixar. Why? Because, and you'll need a hankie for this - the company fulfilled the dying wish of a 10-year-old-girl. It arranged a private DVD showing of its latest film Up for her. Seven hours later, the girl passed away. If that doesn't move you, you either have no pulse or no heart.
I don't know much about Pixar beyond what I see and read in the media, but it has always struck me as a company that is very committed to producing only the highest quality entertainment - entertainment that can be enjoyed by every member of the family. It has also seemed to me to be a company that sees its employees and their families as part of a big Pixar family. One Pixar tradition is to list the names of all the babies born to employees during the production of a particular film in the closing credits.
By responding to a call from a mother wanting to make her daughter's wish come true, Pixar reinforced the positive brand attributes I associate with the company. But here's what impresses me most about Pixar as regards this story: they declined to comment for the news story.
Normally, I'd say no comment is the wrong approach to take. In this context, any comment by Pixar might have come off as a canned self-congratulatory, opportunistic or self-promotional tract. That kind of false modesty where a company really wants to bask in the media spotlight for its own benefit. By design or inadvertently, Pixar let the family tell its tragic, yet touching, story without hijacking it.
Sure, the company may not have wanted to encourage more such incidents - it couldn't fulfill every such request - but I like to think it realized that this was not the time or place to solicit attention for a good deed. Besides, anything the company could have said would not have had the impact or appeal as the family describing just what that one act of kindness meant for a little girl. You couldn't ask, pay, or create a better endorsement.
So, let me wipe that pesky tear from my eye and say that, Pixar, you are truly Words' Worthy.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Social Media - you're doing it wrong, GM
I read a guru yesterday (sorry, can't remember who) claiming that Facebook's days are numbered in part because corporations now 'get' social media. If GM is to be taken as a textbook example, I'd say Facebook has many hale and hearty days ahead.
As you'll know from a previous post, I am following GMreinvention on twitter, which touts itself as my window into the reinvention of GM. Basically, the stream of tweets is little more than GM pushing out news about the sale of SAAB, poll results that the Chevrolet Corvette is the car people couldn't live without, etc. Essentially, nothing earth shattering, and nothing you couldn't find reported in one of many other objective outlets. Oh, and no attempts to engage with or comment on tweets posted by Twitter users. As I've said before, so much for a 'new' GM.
Which brings me to a message I received from GMreinvention yesterday in my Twitter mailbox: 'Please enjoy the following video, which explains what the new GM is going to be like.' Excited that I was going to see something of substance - an actual behind-the-scenes look at the new company - I clicked on the link thoughtfully included in the email, only to see the one-minute commercial the company has been running on TV since it declared bankruptcy.
That's right. Instead of a real video with substance and insight, a video that sets the stage for a series chronicling GM's evolution from larvae to butterfly, the company serves up a self-serving ad I've seen several times. An ad that is built around a lot of big promises, but no evidence, of change. I certainly didn't enjoy the ad when I encountered it previously. I enjoyed it less when it was presented to me as an explanation of the new GM. It was misleading and I feel burned. Thus, this post.
I really don't mean to keep harping on GM. I know they have some cash flow issues. I know that sort of thing can occupy your time. So much so that the decisions you make in other areas are, well, compromised. Decisions like how to use social media. So far, to judge by GM's efforts on Twitter, they just don't get it or its potential to connect with consumers. In other words, when it comes to being a new company, GM's approach is simple: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. So choose to see all that sun in the commercial as a sign the company has seen the light. I think it symbolizes the fact that they're headed toward the light. Godspeed you, GM.
As you'll know from a previous post, I am following GMreinvention on twitter, which touts itself as my window into the reinvention of GM. Basically, the stream of tweets is little more than GM pushing out news about the sale of SAAB, poll results that the Chevrolet Corvette is the car people couldn't live without, etc. Essentially, nothing earth shattering, and nothing you couldn't find reported in one of many other objective outlets. Oh, and no attempts to engage with or comment on tweets posted by Twitter users. As I've said before, so much for a 'new' GM.
