Responses

• Posted by Nancy Myrland on April 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
  

  It would have been wise for them to notice the severity of this comment right from the start. These recommendations can still be followed.

  One of the first things to do would be to acknowledge the concern head on. Then let your "Fans" know how much you appreciate their support, and would love for them to share with you the best solution given you need your product (palm oil), and that there are xxx million Nestle chocolate lovers in the world that you also want to keep happy, but also want to make sure the land is taken care of.

  Obviously, someone would have said, Plant, Plant, Plant. They could have, (and still could) launched in to a massive replanting project on behalf of Nestle and its supporters. Signs could have gone up in every square inch of land they could have found in every city in which they operate. They could have designed a widget (icon) that, when placed on anyone's website, and clicked upon by anyone, Nestle would then plant a tree somewhere on that person's behalf. The public could watch the numbers tick up and up and up.

  There are many more things they can be doing, but this is just a thought or two to answer your question. I'd be happy to help Nestle walk through this, and other, solutions as we don't have to have a disaster here.
  My recent post SERIOUSLY, DO YOUR CLIENTS KNOW?

• Posted by Jen Zingsheim on April 2nd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
  

  Good article Mark–and, fair warning, I'm going to be a bit contrarian here. Are we really at a point where a company must abdicate and not enforce policies they've set up for a page? I've seen any number of sites that post what its guidelines are, from "post whatever you want" to "no abusive language," "no obscenities" etc. So are we saying that if you have a FB page, you can have guidelines but you need to roll over if anyone violates them? And doesn't telling a brand that it can't protect its logo (no doubt a bunch of the corporate lawyers have drilled that into their heads) possibly produce a chilling effect on brands that aren't in the space yet?

  I'm a big believer that cooler heads prevail. I truly believe this. But is it fair to demand authenticity and then call for someone's head when they lose their cool? (Note: your piece doesn't, but I've seen a number of posts stating that this person from Nestle should be fired.) "Authenticity," too, is a double-edged sword. If you are going to attack someone, there's a fair chance they are going to be upset about it. I'd prefer everyone be grownups about this, but if that had happened the activists wouldn't have orchestrated this in the first place.

  I'm not really sure where I stand on this case. I don't think that social media gives people license to bash a brand on their own site and then get screechy when they try and enforce the rules they have set forth. Of course, to me the activists are being just plain tacky and devoid of manners.

• Posted by @mstory123 on April 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
  

  Nancy,

  Thanks so much for reading and commenting.

  On noticing the severity from the outset, as you pointed out, I could not help but think of "Motrin Moms." That also broke over a weekend, the even though the premise was a little ridiculous (baby slings), for me, it reinforced the notion that you need to be monitoring for bad news, ESPECIALLY on the weekends.

  To your other points, as part of a crisis communication and social media plan, if you have not avoided the crisis, there needs to be an adult in charge. Someone who has a handle on all of your social media outlets and can respond in a way similar to that which you have posted.

  There are some really good and inexpensive monitoring tools out there that would have caught this and perhaps – perhaps – nipped it in the bud.

  Thanks again for reading and commenting.

  Mark

• Posted by @mstory123 on April 2nd, 2010 at 5:09 pm
  

  Jen,

  Thanks for reading, as well as being the resident contrarian.

  I don't argue the point one bit that most companies need a firm FB policy. It's their site and their rules. But to have someone do battle with the activists and post snarky responses – this only adds fuel to the fire that burns inside the activists. Greenpeace's logo must be "all corporations are evil and filled with jerks," and whomever posted the responses fit the bill. Crisis management 101; don't make a bad situation worse.

  And as for cooler heads, the one thing that is missing in all of this discussion is a focus on Greenpeace. It is not coincidence that this corporate campaign took hold over a weekend. Greenpeace wanted it this way. And I used to remind my clients constantly that many of the organizations that start corporate campaigns depend upon contributions. The more that they can stoke the fires, the more $$ end up in their coffers. Activist groups (and some companies too) bend the truth. Who knows what the palm oil policy is or was? All of that got lost in the fact that Nestle responded poorly. And THAT was the whole problem.

