Case Study - Social Media Crisis - Backlash - PR Disaster - Recovery
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
pradeep-govindaraju -
Category
Marketing
-
view
782 -
download
1
Transcript of Case Study - Social Media Crisis - Backlash - PR Disaster - Recovery
“ We’d like to politely ask that the conversation on this page focus on the core
mission of this community, which is to cure breast cancer. We welcome all
thoughts, ideas and observations, but it's critical that we not lose sight of what
we're all fighting for – a world without breast cancer. Thank you.”
- A post from Susan G. Komen’s Facebook page
The voice that mattered:
Susan G. Komen Social Media Backlash – Feb 2012
01-Jan-2012 01-Feb-2012 01-Mar-2012 01-Apr-2012Feb 2012 Mar 2012 Apr 2012 Jan 2012
Contents
Introduction
Best practises that Susan G. Komen could have employed
What Susan G. Komen had done?
Why was this backlash critical for Susan G. Komen?
Conclusion
Bonus read: FB posts with ‘hyperlinks’ are popular
Annexure: Social Media PR Crisis Management
o Pre-crisis preparation
o Crisis management
Introduction
The best methodology to handle a PR crisis in social media starts with anticipating it. Preparing a
robust framework to handle the crisis helps reduce the negative impact on the brand image, if not
nullify it.
It is even possible to ascertain few crises, in which the affected organizations had used the
circumstance to their advantage and created positive buzz around the brand.
The objective of this document is to examine the social media backlash experienced by Susan G.
Komen in February 2012 following the revision of its grants standards.
This document is also intended to identify the best practices to follow during a social media PR crisis
like what Susan G. Komen had encountered, study the pros and cons of the approach taken and to
outline recommendations.
A framework to handle Social media PR crisis with thorough preparation is explained in Annexure.
Back to Contents
Best practices that Susan G. Komen could have employed
Based on the social media backlash unfolded in February 2012, we establish some pointers that we
expect Susan G. Komen had implemented during the crisis:
Every social media related activity during the crisis was weighed before execution
Attempted to maximise the number & frequency of responses in social media
Utilized the help of influential social media supporters of Susan G. Komen
Broadcasted an interview by Nancy Brinker, Karen Handel or other key employees of Susan
G Komen
Allowed the comments even if they contained strong opinion against Susan G Komen
If a comment published by an author was removed, the author was notified of the reason
behind the removal
Posted constant updates to communicate that Susan G Komen was listening to the opinions
in social media
Thanked the supporters in social media in between and after the backlash
The social media employees or the agency had documented the process for Susan G. Komen
We expect Susan G Komen had not done the following during the crisis:
Asked users to restrict what they post about the crisis
Deleted the comments with opposite opinions (unless it has content / language unsuitable
for public viewing, such as profanity)
Back to Contents
What Susan G. Komen had done?
Since we try to understand the event months after it happened, we start with and limit the focus of
this document to the ‘official’ Facebook page of Susan G. Komen. Findings below:
Published 9 posts (37% of the posts in February) pertaining to this issue – Good
The first five posts published from 1st Feb through 3rd Feb, had highlighted the mission of
Susan G. Komen and justified the decision
o A post recognizing or mentioning the large number of comments against the
decision, would have imparted a feel of ‘being listened to’ among the detractors
Susan G. Komen had published the link of Nancy G. Brinker’s video interview – Good
o An exclusive interview for the social media audience, the major contributors of the
backlash could have been considered to arrest the spread of negative reaction
Susan G. Komen had published the resignation of Karen Handel. The social media audience
were updated on the developments – Good
Susan G. Komen had accepted the mistakes in handling the decisions in its 7th comment on
the issue, in the 7th day of the backlash
The public were thanked in the 8th post of the issue for raising their concerns – Good
o This could have been done in the middle of the crisis rather than in the end
o A thank you note for the concerns would have only helped with the crisis
From the visitors perspective, the ninth and the last post of this backlash suggested users to
not continue with the discussion on the issue:
We’d like to politely ask that the conversation on this page focus on the core
mission of this community, which is to cure breast cancer. We welcome all
thoughts, ideas and observations, but it's critical that we not lose sight of
what we're all fighting for – a world without breast cancer. Thank you.
This comment at the end of the backlash could have possibly extended the crisis (though
fortunately for Susan G. Komen, the impact was considerably lesser).
Users reacted strongly to the post. Few responses to this post are furnished below:
Komen, you can run, but you can't hide. This conversation isn't going to go away
soon, people will not be duped again – Ralphie Gogo
We are focusing our conversation on the core issue which is you have lost your way and have failed the cause and your sister. The truth is out and it hurts. This is what happens to greedy individuals that take advantage of others. You reap what you sow – Matt Leising
Amazing that you are attempting to shut off the conversation rather than answering the myriad of questions posed on this board. Shame on you! – Isadora Garcia
Back to Contents
Why was this backlash critical for Susan G. Komen?
