Tag: social media

Social media, editorial or advertising – where’s the line?

Posted on August 9, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

Ok, I don’t mind saying that I am confused. There was a recent story in The Drum which reported that an Australian court had ruled that comments posted on a facebook advertisements should themselves be considered advertisements – are you keeping up? That means that the advertiser, in this case Smirnoff, would be held responsible for the comments of others.

So basically a person’s comment is no longer considered editorial, despite the fact that it is opinion led and is not necessarily promoted or endorsed by a given brand in any way. It is now, as per Australian law, advertising – although not paid for! Confused? Yes, me too.

This is where the lines with social media start to blur and real confusion creates misunderstanding and concern over whether brands should even consider using online tools for promotion. Many business owners I come across consider it to be too much like hard work and they literally close a door on it altogether.

We work with a number of brands who have active social media profiles from MAOAM who have more than 600,000 likes on their Facebook page and more than 1,000 followers on twitter to Pom-Bear who have 30,000 likes on Facebook. We monitor the pages and update with posts that are relevant to each brand and their audience.

Some people argue that the brand should manage this internally but as we work so closely with our clients it becomes almost irrelevant. We work with them to engage with consumers and to ensure that when questions are asked they are answered appropriately using the correct tone of voice and approach – every client is different so it is essential that we get this right.

Obviously we are unable to monitor a brand page all day, everyday and so on occasion (although very rarely) someone will put up a post which we would deem to be unreasonable. We always remove these posts – more to ensure that others are not offended than anything else but sometimes it may be a couple of hours before we get to them.

With this new ‘law’ the brands we work for would be held accountable for the comments of others and would be liable for any action that was taken as a result of them. Thankfully a further story was issued by the Drum to say that the ASA were not considering reviewing the policy in relation to brand social media comments in the UK but it does beg the question how long will it be before this is considered.

Personally I think this is balmy. The whole idea of social media is to encourage comments and opinion from a mass audience and admittedly some people abuse that but then some people aren’t particularly nice when you meet them in the street, it doesn’t mean they are doing something which will be liable.

What does everyone else think? Should a brand be held liable for the comments of others whether promotional or otherwise? And if this is the case then should social media become another advertising medium, which does not accept editorial, and be done with it.

Business down but PR win for Britvic

Posted on July 20, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

Today’s headlines report a profit fall in Q3 for soft drinks manufacturer Britvic leading to a loss of approximately £15 – £23m. Now before we all take a sharp intake of breath, the business reports that this is as a result of the poor weather and more significantly the product recall of the brands Fruit Shoot and Fruit Shoot Hydro bottles, using a new sports cap.

Whereas most people will be looking at this story and wondering how the brand will recoup the losses, I read it very differently. Within the story, which I read first on The Business Desk, the journalist chooses to use the words ‘well-publicised product recall’.

As a communications agency that commends great work and is not too proud to take our hats off to those who do it well – I would personally like to say congratulations to the team responsible for managing the communication for the recall.

Before you think I’ve finally lost my marbles let me explain.

Ok, so it wasn’t the best story that Britvic will ever have to deal with, no one wants to come into work and have to fend off questions about safety issues, particularly not for food and drink products and let’s be honest it shouldn’t have happened in the first place – but it did, so as a press team you have to get on with it.

Overall I think the situation was well managed, handled appropriately and did the job. Everyone was aware of the product fault and why the brand was recalling the items. The statement was clear and the call to action made sense – you weren’t left wondering if the bottles had been tampered with or if little Jonny’s pack up was more of a danger than a snack at lunchtime.

It can be a difficult call when you have to make decisions like this, but Britvic seem to have made their mind up quickly and as a result they deserve the respect of their consumers. The money that went into advertising the recall, as well as relying on the support of a PR team, won’t have come cheap, so when you add that to the loss of a potential £23m it is enough to make your eyes water but before you go dashing for the hankies turn the situation on its head.

A well-managed crisis situation can do a brand the world of good and not only does it get consumers taking about you, it also puts you in the spot light when it matters most. Today’s press are full of interviews, comments and quotes from Britvic, reiterating their concern and commitment to the consumers. They play down the recall as something that happens to all brands, yet do not dismiss the seriousness of the situation.

This is exactly why it is imperative for brands to have a committed and experienced PR team to deal with crisis situations. It isn’t a game when you get a call to recall a product it is make or break and I am pleased to see some businesses getting it right.

