Nestle’s Facebook-YouTube-Greenpeace Fiasco – The Lesson for Business
‘…and we can get you on Facebook because social media is big right now!’
That’s some scary advise. But many organisations hear it all the time from their agencies when talking about marketing or website design. No strategy, no governance, just multiple channels where the staff can put out great information about the company and its products. Yippee!
Balderdash! I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what happened at Nestlé, although I choose to believe they went about it a bit more deliberately (being a multi-national and all). The signs are there to show they have issues with their web governance structures. When their Facebook admin took on some fans in what became a very public and embarrassing spat, a very distressing sign became evident.
Why does Nestlé have a Facebook page? What was the rationale behind it? Did they (or do they) have an end-game for it all? It would appear that they haven’t bought into the whole idea of social media completely. By the way they handled the outrage on Facebook and YouTube, it is clear that the ‘social’ part of the media is lost on them. Their Facebook page admin was rude to fans and their request for the removal from YouTube of Greenpeace’s KitKat video irritating.
What’s the lesson for business? Here are a few.
- Conversations about your brand are happening with or without you. Nestle were not the ones who started the Kit Kat conversation on YouTube. And they weren’t sent an invite either. The public is having conversations about and around your brand in highly collaborative spaces like YouTube and Facebook. Are you an oblivious subject? The ability to listen to conversations that affect your brand is a necessity in this day and age. The wisdom to decide which conversations to contribute to and how is imperative for brand survival.
- You don’t own the conversation. Nestle’s Facebook admin indicated that the company owns the page and creates the rules for engagement on that page. Fans have to obey the rules or leave. The thing is, the conversations crossed over from Twitter, YouTube, blogs and email. This conversation was happening outside of that page on the public’s terms. Facebook is not your blog. It’s a cocktail party and you’re working the room. What people wear to the room is a trivial matter. Are you contributing constructively to the conversation? Are you hang up on the hairstyles in the room? You don’t own the conversation and if you can’t contribute constructively you will be tuned out.
- Establish and enforce web governance. The decision to take down the YouTube video was made by Nestlé UK. Did Nestle in Switzerland know the decision had been made and was being effected? Who would negative sentiments be escalated to? The Facebook admin posted a status that some fans took exception to. Who approved it? Who provided the guidelines for what the admin can or cannot say to the public in that space? I’m not suggesting that such strict measures be put in place so as to stifle the company’s engagement on the social media front. But I do think it should be clear how content (especially in times of crisis) gets approved and what the organisation expects from content posted on the different channels.
- Prepare for disasters. Bad publicity is a disaster. Prepare for it they way you do for fires. Do a drill, establish procedures and educate your staff about them. What do we do when Greenpeace hijack our Twitter conversations? What do we do when our Facebook admin tells fans off? What do we do when our blog is accidentally redirected to a porn site (if that’s a disaster for your brand)?
- Remember the point. There’s a reason you decided to do this in the first place. What was it? Keep it top-of-mind. When things go south, at least you will have a clear picture of the bigger picture and how this affects the business goal your social media presence was aligned to.
Did Nestle drop the ball on the social media front? Could they have handled the whole thing better? I think ‘yes’ on both counts. But then again, few businesses set out build communications channels for engaging consumers whilst planning what to do when activists hijack them.
What do you think Nestle could have done better? How can they salvage this?
[This is post originally posted at muchiri.com]
Related posts:
