On Responding

photo: petesimon on flickr

Being present on social media, listening to people’s conversations and

feedback, and engaging stakeholders in two-way communications…. these

are among some of the new norms for organizations, brands and public

figures today.

In this issue of the People’s Insights monthly briefs, we look at different

ways brands, corporate communicators and public have chosen to respond

to criticism on social media. The forms of criticism vary from stray

comments, detailed blog posts, op-eds in the New York Times to angry

voices on social media. The motivation to respond, though, seems

consistent: silence would do more harm.

Here’s an overview of the examples featured in this report:

Responding to… Maintain Decorum

When you have a social media page or community, it’s sometimes a smart

idea to ignore unconstructive, irrelevant comments. Other times, it’s

necessary to respond to take control and maintain healthy environment.

• Frederike den Ottelander, MSLGROUP’s Head of Digital and Social in the

Netherlands, shares the example of how Frans Timmermans, the First

Vice-President of the EU Committee, manages his base of over 200,000

followers on Facebook like a ‘social media rockstar.’

Responding to… End Speculation

A silent firm is defined by others, as MSLGROUP’s Pascal Beucler says in The

Reputation Complex.

• Adobe, Intel, Mercedes-Benz and prominent members of the gaming

community learned this the hard way, when proponents of #gamergate

cited their silence as support for the #gamergate movement. The

speculation that followed prompted Adobe and Intel to release

statements on the issue, and artists behind the comics Giant Bomb,

Oglaf and Nedroid made their stance explicitly clear on their social

media pages.

• Actress Renee Zellweger too felt pressured to release a statement,

after her new look became a central point of discussion in the news and

on social media. Her motive? To let people know she was happy with her

look, and end the floods of conversation.

Responding to… Correct Inaccuracies

Once it’s online, it’s there forever. Even if it’s not necessarily accurate.

In two separate incidents earlier this year, senior executives at Walmart and

Coca-Cola strongly countered online criticism that they felt was inaccurate,

with lengthy comments and blog posts. This approach was effective in

giving the alternative point of view exposure online. However, it can

oscillate between promoting a fixed view and engaging in a constructive

dialog.

• Walmart’s former VP of corporate comms David Tovar lashed back at

criticism in a New York Times op-ed, by ‘correcting’ the original piece

with a handwritten comments in red ink and posting it to the Walmart

blog. A bold move that brought his argument to the limelight.

• Coca-Cola’s former director of digital comms and social media Ashley

Brown responded to criticism in a Sparksheet blog post, sparking a deep

and insightful conversation with the author and other content marketers

over the course of four months.

Responding to… Change Perceptions

For brands that have poor reputations in certain areas, the best defense can be an

offense.

• With its Our Food. Your Questions. program, McDonald’s is tackling criticism,

rumors and questions about their food head-on. The program launched in

Canada in 2012, in Australia in 2013 and was just launched in the United

States in October 2014.

• The NFL too will have to take a long term approach to fix it’s brand image.

After months of criticism about the way it investigated the domestic violence

by footballer Ray Rice, the league recently announced several new initiatives

to prevent and manage violence/abuse within the league.

Bonus: Responding to… Set the Tone

In times of crisis, the first response can set the tone for the company’s

subsequent activity – and people’s reactions.

• The Drum has a great analysis on Richard Branson’s immediate response

to the Virgin Galactic crash that took place on October 31st, check it out

here.

We’d love to hear your take on these approaches. Do share your thoughts

with us at @PeoplesLab on Twitter.

Nidhi Makhija-Chimnani

Director, Research and Insights, MSLGROUP

• Frans Timmermans on Facebook

• Disengaging from #Gamergate

• Renee Zellweger responds

• Walmart’s Fact Check

• The Coca Cola Content Journey Debate

• McDonald’s Our food. Your questions.

• NFL’s shaky stand on Domestic Violence

7

12

19

22

27

31

36

Frans Timmermans on

Facebook

facebook.com/frans.timmermans

By Frederike den Ottelander, Head of Digital & Social, Netherlands,

MSLGROUP

Largest fan base amongst members of the EU Commission

At the beginning of this month, Frans Timmermans nailed his

application for First Vice-President at the EU committee by answering

questions in five different languages.

Few people know that Timmermans is also a political social media

rockstar on Facebook in the Netherlands. With over 200,000

followers, Timmermans, former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, is by

far the most followed politician on Facebook in the Netherlands.

Not exactly the 45 million fans that Barack Obama has… but compared

to other Dutch politicians such as the Dutch Prime Minister and

Timmermans’ new colleagues at the EU, Timmermans is a clear

winner.

Top 5 Facebook

accounts of the new

EU Commission

Response & Reactions: What’s working for Timmermans?

The answer is the combination of the right choice of platform,

understanding of the platform and the right mix of content.

1. Right choice of platform: most Dutch politicians are on Twitter,

where they find political colleagues and ‘enemies,’ journalists and

people interested in politics.