So, once again, well done Britvic. It’s hit you hard this quarter but it won’t stop me from purchasing your products and I’m sure others will feel the same

Nike – Just do it, unless the ASA says no!

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

For some time now there has been an on-going debate about who ‘owns’ social media; digital or PR agencies. The problem being that while one can be engaging visually, creating games, competitions and advertising which attract attention, the other provides consistent content, with an appropriate tone of voice to encourage two way communication and increase ‘organic’ engagement with consumers.

The line is blurred to say the least, but as a PR agency we find that sticking to the words means that we are able to offer clients the content, while we leave the digital aspects and design to other third parties that we work with.

We don’t find this to be problematic as when each digital campaign finishes we simply take control of the content and engage with consumers to provide a sustainable level of conversation. There’s nothing worse than brands that push out big campaigns and then have nothing in place to support the aftermath. The outcome being you engage with thousands of people who become brand ambassadors, are willing to listen to the messages being pushed to them, only for the brand to turn their back on them once their budgets run dry – not good.

Another interesting dilemma to come out of social engagement has been the line between advertising and editorial. As social media is often positioned as a direct interpretation or opinion of a person or a brand it would be perceived to be editorial – however as platforms such as twitter have evolved is has become increasingly difficult to ascertain whether a comment or opinion has been influenced by a third party.

The problem has arisen from celebrities who have used their personal twitter accounts to ‘tweet’ about brands that either pay them or sponsor them to do so. The ASA have challenged two high profile cases; Snickers and Nike.

Now despite the fact that I work in editorial I’m not sure that I agree that the ASA should be in a position to demand that people delete the content that they choose to have on their personal twitter feeds – promotional or otherwise.

What’s even more baffling is that within the most recent case involving Wayne Rooney and Jack Wilshere the hashtag #makeitcount.gonike.me.makeitcount was clearly visible. Surely any idiot can recognise that this is a promotional tweet?

I expect that this situation will only get worse, with the ASA monitoring social media more closely than ever – but there has to be a balance. If I suddenly become a high profile multi-millionaire (unlikely but you never know!) and I decide to tweet that I love a particular brand then is that considered advertising?

Equally is it wrong for celebrities to thank brands for sending them free products? Isn’t it just polite? I am interested to see what others think about this. I don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer but I do think we need to be careful to ensure that social media platforms are able to be used as a platform for people to engage, interact and use their rights to free speech, whether that be about a brand or not.

The Dragon’s Den Effect

Posted on June 13, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

Dragon’s Den is one of few business ‘reality’ television programmes that I have continued to enjoy watching. It is informative and although I often feel some of the comments are unfair and a little insensitive it does give the viewer an insight into how it is to own a business – people don’t walk around on egg shells and they don’t give you ‘owt for nowt’.

I quite like the mix of Dragon’s in the Den now and I really admire and respect most of them, particularly as they have come from nothing. What always gets me is that the people who choose to feature on the show know what it is all about and they understand their product or service inside out.

They have real passion, energy and excitement by what they are doing, selling or making. Then they stand in front of these entrepreneurs – who have a wealth of knowledge that you could tap into – and ask for a hand out. Now here’s the bit… how many times have you heard people ask for money to support marketing?

It is almost always the case. If it isn’t suggested as the reason that the whole sum is required, it is in there somewhere. So why do people struggle with marketing budgets so much? What makes them think that marketing is so expensive in the first place? And why go to a leading entrepreneur so that they can pass you on to their preferred PR or marketing agency?

There is no doubt that marketing and effective communication are an essential element to a business strategy and the two should be absolutely aligned with objectives, but why do these entrepreneurs find it so difficult? I have decided to call it the ‘Dragon’s Den Effect’.

It’s a nasty heritage of stories which include bad advice and burnt fingers.

Business ‘A’ goes to big agency ‘B’, they are blown away with pretty pictures, they receive a catchy ‘logo’ and perhaps a quirky strap line, they then receive a big bill and that’s that. Job done. No questions asked. No further forward with a strategy – but you have a nice logo!

Now I genuinely think that times have changed, particularly since the last recession. It almost seems that it is becoming the trend to rely on smaller agencies that are genuinely doing great things. Not only are they often more cost effective but they also (in my experience) care more about their clients – irrelevant of size or budget.

