The Buffalo Blog

Habitat Get It So Wrong

Now we all know that there is a debate that rages throughout the social media world, one that spawns passionate statements about freedom, corporate responsibility and user experience.   This debate tends to revolve around one issue:  Should companies be taking advantage of social media to directly sell to their consumers.  The general consensus is that businesses can (and I would say, should) engage with customers at a personal level, maintaining a strict adherence to a self imposed rule of no selling. 

Social media can be used to give a company a platform to actually engage with the public, whether they are potential customers or not.  There is an exceptionally important line that should, by no means, be crossed by any organisation, or for that matter individual: do not capitalise on a serious social media conversation in order to push your product or service.  Habitat, the furniture retailer, decided to take an enormous step over that line and is now facing an online backlash of unprecedented proportions.

The over zealous retailer (@habitatuk) decided to hashtag (keywords used on Twitter to help users track posts on specific themes, achieved by putting a #theme before the tweet) new season products with incredibly popular and some sensitive hashtags such as #Iran, #iPhone and #Apple.  Of course none of the used themes had anything to do with the subsequent tweets, Habitat were simply using the hashtags to pitch their product to as many people as possible.

This irresponsible and deplorable marketing tactic earnt Habitat a plethora of condemning articles within the online press not to mention the flood of angry tweets sent directly to @habitatuk.  They have effectively alienated any online consumer they were attempting to target, to rub salt in the wounds Habitat have (as I write this blog) as yet apologised for this ridiculous stunt, the company has simply deleted the offending tweets. 

The power of social media tools such as Twitter has become more evident every day.  Earlier in the week, Twitter users managed to skew an insensitive poll on the Daily Mail site, in fact I think more people voted on that poll than on many other Daily Mail surveys.  This time, it was incredible to see how quickly a corporate error can snowball as well as the millions of Twitter users leaping to protect the dignity of planet Twitter. 

The Social Media Today blog captured screen shots and posted the original article alerting a host of other publications and media outlets (including Sky News) to the story.   Twitter users were already moving in on the kill as publications such as ComputerWorldUK and Computer Weekly uploaded scathing articles.   I expect the evening news will pay homage to the story as well as the morning Metro.

This only goes to show how quickly things can go wrong when companies decide to simply ignore unwritten protocol, wade into the online furore and attempt to unscrupulously sell to a highly aware and totally connected community.  Whether this marketing blunder was orchestrated in-house or through a marcomms agency, is yet to be clear.  Organisations have to be fully aware of the potential consequences of getting the online conversation wrong. 

Social media does give businesses the opportunity to interact at a personal level with potential customers, however it is a wild beast and businesses should be prepared to be on the backfoot from the outset and should always follow an honest and open approach to any interaction. Habitat didn’t and one thing is for certain, they have severely damaged their image and reputation with millions of potential consumers; and all in under 140 characters.    

Cease and desist! The myopia of content blocking

It’s about time for another ‘why don’t the big companies get it?!’ blog. The subject to enflame my social media sensibilities today is the wonderfully cringe-inducing stunt pulled by Sacha Baron Cohen at the recent MTV Awards. The lowdown is the entirely devoid of shame, Cohen, ‘flew’ into the arena dressed as a trouser-deficient angel – in the guise of his alter ego Bruno. He promptly crashed into the ceiling and descended directly in a wonderfully faux-accident to place his crotch on Eminem’s face. The stunt was hilarious and the reaction of Eminem and his crew equally so. Whether they were in on it is beside the point.

The key point is the enormous share-ability of the footage and the fact that the company are doing everything in their power to hinder such sharing. Just try to find the video on the popular sharing sites on the internet. Chances are you’ll bit hit with some red text saying ‘Due to copyright issues you cannot view this video’. Now how many people are going to see that and simply give up? You can bet it’s a large proportion. If your content isn’t where your audience is, don’t expect them to search for too long.

The myopia of large organisations (mentioning no names) still trying to dictate terms to the audience they covert are astounding. OK so the footage was sufficiently gruesome to make it into the newspapers, but what of those that don’t read them. What of those that didn’t see the MTV awards and want to see the video for themselves. Why can’t they? And why can’t they share the video on their blogs or Facebook pages? No, the video can only be seen on a designated MTV page. Hindering the spread of media content is negating a ton of free brand awareness.

The whole ‘build it and they will come’ mantra is fast eroding as those in the Web 2.0 space realise that you can’t dictate where people congregate. If you build something like a social network or a video sharing portal, the chances of it taking off are as slim as they get. People only have so much time to engage in such things so marketers need to get savvy, work out where they are and engage where they are. Forcing everyone to come to your site regardless of what they want is simply reducing the audience by a huge amount.

It’s always good to be constructive at such times as we have been accused of taking an overly negative tone in the past. So, to those lumbering giants that continue to squash any conversation about their brands through heavy handed legal practice and so on, why not ease up? If people want to talk about you it’s a blessing not a curse. Engage with them, give them even more reasons to talk. If they want to share your videos, let them. And if you want them to visit your website, why not offer them something more to play with?

Give it a go – you might like it…

Oh, and by the way, I’m not going to put up a link to the official video.

Going green again - the second round of environmental communications

Today is a big day for green communications. It’s official, many of the world’s largest companies are back on the green trail, doing all they can to convey their environmental credentials. The launch of the Sunday Times 2009 Green list, coincides with the launch of a Ogilvy Earth from advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather. The new global practice is designed to handle sustainability communications for its clients. Some of the big campaigns it is launching include Smart Planet for IBM and Beyond Petroleum for BP.

You may be thinking we’ve heard all this before and to a large extent we have. Greenwash, the practice of making an organisation look green through the art of communications, has been yet another sad bit of history for the public relations industry. Companies did it, consultancies advised and communicated it and people and businesses got stung. As with any communications, those in the practice of greenwashing found that if the substance was not there or the product did not do what it says on the tin, communicating was an uphill battle.

That’s why this second round, green communication resurgence is so interesting. Surely no company would be crass enough to think they could dupe customers on green all over again. And in today’s ‘nothing is private’ world of communications, trying to communicate any green promises with no tangible basis in reality, would quickly be discovered and put down.

No, the interesting thing about the new ‘green wave’ is that there appears to be substance behind many of the claims. The Times Green list for example rates companies by Performance, Training and Motivation, Policies and Systems and Reporting and Communications (after all, you have to tell people about it!). The list looks at 60 companies with exceptional environmental credentials, up from 50 last year. Many of the companies are making real changes in the consumption of energy, recycling and in preparing their businesses for a greener future.

The move to substance over fluff has been marked on the political scene too. It’s now becoming cooler and more appropriate for businesses to take and act on their green positioning. Obama for example is making waves and ruffling as many feathers as possible across the pond where the environment is concerned. The success of his drive for a green America led by ‘green collar’ workers will continue to shape the way the rest of the world approaches and communicates environmental thinking.

Governments and the business world are beginning to realize that oil as an easily accessible resource, simply will not be there forever. And as a result many are starting to make moves in the right direction. Communications of what’s being done and why will play a large part in the success of these environmental leaders but it must be backed up with substance. Getting green and green communications right the second time round should take note from the UK driving test’s popular ‘Mirror, Signal, Maneuver’ adage.

Mirror – find out what people think and what needs to be done business and communications-wise

Signal – tell people what’s been discovered and what the company is doing

Maneuver – begin to deliver on promises and keep on signaling as time goes by

Swine Fever!

I am compelled, like most in the world, to share my views on the latest global pandemic (or almost pandemic) of swine flu. My interest, as someone who works in communications, is how and why the outbreak has been reported within the media the way it has.

In terms of infection levels, swine flu is very similar to Avian flu (bird flu) and SARS (if you can think far back enough to those outbreaks). However, the coverage that swine flu has received does feel a little more intense and menacing in its predicted effects. For example a Google search of bird flu, which has been on the radar for several years, yields 35.4 million results. A search of swine flu, which has been around for days, yields 103 million results. Why is this?

One of the reasons may be because of the increased use of social media in reporting and global communications. Many have heralded the role that social media has played in the spread of information throughout the swine flu outbreak as significant. Some would argue that social media has helped to fuel the fire, along with the constant coverage on the news. A writer on CNET has claimed that "for better or for worse, social media is likely to be one of the primary mediums through which information spreads in a crisis moving forward."

