Today, I have the great pleasure of speaking about brand management online at PubCon. Inevitably, successful organizations and personal brands face negative comments and brand diffusion online. Google and other search engines ensconce such commentary into the halls of history, forcing organizations to address their detractors directly.
As Prince recently found out (NY Times), the worst way to handle these situations is trying to force fans (and commenters) to retract statements. Message control in social media environments doesn’t work. Two-way conversational capabilities have permanently disrupted such efforts. When Prince tried to shut down three united fan generated sites because to protect copyrighted material, fans dug their heels in. One fan wrote to prince.org:
The more I think about it, I say just drop him, remove all content, let him have his way. It’s obvious he doesn’t want us as fans anymore, so why should we want him?
Instead of quelling the storm, such actions tend to incite increased angst. Coca-cola had a similar experience with Mentos.
Applying Crisis PR Principles
When a crisis occurs, successful communication efforts feature factual, timely updates about the situation. Companies that are in the wrong admit their fault and publicly take steps to address the matter. Such times can offer an opportunity for a company to shine and actually build goodwill with its community.
Similarly, applying these principles to negative comments can achieve similar results. When the popcorn industry faced a diacetyl crisis, smart organic popcorn companies went out on the front lines and engaged bloggers directly in the comments section. They
- Acknowledge wrongs or problems, and the steps taken to correct the problem
- Publish a co-joining statement on their blog or web site
- Don’t apologize and then repeat errors
- If someone is complaining and the company can’t affect change, acknowledge their remarks. Make them feel heard.
Please remember that little guys matter, too! A common mistake is to ignore remarks on blogs and social networks with less traffic. The logic: they’re too small and don’t matter. What if a more influential blogger or a journalist reads that site and picks up the story? Influence is determined by who reads the post, not by quantity of readers.
Consider the Source
At the same time, one aspect of success is the certain attraction of negative elements. Comically dubbed “trolls,” these folks with disturbing tendencies simply attack no matter what you do.
Consider if the negative commenter is a troll. Usually a Google search will reveal a litany of negativity. The very best thing to do in such situations is to ignore their efforts.
Do not comment on their site. Engaging trolls only fuels them. If they attack in the comments section on other sites, comment, but only as it pertains to the general post, not the troll’s detractions. Remember, they seek attention.
Interested readers who click through to the troll’s site will see the general negativity and should be able to exercise good judgment. They may even Google the person in question and find the same results you did.
Of course if threats are made as in the Kathy Sierra situation, follow up with law enforcement. Similarly, if continued blatant defamation and libel occur, the company or individual may want to consider legal action. Ultimately, if you don’t take the proverbial bait, the troll will usually find another target.
Excellent advice Geoff. I have always thought of negative comments in this way. Also, there is something that happens when people know they are being listened too, they generally take it down a few notches.