Which brings me to a message I received from GMreinvention yesterday in my Twitter mailbox: 'Please enjoy the following video, which explains what the new GM is going to be like.' Excited that I was going to see something of substance - an actual behind-the-scenes look at the new company - I clicked on the link thoughtfully included in the email, only to see the one-minute commercial the company has been running on TV since it declared bankruptcy.
That's right. Instead of a real video with substance and insight, a video that sets the stage for a series chronicling GM's evolution from larvae to butterfly, the company serves up a self-serving ad I've seen several times. An ad that is built around a lot of big promises, but no evidence, of change. I certainly didn't enjoy the ad when I encountered it previously. I enjoyed it less when it was presented to me as an explanation of the new GM. It was misleading and I feel burned. Thus, this post.
I really don't mean to keep harping on GM. I know they have some cash flow issues. I know that sort of thing can occupy your time. So much so that the decisions you make in other areas are, well, compromised. Decisions like how to use social media. So far, to judge by GM's efforts on Twitter, they just don't get it or its potential to connect with consumers. In other words, when it comes to being a new company, GM's approach is simple: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. So choose to see all that sun in the commercial as a sign the company has seen the light. I think it symbolizes the fact that they're headed toward the light. Godspeed you, GM.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Comfortably Dumb Comfort Wipe
"For over 100 years, we've been scrunching and folding toilet paper." So begins the low-rent ad for Comfort Wipe that has, with over 600,000 views on YouTube, become an interwebs sensation.
Well, no need to do that any more, citizen. There's now a new-fangled way to, um, see to your business and that is the vaguely erotic-looking device called Comfort Wipe. You want to believe you're watching some kind of parody. But this baby is real.
It touts itself as the first 'improvement to toilet paper as we know it since the 1880s' which is a bit disingenuous. First off, it doesn't actually improve the paper; it's just a new way to use the paper. Second, I'm pretty certain that toilet paper has improved since the 1880s with cotton softness, quilting and several ply replacing woven woodchips.
The thing is, when you watch the ad, it looks like a lot of extra work than just tearing off some paper from the roll. You take the paper, put it in the Comfort Wipe's receptacle, wipe and then you have to stand up and release the toilet paper from the device. Like shampooing, I'm guessing you have to repeat the process several times after, say, a big bowl of five-alarm chili. And I doubt you'd have much time to repeat the process safely if you do have to deal with that kind of mess.
But it's the really odd details and information that capture my fascination. The comfort wipe extends your reach a full eighteen inches for example. If you need that much reach, I'm thinking a Comfort Wipe may be the least of your concerns. Also, it's as easy to use as a shower brush, which is my yardstick for buying all products related to personal hygiene.
Yet the strangest moment comes courtesy of a rather large fellow who claims, "Being a big guy fellow certainly has its share of advantages. And its disadvantages." Don't expect him to tell you what they are either way. Apparently even he doesn't know, suggesting self-awareness is not one of the advantages. Just understand that 'being a big guy' with said advantages and disadvantages, the Comfort Wipe is a great product. No need to say more, big guy, I'm convinced.
One ironic moment comes when a 'with-it' mature woman with an accent vaguely like Estelle Harris - George's Mom on Seinfeld, tells us how Comfort Wipe allows you to maintain your dignity and your personal hygiene. The same dignity she sucker punched when she decided to appear in this ad. The other when another lady informs us that toilet paper is archaic and unsanitary. So, if Comfort Wipe is such an evolution, why does it need toilet paper anyway?
Ah, silly consumer. Why ask such questions? It's simple. The sanitary Comfort Wipe means you don't have to touch dirty toilet paper anymore. Which frees you to attend to other business while you do your, um, business. You can call your friends. Start a grocery list. Prepare a lovely sandwich. You decide. Except you do need to use your hand to operate it. Some advancement in 'toilet paper'.
Well, no need to do that any more, citizen. There's now a new-fangled way to, um, see to your business and that is the vaguely erotic-looking device called Comfort Wipe. You want to believe you're watching some kind of parody. But this baby is real.
It touts itself as the first 'improvement to toilet paper as we know it since the 1880s' which is a bit disingenuous. First off, it doesn't actually improve the paper; it's just a new way to use the paper. Second, I'm pretty certain that toilet paper has improved since the 1880s with cotton softness, quilting and several ply replacing woven woodchips.