However, being the pessimist that I am, I can’t help but think there is a more sobering aspect to the differing press coverage. It is important to note that because of the internet and new methods of communication, we now inhabit a ‘global village’. Nevertheless, like any village, inequalities still exist. The West no doubt inhabits the top of this cultural hierarchy. With this in mind, it is interesting to note the difference between the countries that have been affected by the three outbreaks. Swine flu has reached countries such as New Zealand, the US and Germany whereas bird flu has reached countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan and SARS; Singapore, China, and Vietnam. Does geography play such a massive role in our global village that volume of press coverage is directly linked to it?

This leaves me wondering; are American, New Zealand and German lives more newsworthy than those in Egypt, Pakistan or China? Or can I sleep easy at night believing that the volume and type of coverage is purely a consequence of our modern obsession with twittering and blogging?

 

"What happens to online PR? Time to move on..."

I went to the latest NMK ‘What happens to Online PR’ debate on Tuesday. In the trendy Shoreditch area numerous new media luminaries gathered to debate the point (paraphrased) ‘that PR has lost its capability to guide its clients through the new media landscape’. Predictably the motion was voted down, as would be expected in a room full of PR people.

But I left feeling the debate hadn’t really been furthered to a huge extent. Last year’s ‘Clients in the wild’ event and various other such meetings I have been to, continue to bring up similar themes and arguments. The industry appears to be going round in circles on the whole ‘new media’ debate.

What can be drawn from this? Firstly that there’s a lot of guff and ‘I know more than you’ talk bandied around where new media is concerned. And secondly, many professionals are ready to or have already moved past the debate and experimentation phase and are ready to properly guide and succeed for clients in this space. James Warren of Webber Shandwick especially and various questions from the floor belied a weariness with the central subject of the debate. As one lady astutely put it “I’ve been doing ‘online PR’ since 1994 when websites were cutting edge, why don’t people just get on with it!”

And that’s what most of us are doing. James Warren, even after a few glasses of wine, managed to convey the argument most astutely with a kind of ‘yeah we’re already doing it’ tone. He also came up with another especially salient point. One area that will continue to grow in importance is facilitating conversations wherever they need to occur between an organisation ant its stakeholders. I’ve long been a proponent of this view that PR should facilitate the company-ousider interface wherever needed. A good example would be highlighting to a company’s technical department that hundreds of angry customers are occupying a previously unknown online forum. If their enquiries are too in-depth to be dealt with by PR, then it’s our job to locate and involve the appropriate company person, help them engage, allaying the problems and create happy customers.

I managed to plump up the final question of the night but unfortunately it was time to move to vote so no discussion was had on the matter. The question, or statement depending on how you look at it, was that:

• Firstly there was only one in-house practitioner at the event. This is obviously partly because of the way that the London consultancy network communicates with each other and the fact it’s our job to stay at the cutting edge of the profession. However, you’d hope a few more in-house interests would have been piqued. It’s clear there is still a lot of education to be done in-house as to what can be done and what actually matters for clients online.
• The second observation, picking up on the event’s theme that there is a ‘race’ to claim the digital communications prize. I ventured that the industry is in danger of confusing the industry as to where they should go for different communication services. Advertising or ‘free advertising’ was an easy split, with digital marketers, ad agencies, digital PR, ‘normal PR’ and SEO companies all offering useful parts of the overall whole, it’s important we communicate exactly who does what, how and why.
  
  

The final point I’d like to make is about capability. There was a feeling from some attendees, and in the initial contrary motion, that somehow PR’s capability to communicate is diminished or falling behind other innovators from other areas of marketing. This is simply not the case and is a massively sweeping statement. Capability and skill sets are the preserve and responsibility of individual consultancies, those that move forward will have continued success; those that don’t will become increasingly irrelevant.

It is up to each and every one of us to understand what can be done, work out how to do it (sometimes internally, sometimes in partnership with specialists) and then inform our clients where and why it is relevant to them.

Other speakers at the event included:

Mike Nutley (Chair) - Editor-in-Chief at New Media Age.

Stuart Bruce - MD and founder of Wolfstar and leading PR blogger.

Antony Mayfield - Head of Social Media at iCrossing with a blog at Open.

Roger Warner, founder and MD of Content and Motion.

John and Monty Don do Comic Relief

P1000101
Originally uploaded by buffalo.communications

John goes fund raising in Soho and meets the world famous gardener Monty Don.

He also raised over £100 - here here!