Because of a 6 times increase in public conversation during the crisis
Because 93% of the comments published by users in February were about this issue
Because, the issue related posts received an average of 3820 comments per post, whereas
the non-issue related posts published throughout Q1 2012 had received an average of 178
comments per post
18955
36920
2666 69%
93%
Likes Comments Shares
Facebook page metrics - Feb 2012
Feb-2012
Issue Related
Back to Contents
Conclusion
The boundary of discussion about a brand gets thinner with the increasing adoption of social media
among the users. With this trend comes the challenge of handling scenarios in which the public
disagree with a brand spontaneously in unprecedented volume.
Susan G. Komen had to handle one such crisis in February 2012. The insights from that experience
and creating a social media framework to handle such crisis in future will not only help reduce the
negative impact on the corporate image but also can help gain new supporters.
Back to Contents
Bonus Read: Posts with ‘hyperlink’ are popular
From our observation of the posts published by Susan G. Komen in Facebook, we identify
that posts with a hyperlink to an article or news, had received maximum ‘comments’ and
‘shares’
o Suggests that Susan G. Komen’s Facebook audience do like referred to an article of
interest than other post types
o All the posts published in Q1 2012 (excluding the issue specific posts) were analysed
to arrive at a fair reading
On average, posts with an image had received maximum Facebook ‘Likes’
Likes
Comments
Shares
0
10K
20K
30K
40K
0
10K
20K
30K
40K
0
10K
20K
30K
40K
Total User Reactions to Admin posts - Q1 2012
Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012
Comment Contains Average 'Likes' Average 'Comments' Average 'Shares'
Text (only) 495 70 25
Link 354 222 62
Image 627 136 55
Video 231 81 49
Back to Contents
Annexure: Social Media PR Crisis Management
This section outlines the stages involved in handling a social media PR crisis more efficiently:
Pre-crisis Preparation Formulate Crisis management team and protocol:
o The team might comprise of following members:
In-house social media analysts
Social media agencies
Key employees with decision making authority
Key employees who have a public face
Experts from various departments of the organization
o The protocol can comprise the following:
Defined responsibilities for every team member during the PR crisis
Identify owner of the Social media PR crisis management process
Access levels of the team members to various resources (e.g.- corporate
Facebook page and twitter ID)
Timeframe within which the Team should meet once a crisis breaks out
Create and maintain database of influential authors
o Influential authors are not necessarily the authors who publish only positive
comments
They can be experts in the field of organization and have a wide following in
social media
They can also be the people who interact with the official social media
channels more frequently than others
Create pre-set threshold levels and alerts to proactively identify a social media PR crisis
o This threshold can be a spike in discussion volume for specific keywords, a sudden
increase in negative sentiment etc.
o Thresholds can vary between different media types and monitored concurrently i.e.
a threshold level set for Facebook need not be the same for Twitter or official forum
This also helps zero on the website(s) where the crisis requires immediate
attention than the other sources
One or more threshold exceeds: Crisis breaks out
Crisis Management 1. Convene Crisis Management Team meeting as soon as the crisis breaks out. Discussion
points might include:
o Assessment of crisis in terms of volume of comments and potential impact
o Identification of channels / websites that require immediate attention
o Action plan comprising the type of comments to be responded, time limit for
response, frequency etc.
o Posting of regular contents and the frequency amidst the crisis
2. Deploy staff (in-house or agency) to respond to the comments
o A real time or more quicker the response, the better
o Maximum responses to comments will not only help communicate that the brand
cares for their users’ opinions, but it also could repair the brand image among
maximum users and their contacts in social media
3. Consider publishing an address by the public face of the company
4. Utilize influencers – both supporting and detracting influencers to spread positive word on
the company
o This can be done by prioritizing the response to comments published by influencers
(already identified and tracked in a database)
o The response to the influencers has potential for maximum reach among the user
base
5. Do not ask the users to stop publishing negative comments.
o Best practise is to consider it an opportunity to provide answers
6. Transparency is advocated on any assurances given to the public during a Social media PR
crisis and frequent updates can be provided on the same
7. Posting of regular contents and the frequency amidst the crisis can be decided by the Crisis
management team plausible
8. Thank both the supporters and detractors throughout and at end of the crisis for providing
an opportunity to understand the users
o Best done by the public face of the company
9. Document the entire process for case studies and further learning
Back to Contents