The Buffalo Blog

Nestlé learn how NOT to use social media

Towards the end of last week Nestlé started to feel the full brunt of the BBC’s Panorama special ‘Dying for a biscuit’. The documentary focused on the devastating effects both the usage and lack of regulation surrounding palm oil has on deforestation and consequently the fate of hundreds of species local to the Indonesian forests being destroyed – especially the Orangutans.

The documentary sparked debate surrounding the food giant after it showed a trolley filled with Nestlé goods all containing palm oil. Shocked viewers couldn’t wait to voice their opinions on the matter, posting comments, joining groups and signing petitions whilst the programme was still being aired.

Consequently Nestlé is now facing a PR battle with charity Greenpeace over claims that it is continuing to source palm oil from Sinar Mas, the Indonesian company accused of illegal deforestation and peatland clearance.

Greenpeace ignited reports after protesting outside the company’s headquarters last week dressed as orangutans. Following this the charity decided to bring in the tried and tested shock tactics,  posting an online video featuring an office worker accidently biting into an orangutan finger instead of a Kit Kat.

The backlash wasn’t to end there however, the firm has continued to be bombarded every minute with angry comments from both consumers and protestors alike. Nestlé’s Facebook and Twitter pages have truly taken a lashing.

Surely this must stand to be the most in your face example of when social media needs to be monitored and managed? With over 90, 967 Facebook fans, Nestlé’s reaction has been criticised as being a ‘major social media fail' with only inexperienced moderators fanning the flames.

Whilst consumers threaten to boycott the brand and others have altered their Facebook profile pictures to a bloodied Nestlé logo, the company has however responded by saying:

“We welcome your comments, but please don't post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic - they will be deleted.” - Comments which have further fuelled the fire, rather than extinguish it.                                                 

One furious user wrote: "Nestlé is the work of the devil. Evil evil corporation, and your bullish reactions and arrogant comments have won you no favours at all.”

Instead of parachuting in a crisis management team, the Nestlé moderator has just whimpered: “As you can see we're learning as we go. Thanks for the comments.”

Surely if Nestle and all the other organisations continue to explore and interact within the social media realm, then they should have some sort of  crisis plan in place if it should all go wrong -  NOT risk the brand’s reputation by simply relying on non experienced employees to ‘learn as they go’.

In my opinion Nestlé forgot the PR basics when dealing with a crisis, off or online the principles are the same.

Firstly – in any crisis it is important to show you are addressing the situation, monitoring the online sphere requires full time attention and so in this case, Nestlé would have done well in employing the help of social media PR professionals.

Secondly – Nestlé’s Facebook page was initially set up as somewhere fans could rave about their products, however now the tables have turned it’s been totally overtaken by angry protestors. Choosing another forum to communicate with customers (with advanced privacy and moderation settings) would definitely have been one way to avoid such damage.

Thirdly - as PR disasters.com nicely points out, Nestlé’s Facebook tone of voice is all wrong; a bit sarcastic and scolding at times - which doesn’t foster positive Web2.0 PR.

And lastly it is important to remember social media works both ways, now “learning” from their mistakes in a very public and damaging way, now at least Nestlé should now maybe go about employing someone who has some experience in online crisis management, which could have made the situation avoidably in the first place.

‘Payment by results – Evaluation is key”

 ‘Kerry Hallard, Buffalo Communications, MD in response to PRWeek article, 'Shift towards clients requesting payment by results criticised by the PRCA'

 

"Last week I was shocked to read the PRCA’s critisicm of the PBR model in PRWeek…

  For an established PR association like the PRCA to come out and criticise payment by results is simply outrageous. Especially as they are basically saying the industry isn’t competent enough to evaluate properly. Their argument devalues what we do as professionals and makes us look decidedly amateurish, vis a vis other marketing disciplines and the business world where ‘gain share’ models are becoming the norm.

 

Trying to dismiss the PBR model because of outdated evaluation techniques is a fallacy. If clients are increasingly requesting payment by results, which they are, consultancies must step up and adapt. Rather than dismiss the model out of hand, what the PRCA should be calling for is specific PBR based evaluation guidelines which can be set against realistic fees which can be levied.

 

I agree that the model of simply charging for coverage is rarely useful nowadays and this type of commoditisation should be consigned to history. Nowadays PBR should be offered, but only when based on clear communications and business-oriented metrics. Digital advancements have allowed progress in certain areas, but solid evaluation will always require a good portion of budget and sizeable time investment. It is also important to focus on outcomes not just outputs of PR metrics.

 

As a consultancy it is important that you are able to put your money where your mouth is and achieve return on investment for both you and your client. Buffalo has definitely found payment by results to be a very successful method among most clients, allowing them to see exactly what they are getting for their money based on pre-planned and agreed metrics that we can realistically impact."