You don’t have to work in a ‘full service’ agency to get the best – just choose them. You get to handpick the very best designers, copy writers, PR people and brand managers. Some agencies will tell you this takes time and is difficult to manage but I disagree – better to have a collective of the best, who can work together, than the internal politics that come from a big agency; who gets what budgets, who is first point of contact for the client and who takes the glory when it goes well or handles the fall out when things go wrong?

So next time you come across a business who is going through the ‘Dragon’s Den Effect’ just ask them what they are doing about it. If the answer is keeping their head down and hoping for the best then I’m afraid to say that ‘I’m out’.

However if they want to chat about how to get excited by their business and put in place some excellent PR and communication campaigns, which meet with objectives and manage reputation – well, that’s a different story altogether. I’m not just in, I’m here and waiting in the den.

The dark art of social media – influencers or informers?

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

I was reading the Sunday Times recently and came across an article which I found quite baffling. As a PR agency we work with brands to raise their profile across social media platforms including blogs, facebook and twitter through engagement and interaction. As a result, I know only too well that this process is not a simple one, nor is it a ‘quick win’.

In my opinion it is quite simply an opportunity for someone who has credibility within their network to talk about your product or service and to provide their personal comments and opinions about it. These are not always positive and that is the risk that you take when working with social media channels – or it is, unless you are McDonalds.

The article I was reading was titled ‘McDonalds recruit blogger to super-size its allure’ and was written by Mark Harris. I immediately thought that would mean that McDonalds were recruiting an internal team, or a social media champion, for each of its geographies. No. McDonalds have ‘recruited’ more than 400 bloggers who are known as the McDonald’s Family Arches Community. This community receive benefits as a result of blogging favourably about the brand.

This isn’t too dissimilar to the approach taken by many brands. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it seems to work and there’s no harm in offering free samples for review, after all you want the person to interact with the brand and to understand the products in order to give an informed view.

The line does however stop at offering stays in hotels, exclusive trips away and benefits based on the number of favourable comments or posts you provide for a brand. That isn’t social media, that’s social advertising. It’s not informed, nor is it factual, it’s biased and unbalanced.

If I was engaging with a blogger and found that they were receiving all-expenses paid trips as a result of posting favourable comments about a company, product or service I wouldn’t consider them credible. In fact, quite the opposite.

The article goes on to state that McDonalds wants ‘its own private network over which it could exert more control’. I think they are massively missing the point here. It’s not about control, it’s about comment and opinion. It’s about believing so strongly in your product that by association you encourage others to love it too. You want people to want to talk about your brand favourable and yes, there are times when that isn’t going to be the case – after all you can’t please everyone – but you manage that process by interacting.

Communication isn’t about telling someone what to say, it’s about a dialogue. Putting words into someone’s mouth will not drive genuine value for the brand, it will discourage people from believing anything the company chooses to say in the future.

A quote which appears in the article states ‘And if they start doing stuff we don’t want, we are going to take action’. It seems to me that McDonalds have got this very wrong. It’s not so much super-size as super silly.

My advice, for what it’s worth, would be for McDonalds to review this strategy and to review it quickly. You cannot buy brand values and if the case is that the business cannot and do not genuinely believe in what they are offering then the seriousness of this situation goes far beyond social communication.

It’s fair to say that the McDonalds business model is used as an example of best practice. When you go into a McDonalds you know where you are, you know what you’re getting and every establishment is run in exactly the same way – you cannot do the same with a social network of communicators.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Family of Arches is rolled out in Britain. I only hope the bloggers that are chosen see past the benefits and consider what getting involved will do to their credibility and reputation.

When close is just too close!

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

There is no doubt that social media has its benefits for businesses who choose to use the tools available to them correctly. That doesn’t mean knowing how to post discussions on LinkedIn or understanding a hashtag from an @ sign on twitter – what I mean is that you have to take the rough with the smooth.

At Open Communications we always explain to our clients that if you want to engage with customers using social channels and you feel that it forms a part of your business communications strategy to do so, then the first and most important point is that you have to take the good with the bad.

You cannot engage with people taking the benefits from positive reviews, product endorsements and exposure across multiple channels to a mass (often global) audience, then when faced with a complaint or negative remark choose not to communicate at all. Not only is it bad practice but it sends out a clear message to customers both current and prospective that a business cannot appropriately handle complaints.

