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.

Pepsi benches superbowl for $20m cause marketing initiative

The news that PepsiCo dropped their prime time Super Bowl opening ad slot came as quite a shock. Not only will this be the first time in 23 years the infamous Super Bowl will not have one single ad promoting Pepsi, but also the drinks giant will be taking an uncertain gamble by trading it for a $20 million social media campaign.

From what we have all seen in the way of successful social media campaigns in 2009, this transition may prove positive for a brand that has been decidedly disjointed in its recent marketing. The move could show the extensive possibilities social media can open up to Pepsi and others alike.

Unlike rival, Coca-Cola, Pepsi spends almost all of its advertising budget on TV slots and with only 250,000 (actively engaged) facebook fans compared to Coke’s 4 million plus, bosses must have been on the edge of their seats when agreeing the deal.

To implement the new strategy, Pepsi will go full throttle into the increasingly growing field of cause marketing where the company aims to build two-way communication (an updated practice of the good old Grunig and Hunt, 1984 communication model us PR students have drummed into our heads at university) with consumers on how the company can become involved in social causes. 

Pepsi’s proposed 'Refresh Project' will provide consumers the chance to vote for suggested projects, and each month Pepsi will award grants to chosen causes.

To me this seems to be a very clever and interactive way for the brand to communicate with its publics through a popular platform whilst demonstrating its CSR credentials.

Other companies have also announced they are too following suit. Controversially ‘healthy’ fast food brand, McDonald’s, for example has recently revealed plans for its Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics marketing campaign. The media campaign, ‘How do you McNugget?’ will include both a Twitter and Facebook scavenger hunt to promote the athletes favorites, Chicken McNuggets.

So with Facebook, Twitter and other various social media networks so easily accessible to consumers will the move to online marketing campaigns be able to fully fulfill all objectives? Or will it be an unfortunate case of Pepsi putting too many of its eggs in one basket?

Finding Madeleine with mixed media

Now a couple of days have passed and information has been allowed to flow through, I thought I’d look at last week’s Madeleine McCann campaign and the traction it managed to generate. The campaign warrants looking at firstly because every little bit of awareness keeps her name top of mind and hopefully contributes in some way to finding out what has actually happened to this little girl. The second reason is that the campaign combined an interesting mix of offline and online media techniques which aren’t currently combined that frequently.

At the moment it is usually the big-bucks digital advertising agencies that are using traditional channels alongside video sharing and social networks, for example the Compare the Meerkat adverts and related Russian meerkat online shenanigans. This method often gains mass credence and looks a success in numbers: 610,136 fans on facebook, the top video on YouTube has 255,506 views with four more having over 100,000. The number of ‘Compare the Meerkat’ searches speak for themselves in the following table.

But it’s important to question the end result. Of course, the Compare the Market is looking for brand engagement, translating to sales, market share and real ROI. In terms of associated growth in Compare the Market search, it seems to have done very well indeed.

Whether this all translated into sales and impacted the bottom line is one to look out for at the next Ad awards, where I’m sure we’ll see a lot more of Alexander and friends. It is reasonable to assume though, that such a growth in Compare the Market Searches would mean a substantial uptick in business. On the flip-side of this one wonders how long such interest can be sustained. No doubt Compare the Market will know when it’s time to throw in the towel on this one, to avoid flogging a dead meerkat, so to speak.

Now, compare this with the Madeline McCann campaign. This is a movement that gained and sustained massive popular support for a substantial amount of time after the abduction. The media got very involved and was instrumental in keeping the interest alive for longer than is usual in such cases. A compassionate public, likeable family and adorable child, also helped sustain interest in the story.

Now, a year on, interest has significantly died down and the natural response is for the family to attempt to drum up new support and interest using every means at their disposal. So the work with CEOP and the ‘viral’ video came about. 

Again the media was very conducive to an update on the situation and covered the story heavily on launch day. ‘A minute for Maddie’ was splashed on many front pages, across breakfast news sofas and generally covered in most, if not all, the major news outlets.

The interesting thing is the campaign’s effect on the social media-sphere is was designed to infiltrate. The video, though by no means high on ‘shareability’, was presented as a viral to be viewed and spread more though conscience than anything else. And this worked for a time. The trouble is that attempting to instigate a viral via ‘old media’ PR efforts is almost impossible. Also, without the mega budgets of the big advertising guys to keep plugging away with adverts, interest dies away at an astounding rate. Just look at the Madeleine MacCann searches:

As soon as the news broadcasts stopped, all was effectively lost. The graph goes to an amazing pique then back to nothing in just a day or so. The sad thing is that the interest has also not spread Europe-wide as was hoped. While the YouTube video is offered in numerous languages, searches outside UK and Ireland are few and far between. Having said this, the fleeting interest did translate into 418,568 views of the YouTube video but has not spawned the additional videos or associated sharing of the Meerkat campaign.

These two contrasting examples give the industry some important food for thought for the PR industry:

·         How easy is it to meld ‘old’ and ‘new’ PR tools for long-term effect?

·         What does the success of advertising mixed with social media mean for PR?

·         Does creating mass interest always translate to engagement?

·         Is it right to always focus social media campaigns around short-term projects?

Either way, let’s hope they find Madeleine in the end.

As usual, comments are more than welcome.

A year for fear or PR cheer?

Periods of festive stupor frequently bring to light some of the best ideas – it’s a shame they only come but once a year. One such occasion in the Brown household this year occasioned thoughts on the future of PR, and while not the best and most original thoughts in the world, they do warrant a blog at least. The key questions ‘Is 2009 a good year for PR?’ and ‘Who will win in the race to dominate online?’

Unquestionably 2009 will be a tumultuous time for PR. The credit crunch and the ongoing step-change in the way publishing works, will necessarily force a change in the PR industry. This change will occur both in the way we all think about communication and in the overall makeup of the UK’s PR scene. Budgets are likely to be squeezed, yes, but the biggest change will be the way PR professionals look at communications.

Both in national news and trade press, circulation figures continue to slide as more readers turn to online and blogs for their daily information. The ongoing cuts in advertising expenditures due to the recession is also punishing publications forcing publishers to reassess staff levels, strategy, circulation and, of course, their online strategies. This combined with widespread confusion amongst advertisers over exactly where and how to advertise online is already severely changing the face of print media.

To have a good 2009, the PR industry needs to keep up with these changes and adapt its business accordingly. There are already more freelancers out there, less full-time editorial staff, more bloggers, many more publishing business models and many more niche, more intensely targeted communication channels to address. Not to mention the opportunities presented by video and audio communication. More changes and opportunities will no-doubt come to light this year.

The problematic thing for out-of-touch PR’s is that the world just won’t wait for PR to take up the mantle at their own pace. There are any number of candidates looking to seize business in areas that are technically PR’s. The key tenet of good PR still holds true, interesting, quality content is key. But it’s the dissemination of the stuff that’s changing and that requires new skills: SEO, keyword marketing, digital marketing, advanced web skills to name but a few, will all be vital. The industry is constantly evolving and PR professionals must evolve at the same pace to avoid being usurped. Some will undoubtedly fail to do this.

The internet is constantly presenting opportunities for customer communication but with this diversity comes complexity, calling for a more diverse number of competencies from today’s PR companies. Being able to use traditional media relations alongside the company website, blogs, social network group, news releases, whitepapers, e-books, videos and so on, in an integrated, targeted manner is absolutely vital to gaining interest. Ultimately bringing customers through your virtual, and consequently, physical door.

Change in the media and marketing landscape is constant and inevitable – PR companies that don’t recognise this and ignore the change are sadly doomed to failure.

Quality PR writing

A badly timed press release darkened my desk (should I say inbox these days) this morning as I sat down to my first caffeine hit of the day. The research release for the ‘Writing for Publication Masterclass’ announced: ‘Only 3% of editors say PR articles are "well written", says survey’. Scary stuff indeed and, while the research is obviously self-serving, it should hit home to those who think all coverage is equal in value regardless of content.

Ever feel yourself ticking off coverage quotas, filing another piece of coverage and forgetting about it? Another one in the bag and another win on the PR versus journalist scorecard? If this is you then this release should be even more worrying.

With the continued development of online publications, the growth in ‘fast media’ like blogs and the rapidly shrinking news rooms all over the country, the focus has never been further away from ensuring quality content is posted. Unfortunately, in many cases, the need to break stories and to make sure that publications are the fastest, most up-to-date 24 hr news services around, is coming well ahead of quality assurance.

The pressure to get things up and ‘done and dusted’ is also feeding through to PR and this is where the release should hurt. Many publications try to get a certain amount of contributed articles up each month with a quota that must be filled regardless of quality. So that’s a great thing isn’t it? PRs can reel off any old article and get it printed saving time and money! Likewise being in charge of the corporate blog makes things even easier, as long as we keep getting the right volume of blogs up everything is great! Or is it?

No - this definitely isn’t the way things should be going. Yes you might be able to get something slightly sub-standard printed (much to the editor’s dismay no doubt) but this is of no value whatsoever to clients. If it’s pants no one will read it and your client message will be lost, no argument – this is PR 101 and anyone calling themselves a PRO should know it.

In true PR style I feel I should issue a call to action to in-house and agency PROs alike: Remember the reason behind your coverage. Make it good and make it salient so your client has the best chance of getting some value out of it.