The thing is, when you watch the ad, it looks like a lot of extra work than just tearing off some paper from the roll. You take the paper, put it in the Comfort Wipe's receptacle, wipe and then you have to stand up and release the toilet paper from the device. Like shampooing, I'm guessing you have to repeat the process several times after, say, a big bowl of five-alarm chili. And I doubt you'd have much time to repeat the process safely if you do have to deal with that kind of mess.
But it's the really odd details and information that capture my fascination. The comfort wipe extends your reach a full eighteen inches for example. If you need that much reach, I'm thinking a Comfort Wipe may be the least of your concerns. Also, it's as easy to use as a shower brush, which is my yardstick for buying all products related to personal hygiene.
Yet the strangest moment comes courtesy of a rather large fellow who claims, "Being a big guy fellow certainly has its share of advantages. And its disadvantages." Don't expect him to tell you what they are either way. Apparently even he doesn't know, suggesting self-awareness is not one of the advantages. Just understand that 'being a big guy' with said advantages and disadvantages, the Comfort Wipe is a great product. No need to say more, big guy, I'm convinced.
One ironic moment comes when a 'with-it' mature woman with an accent vaguely like Estelle Harris - George's Mom on Seinfeld, tells us how Comfort Wipe allows you to maintain your dignity and your personal hygiene. The same dignity she sucker punched when she decided to appear in this ad. The other when another lady informs us that toilet paper is archaic and unsanitary. So, if Comfort Wipe is such an evolution, why does it need toilet paper anyway?
Ah, silly consumer. Why ask such questions? It's simple. The sanitary Comfort Wipe means you don't have to touch dirty toilet paper anymore. Which frees you to attend to other business while you do your, um, business. You can call your friends. Start a grocery list. Prepare a lovely sandwich. You decide. Except you do need to use your hand to operate it. Some advancement in 'toilet paper'.
Is three a magic number for Calvin Klein?
Who knew that New Yorkers could be offended by anything? Apparently they can be, or at least some of them. The source of their shock and horror a racy new Calvin Klein billboard featuring a young trio - two men and a woman - involved in a three-way couch tryst; a third man, in a state of undress that leave you wondering if he's coming or going - lies nearby on the floor.
Basically, Calvin Klein put up a billboard that it knew would turn heads, generate chatter - like this blog post - and garner media coverage from upset citizens galvanized by the notion that something is wrong in the world today, and can't we all just think of the children. Clearly, the strategy worked. The story's been picked up by several media outlets, and thus the CK brand has earned some free publicity.
It's not the first time that Calvin Klein has stirred up controversy and I suspect it won't be the last. It certainly has brought attention to a brand I don't think about much, and I'd wager has lost luster over the years. But here's the thing: controversy strikes me as about as effective as a brand definer as price. In other words, there's always someone who can be more controversial. At the end of the day, where does that leave you?
Moreover, the further you go, the more jaded and cynical people become about the 'scandal' you hope to create. It's like crying wolf. At some point, people tune you out, unless you respond by going so far beyond the pale that you do get their attention, which happens to be sustained and negative. In which case, you may find yourself in crisis communication mode - issuing apologies that may fall on deaf ears.
It's also worth considering this: if you strip away the controversy, what else is there at the heart of your brand? Potentially nothing. You've set aside the proverbial steak to concentrate on the cliched sizzle. In a way, you've taken your eye and the public's off of your true strength, whatever that is. And they become bored with you, and much harder to seduce.
Speaking of boredom, is it just me, or does the model on the floor in the CK billboard ad look kind of blase, as if even he is tired and turned off by the whole thing?
Basically, Calvin Klein put up a billboard that it knew would turn heads, generate chatter - like this blog post - and garner media coverage from upset citizens galvanized by the notion that something is wrong in the world today, and can't we all just think of the children. Clearly, the strategy worked. The story's been picked up by several media outlets, and thus the CK brand has earned some free publicity.
It's not the first time that Calvin Klein has stirred up controversy and I suspect it won't be the last. It certainly has brought attention to a brand I don't think about much, and I'd wager has lost luster over the years. But here's the thing: controversy strikes me as about as effective as a brand definer as price. In other words, there's always someone who can be more controversial. At the end of the day, where does that leave you?
