How Facebookers commandeered the brand’s site for their own cause and why social media melees can go so wrong, so fast.
Blake Bowyer (@BlakeBowyer)
Media Program Analyst
Prologue: If you don’t know what transpired on Facebook with Nestlé, search “Nestlé Facebook” or click HERE.
It’s no secret that social media democratized the Internet’s share of voice – no longer do messages need to be viral to spread the word, they simply require exposure. And now where do the disseminators find the pulpit? Your brand’s Facebook page or @ reply Twitter stream or Yelp reviews. This isn’t a post about how risky social media are, but WHY they there is so much risk and the three inalienable rights in an open-forum era. It all starts with the parable of a candy company …
“… they will be deleted.”
And that’s when the Facebook Wall caved in on Nestlé and it was overcome by the chocolatier’s “fans”. As much as a social presence can be a bullhorn for fandom, it makes the jeers of the detractors even louder. While mudslinging factions could be marginalized in the past or framed as extremists and minorities, social media allow these groups to assemble, grow, and reach critical mass. In short, these groups always had the possibility to be more influential, social media just furnished the tools. As I mentioned in a past INSIGHT post, your social audiences are merely gatherers – not “fans or “followers” – until you offer otherwise.
The flare-up on Nestlé’s Facebook page harkens back to slideshow presentation created by a dissatisfied customer spreading the word about a deplorable Doubletree hotel experience. If you’ve never seen the slideshow, it’s a genius – and ultimately effective – example of pre-viral Internet inveighing. But that was way back in 2001, when Web 1.0 was rounding the bend of maturity to decline and audible consumer voices were few and far between online. This PowerPoint missive, while clever, was still a blip on the radar for Doubletree and most viewers were those looking for a laugh, not a hotel room.
But, that was ancient history and now consumers can take their complaints, messages, and hills-to-die-on straight to the fan pages and forums of these brands. This isn’t Hannibal’s forces coming over the Alps on elephants for the element of surprise; this is kamikaze warfare without the risk. Among other things, Nestlé didn’t recognize three inalienable consumer rights of a new media era:
- 1) Freedom of speech
- 2) Freedom of assembly
- 3) The right to petition
These rights existed before social media and prior to companies drafting their own customer bills of rights, but they were never as meaningful – or, more importantly, as possible. Just as Web 2.0 can facilitate the formation of a billion accessible niches, it encourages the assembly of customer coalitions looking to exercise their rights. And, truthfully, that development is a double-edged sword for both sides.
With fans like this, who needs enemies?
As consumers, we have reasonable rights for which companies and brands should be held accountable. However, we risk eroding candor and responsiveness by drawing pistols on companies when our trigger finger starts to itch.
As companies, we can benefit from the openness of new media and glean valuable information, augment relationships, and correct mistakes to the benefit of everyone. However, inherent in these tools is public risk and every consumer must at least be respected, if not addressed – never deleted.
“… they will be deleted.”
The Facebook manager at Nestlé fanned the flames with those four words. Everything before them was forgotten and the company was suddenly a tyrant, turning the fight to principle, something all consumers were eager to defend and bringing many more into the fold. This isn’t an era of slideshows existing in a dweeb vacuum, but one that consumers’ rights are realized and a brand must share the microphone or risk having it ripped from its hands by a pirate radio eager to broadcast its faults.