  And Nestle can screech as much as they want, but the lost the PR battle on this one.

  Mark

  P.S. – Thanks for "finding" me.

  My recent post My Latest Gig: Contributing to Smart Blog Social Media

• Posted by Crowd Factory on April 2nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
  

  Better chocolate and a way better social experience from the folks at http://www.tcho.com — they use http://pop.to to help spread the word and give away chocolate!

• Posted by Embrace Criticism! « Social Media for the Alcohol Industry on April 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
  

  [...] want to thank Emily Molitor and her blog posting called Dear Nestlé: Social media is a double-edged sword for the information that started this post. Please read Emily’s blog for more information on [...]

• Posted by Alicia Scotti on April 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 pm
  

  If a company is going to take advantage of social media platforms, then Mark is right, they need to be on 24/7 managing that brand and its message, with intelligence, skill and fluidity. This is key because the social media environs are in constant flux, anything can and does happen, and immediacy is king/queen.
  Snarky responses – whether right or wrong, justified or not – reflect directly on the brand. If your brand is not snarky, neither should your responses be.
  This is all pretty basic marketing in today's environs – wherever they may be.

• Posted by @mstory123 on April 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
  

  Alicia,

  Amen! Thanks for commenting!

  Mark
  My recent post My Latest Gig: Contributing to Smart Blog Social Media

• Posted by HChan on April 2nd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
  

  haven't they committed a few social media snafus? (logo rip-off, nasty responses)…it is probably time to get a new agency or person in charge of their social media campaign…maybe they will learn the power of SM soon enough before the brand is damaged??

• Posted by J Kuehl on April 3rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
  

  Anyone representing their company and brand, regardless of the negative comments, who posts a communication of that nature, should be reprimanded. I'm going to guess there is a junior employee who monitors the fan page and thought it was 'cute' to have that tone.
  My recent post Do you crave the human touch? Prefer live bodies to tweets?

• Posted by @mstory123 on April 3rd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
  

  J Kuehl.,

  Thanks for your comment. I think that it;'s clear that whomever posted the comment was clueless. Nestle did announce, however, that the employee would not be disciplined. I agree with that just so long as it was not a member of the communications team. If that is the case, heads should roll b/c they should know better.

  Mark
  My recent post My Latest Gig: Contributing to Smart Blog Social Media

• Posted by nickengelfried on April 3rd, 2010 at 6:16 pm
  

  As the author of this post points out, the best way to deal with a public relations crisis is to avoid having one in the first place. The simplest way for Nestle to have done that would have been to make sure that their purchasing practices are actually in line with their public relations, eliminating the need for online activists to call them out. For a company that claims to be socially responsible, buying large quantities of palm oil from Sinar Mas – an Indonesia-based corporation that's rapidly destroying Southeast Asia's remaining rainforest – was not a smart move. No wonder Greenpeace called them out on it, and no wonder Nestle had a hard time responding with grace. What could Nestle have done differently? They could have not got involved in mass deforestation in the first place.

  For full disclosure, I should add that I'm the author of the article on Nestle and the Greenpeace campaign, linked to near the top of this page. But I'm not part of the Greenpeace team who launched this successful campaign – just one of their admirers.

• Posted by PR disasters: is social media to blame? | Strive Notes on April 4th, 2010 at 2:48 am
  

  [...] Dear Nestlé: Social media is a double-edged sword (smartblogs.com) [...]

• Posted by Nestlé's Big Social Media Mistake on April 5th, 2010 at 7:10 am
  

  [...] to blogger Mark Story, the comments from Nestlé included: “Oh, please, it’s like we’re censoring everything to [...]