Good ol’ product endorsement

With the constant and ongoing chatter about the power of digital media promotion it is sobering to see traditional PR media continuing to punch its weight. Today it is the humble celebrity endorsement that reminds us of it’s great value.

The astounding rise in sales of BBC’s Planet Earth DVD after a welcome mention by that paragon of US daytime TV, Oprah Winfrey, should remind all those of the continued importance of ‘old media’ in communication strategies.

According to the BBC website Oprah helped Planet Earth sell over three million copies worldwide – by all accounts even better than a Richard and Judy recommendation.

Now, this isn’t a denial of the power of new media tools, on the contrary. The fact that this post is written on a blog is testament to my support for all developing and established communication channels.

However, news like this is a wakeup to those who think traditional media is dead and buried. It’s obviously important that companies don’t forget that all media has its time and place and should be approached neutrally. Avoid bandwagon jumping as much as possible; do your research, look at communications logically, impartially and skillfully and you’re more than likely to come out smiling.

The end of the dodgy blogger?

On May 26 dodgy corporate bloggers and rogue PR consultants may take a moment to reflect on their chosen paths as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 come in to force.

Among the countless additions and modernisation the regulations bring is one highly important nugget relating to transparency – a change that will have a sobering effect on the more unscrupulous of us.

Mentioning no names, those that have previously got away with a slap on the wrists and a hit to the reputation after their undercover blogging activity could now end up reflecting on their actions in the slammer.

Transparency under the new regulations is paramount i.e. representing yourself as a helpful consumer, an excited user of a client’s product etc, is now completely illegal and could attract criminal charges.

To those consultancies that have already taken the transparent route into the blogosphere, these regulations should bring no worries. For those that are still operating on the wrong side of the fence, this may be a fitting moment to think about changing one’s ways. Covertly advocating a client’s cause is now not only a crime against reputation, but a crime against the law.

The Ying and Yang of PR

Last week saw developments from both the light and dark-side of the PR world. The side of the good and just saw Mattel turn disaster into opportunity with its excellent handling of its dangerous toy crisis. In contrast a handful of companies were caught practicing the dark art of ‘Wiki-washing’ (appropriately named by The Times).

Mattel, the US’s biggest toy manufacturer, managed to fall foul of the plague of dodgy suppliers that are rapidly being exposed across China. The drive for excessively cheap imports, it seems, has killed off the need for rigorous checking procedures. However, whatever Mattel’s procedural failings they have handled the media crisis remarkably well in an almost textbook fashion.

• Stage 1. Implement crisis plan

• Sage 2. Make a definite action which demonstrates commitment to customer safety i.e. large scale product recall.

• Stage 3. Set up a central point of contact by phone and online where customers can find out information including how to get refunds etc.

• Stage 4. Make a statement about all that has been implemented to ensure customer safety and any important warnings to customers within the first half day of the crisis coming to light.

• Stage 5. Implement inquiry.

• Stage 6. Bring out top media-trained spokespeople and put them in all the right places – prime-time media will be anxious to speak to someone if it is a large-scale crisis and someone will fill the spot if it isn’t the CEO. The inquiry can be announced here.

• Stage 7. Continue updating media. If handled correctly the story will quickly loose news value and the last thing remembered will be what the company has done to fix the mess.

Mattel implemented these steps almost to the tee in the UK and, as such, customers have been made safe (mitigating future crises) and the story’s news value has fallen considerably. Unfortunately though Mattel is still drawing heavy fire in the US indicating their crisis effort has not been as effective as in the UK.

This leads neatly to the problems that various organisations are having over their attempts at covering up their tainted histories. Rather than concentrating on the here and now these organisations (including the Labour Party and Union Carbide) were caught trying to alter their less than sterling pasts by deleting and embellishing Wikipedia entries.

Instead of fooling people into believing these newly spotless pasts however, their attempts only dredged up past crises and events that many wouldn’t have remembered anyway. Now a whole new generation has heard about the horror of the Bhopal tragedy eeking out a further dose of reputation damage from a previously long-forgotten event.

These underhand alterations have drawn much media criticism and serve to illustrate perfectly the lifecycle of an issue. Issues are never truly dormant and can come back to affect reputations at any time. However, it’s usually an exterior party that causes the problems to rear their ugly heads again. This foolish attempt smacks of pure PR incompetence. These organisations need to move on from the past and set about rebuilding those poor battered reputations rather than dwell over spilt milk.

Great PR?!

If Hayley Booth, of Brando Communications, wanted her name in lights, she has certainly achieved that. Unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. This has to be one of the most disasterous PR stunts of recent times, but hilarious nonetheless! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1610495.ece