Moreover, the further you go, the more jaded and cynical people become about the 'scandal' you hope to create. It's like crying wolf. At some point, people tune you out, unless you respond by going so far beyond the pale that you do get their attention, which happens to be sustained and negative. In which case, you may find yourself in crisis communication mode - issuing apologies that may fall on deaf ears.
It's also worth considering this: if you strip away the controversy, what else is there at the heart of your brand? Potentially nothing. You've set aside the proverbial steak to concentrate on the cliched sizzle. In a way, you've taken your eye and the public's off of your true strength, whatever that is. And they become bored with you, and much harder to seduce.
Speaking of boredom, is it just me, or does the model on the floor in the CK billboard ad look kind of blase, as if even he is tired and turned off by the whole thing?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme GM
I've been wondering where GMs social media campaign is as it tries to reboot itself and its image in the eyes of consumers. Today, I get a notice on Twitter that GMintervention is following me (I'm @MrWordsWorth).
The stream, which started on June 4, is promoted as a window into the car company's reinvention. There are 40+ updates and they aren't terribly insightful. The company is basically pushing info that it must hope will drive people to GMs website for more details.
Not one of the 40+ updates is a response to or reflects an attempt to engage with users online. I know, it's only about a week and a half, but you'd think that GM would be using social media in, well, a social way.
Instead, it's like going to a party and running into someone who dominates the conversation with this and that of import to him, never stopping to consider that you might like to join in the conversation. He's too busy telling you what he's doing, he never takes a moment to listen to you to see how he can help you, or benefit from what you have to say. And if there were ever a time when GM needed engaged, supportive customers, it's now.
I'll be keeping an eye on the stream to see if GM reps do decide to actually turn their solipsistic chatter into a dialogue. But for now, GM, when it comes to social media, you're doing it wrong. A marketing expert needs to stage an intervention in this reinvention to actually prompt the company to be, you know, different.
The stream, which started on June 4, is promoted as a window into the car company's reinvention. There are 40+ updates and they aren't terribly insightful. The company is basically pushing info that it must hope will drive people to GMs website for more details.
Not one of the 40+ updates is a response to or reflects an attempt to engage with users online. I know, it's only about a week and a half, but you'd think that GM would be using social media in, well, a social way.
Instead, it's like going to a party and running into someone who dominates the conversation with this and that of import to him, never stopping to consider that you might like to join in the conversation. He's too busy telling you what he's doing, he never takes a moment to listen to you to see how he can help you, or benefit from what you have to say. And if there were ever a time when GM needed engaged, supportive customers, it's now.
I'll be keeping an eye on the stream to see if GM reps do decide to actually turn their solipsistic chatter into a dialogue. But for now, GM, when it comes to social media, you're doing it wrong. A marketing expert needs to stage an intervention in this reinvention to actually prompt the company to be, you know, different.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Why can't we be friends on Twitter?
Social media. It's about being social. So it surprises me that there are people on Twitter who can follow me, but I can't see their stream unless I register with them as a follower.
I guess they think they are special. I guess they think that they have something proprietary. But it reminds me of the days in school when kids had gum but wouldn't share it. Or they picked me last for the team in gym class. There's something vaguely elitist about it. If you aren't going to be open and social, why be on Twitter?
My feed - @MrWordsWorth - is open to any and all to join. And if you aren't trying to sell me on something that will make me rich, or you have an interest that parallels one of mine, I'll follow you back. But if you are going to put restrictions on how social you are, then you're being anti-social. I say loosen up. Open up your heart and let the sunshine in.
I guess they think they are special. I guess they think that they have something proprietary. But it reminds me of the days in school when kids had gum but wouldn't share it. Or they picked me last for the team in gym class. There's something vaguely elitist about it. If you aren't going to be open and social, why be on Twitter?
My feed - @MrWordsWorth - is open to any and all to join. And if you aren't trying to sell me on something that will make me rich, or you have an interest that parallels one of mine, I'll follow you back. But if you are going to put restrictions on how social you are, then you're being anti-social. I say loosen up. Open up your heart and let the sunshine in.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)