• Posted by @brandmonkey on April 5th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
  

  This raises a critical question of just how much of the "corporate voice" should be handed over to individuals to manage. Companies don't want to be criticized for squelching their employees' personalities, yet when it involves a matter of dire PR importance such as this, corporate etiquette and citizenship guidelines should absolutely prevail.

  I noticed a heated exchange on Twitter (albeit on a smaller scale), between two competitors–or rather, representatives from two firms within the same industry (printer manufacturers). Clearly both had been given free reign to speak on behalf of their organizations, yet the demeanor of one became utterly personal, almost petty. The comments quickly placed her brand in a negative light, when clearly she was just having a bad day. I doubt that a PR or communications team would have sanctioned such behavior had they had the chance to preview it or analyze the implications. I can see how irresponsible actions by a single employee who's taking on authority beyond her job title could get brands in serious trouble. I suppose that is the tradeoff of this newfound social media freedom.

  @brandmonkey

• Posted by @mstory123 on April 5th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
  

  nickengelfried,

  Thanks for reading and commenting. I hear what you are saying and thank you for your first-person insight on the issue. Avoiding the crisis is a tad more complex, I think. Multinational companies' supply chains are complex, and I think that they usually go with the most resonance cost – in fiscal capital and public relations chits.

  I hear what you are saying about the rain forest, but are there potentially two sides to this debate?

  Mark
  My recent post My Latest Gig: Contributing to Smart Blog Social Media

• Posted by @mstory123 on April 5th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
  

  @brandmonkey,

  Thanks for your insight. It may not be fair, but corporate spokespeople have to hold themselves to a very high standard when interacting with stakeholders – and an enemy can be a stakeholder. Your story about the printers is interesting. I wonder, should you find yourself in the market for a printer, if you would exclude either of the two on the basis of not liking their online behavior?

  And I agree that one person's boneheaded comments can paint the whole corporation in a bad light.

  Thanks for reading.

  Mark
  My recent post My Latest Gig: Contributing to Smart Blog Social Media

• Posted by @mstory123 on April 5th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
  

  HChan,

  If this does not wake them up fro the need to have an adult in charge,, I am not sure what will.

  Mark
  My recent post My Latest Gig: Contributing to Smart Blog Social Media

• Posted by mhandy1 on April 5th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
  

  Ouch this is a major fail… sometimes its better to just let people say what they want and re approach with facts. Nestle should have just let the Greenpeace'ers look crazy they always do. The other thing they could have done was run a whole bunch of stories about how Nestle is helping people in Indonesia at the same time. Confront emotion with emotion in the correct way. Its bad story telling to be snarky in response!
  My recent post The Ten Commandments Of User Experience

• Posted by Carol on April 5th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
  

  Inviting more online engagement with the public means inviting more scrutiny, too. I hope Nestle will review their sourcing after this – not just wait for the dust to settle and hope the activists scatter and jump on the next heinous thing: offshore drilling.
  My recent post Slice-n-dice the CEJA and Frack-n-soil the water. This doesn’t sound good at all.

• Posted by Mel on April 6th, 2010 at 1:56 am
  

  To me it seems that Nestle have learned nothing from the baby milk scandal of more than a few years ago. Every company has 'skeletons in the cupboard' they know they're there and they should have a strategic plan for managing them before and after they become public. Social media is a part and only a part of that strategic management

• Posted by @Socks4HappyPPL on April 7th, 2010 at 10:39 am
  

  Wow… great post, and many important lessons to be learned!

  Socks for Happy People had our own piece of social media responding to do today! A reader of our blog said that it all seemed 'a bit of a scam'.

  Our response is here.

  I'd be interested if you have any feedback as to how we can make our future responses even more effective!

  Have a cool day,

  Tom
  My recent post Is Socks for Happy People a big scam?!

• Posted by This week’s most clicked | SmartBlog On Social Media on April 9th, 2010 at 11:28 am
  

  [...] Learning from Nestlé’s social disaster [...]

Leave a Reply