One of the best examples I have seen in recent times was the case between Tatty Devine and Claire’s Accessories. It’s fair to say that I had never heard of Tatty Devine before the brand started to trend on twitter. I was then quickly brought up to speed via a number of blog posts and comments informing me that some of the designs launched throughout Claire’s Accessories bore a striking resemblance to those originally created by Tatty Devine.

Admittedly the prices of the products were very different and the quality was clearly poles apart, however the principle remained the same – a massive national business had a frighteningly similar portfolio of products to a boutique designer. Not good.

You would think that the first thing a national business like Claire’s would do is call upon a PR agency to put in place and manage what was likely to become a serious communications crisis for the brand. No, apparently the first thing you do when you are Claire’s is shut everything down and issue a no comment! Not just to the media – but across all platforms including social media.

Tatty Devine however went into over drive; providing customers with updates, images and a statement which was issued to all press – including the nationals. They didn’t go out and use the opportunity to air their feelings about Claire’s, as such – they instead turned the situation on its head and used it to deliver the best and most cost effective PR campaign they are ever likely to have. It was nothing short of superb, great communications and a glimpse of the business acumen behind that company. It’s also fair to say that Claire’s were quickly losing their way and turning a bad situation into a disaster, so all Tatty really had to do was sit back and watch.

This story has died down over recent months with other things taking the spot light – as is always the case in the media – although I did see Liza Tarbuck wearing what I think was a Tatty Devine necklace on TV the other day. Once upon a time I wouldn’t have known my Tatty from my Claire’s but thanks to their excellent and strategic use of social media, I may have a look and see if there’s something that would go with my new outfit.

The upshot is, remember, if you are going to engage with social media channels then be aware and prepared to deal with the good AND the bad. There is no doubt social media delivers benefits to business but it can be a tricky platform to manage when things go wrong and companies should have the infrastructure and contingency in place to handle it correctly should that happen.

A tale of two very different headlines

Posted on May 15, 2012 by Lindsey Davies

There have been two very different stories which have hit the headlines recently yet both have led me to ask some questions about their positioning within the media. Both seem somehow, in some way, to have missed the point.

The first is the Leveson inquiry. Unless you have been living in a hole for the past six months plus, you will know that phone hacking, ‘close’ relationships, text messages and Christmas / office parties have all been discussed at length during this trial, leading to days of coverage across all media.

The inquiry itself is enough to shock and presumably has led many to question what has been going on and how the media machine ever thought it would be possible to carry on regardless, knowing how information was being ‘researched’.

It isn’t the political element to this story that shocked me most – but the fact that the presenters on the news on Friday morning were questioning how Rebekah Brooke would cope when asked direct and ‘difficult’ questions.

No one seemed to realise that as former editor of the News of the World she is one of the best trained people to handle this situation. She was surrounded by high profile comments and good and bad practice to call upon, while also being media trained to within an inch of her life. If there was anyone who was perfectly capable of dealing with this fall out it was her. People who work in the media are perfectly aware of the way it works and there was never any doubt she would provide very factual comments, which would go into as little detail as possible, while ensuring she ‘answered the question’.

The second story to catch my eye was the final of Britain’s Got Talent. I have to admit that this show is my guilty pleasure. I think the auditions are simply hilarious and the talent is something that we should all be proud of. Although I thought all of the final acts were deserving of being there – I don’t believe that dancing dog Pudsey should have won.

Before you get cross and ask what I’m talking about – of course a performing pouch and their adoring owner should take first place – what got me was the way that a reference to animal abuse was used not once but twice during the judging.

Although I find animal cruelty abhorrent, I didn’t think the reference was necessary and would go as far as to say that as a result more votes were generated for that reason than for the talent itself. In my opinion Charlotte and Jonathan were outstanding, a true celebration of British talent and two young people who for all the right reasons deserve to be rewarded for their efforts and their amazing performance.

So what do you think? Is there news value in questioning a former editor’s ability to cope with serious but direct questioning and what about that dancing dog – it will be interesting to see how both stories continue to hit the headlines and what angles are taken forward from here.

There will be little doubt that Rebekah Brooks will trend again across social media today as she finds out if she will face charges but what about that dog. One suggestion is that as a result of half a million Pudsey will finally drop his owner and take to the circuit as a solo act. Hey, it can’t be any more bizarre than some of things that are currently hitting the headlines!

Tag: social media

Recent Posts

Categories

Archive