However, social media usage in the Netherlands show that only 21% of

the 18+ Dutch population is on Twitter, whereas 73% of the 18+

population is active on Facebook. Facebook is a better platform for

this audience.

2. Understanding of the platform: In November 2012, Timmermans

took his personal Facebook account offline because he received

aggressive comments in response to his political views. Timmermans

had already been on Facebook for years. After a month, he decided

that it was time to return despite his negative experience – but this

time with a fan page instead of a personal account. He had learnt his

lesson.

He still gets involved in discussions around political issues every now

and then, but has clearly stated in his ‘About’ page that he expects

people to be respectful to him and others. And when people do not do

so, he addresses it head on.

A critic commented on the above post, saying “You have excellent music taste for a

hypocritical and self-centered money-grubber.” Timmermans responded: “And for

such a friendly looking lady, you have a pretty big mouth”

For example, on May 16th, he

posted an update on his page that

he was aware of a small group

that was misbehaving in the

comments section. He asked them

to behave and reminded them

about the implications if they

refused to do so.

More recently, after he and his

community got tired of an endless

stream of negative comments, he

decided to let them know that he

had heard them. He picked up a

negative comment and responded

to it with a snarky comment of his

own. This approach attracted

2,000 likes as well as national

coverage on social media and

marketing/communication blogs.

Sometimes, words cannot express how you feel

3. Right mix of content:

Timmermans understands his

audience. His content is a mix of

news, insights, ‘what I am doing

right now’ updates and last but

not least, some personal content.

As a multilingual politician,

Timmermans understands not only

the power of words, but also the

power of images. For example, on

the national day of mourning after

the MH17 tragedy, Frans

Timmermans chose to just post a

picture.

Timmermans straightforward

approach seems to be working

well for his over 200,000

followers.

For tips on maintaining a presence on

social media, check out Frederike’s full

post: Political Social Rockstars: Why

Every Politician Should be on Facebook.

Disengaging from

#Gamergate

thebullyprojectmural.com

Background: The two sides of #gamergate

Over the summer, some members of the gaming community rallied

together to create the controversial #gamergate movement. The

movement has two sides. One is about exposing the corruption within

gaming journalism and demanding ethical practices (some journalists

are ‘too close’ to game developers, they argue). The other side,

which has arguably taken over #gamergate, is seemingly about

silencing female critics, developers and gaming press that push for

diversification of gaming culture.

#Gamergate got coverage in mainstream media following reports of

harassment, abuse and hacking directed against female critics,

leading to headlines like Massacre' threat forces Anita Sarkeesian to

cancel university talk and Felicia Day's public details put online after

she described Gamergate fears.

Controversy grew as members of #gamergate initiated an email

campaign (“Operation Disrespectful Nod”) asking advertisers to pull

ads from sites that carry these women’s articles and criticism against

#gamergate. And – as other gamers and celebrities condemned the

movement on social media (Gamergate Is Running Out of Heroes).

For full infographic, visit gamergate.me

digiday.com

Response: Disengage!

Brands targeted by the campaign,

including Kraft, Verizon, Best Buy,

Adobe, Intel, Mercedes-Benz and

BMW, found themselves in a tough

spot – should they meet consumer’s

demands (as Intel put it) or stay

away from the increasingly

polarized debate?

AdAge’s Alex Kantrowitz votes for

the latter, pointing out that “those

not responding are in better shape

than those who have.” But this

seems to be a result of these

brands pulling ads without

commenting on the larger issue.

Take the example of Intel. Around

October 1, the brand gave in to

demands to withdraw advertising

from Gamasutra, but didn’t release

a statement until October 3.

Top to bottom: Forbes, The Verge, The Verge, arts technica

By then, #gamergate opponents

were furious with the move. In its

statement, Intel had to clarify

that it did not support any side,

and offered a blanket apology for

offending anyone.

Adobe’s initial action was just as

confusing. The brand asked

Gawker (a key target of

#gamergate) to remove the Adobe

logo from its footer and tweeted

“We are not an advertiser w/

Gawker. We asked Gawker to

remove our logo. Adobe stands

against bullying.” It wasn’t clear

which side Adobe was on – was it

anti the bullying of gamers, or

anti the bullying of the female

victims? Adobe launched a

statement soon after to clarify.

Mercedes-Benz and BMW too have

withdrawn advertising on Gawker,

but have not released statements

online.

waxy.org

While brands are clearly

refraining from picking sides,

people named by #gamergate are

speaking out. For instance, when

blogger Andy Baio pointed out

that #gamergate proponents count

their silence as support, three

members of the gaming / comic

industry immediately made it

clear they did not support the

movement.

Stay away! Or, take a stand?

Communicators are

recommending brands stay away

from what AdAge calls a “lose-lose

situation.”

PRWeek’s Chris Daniels asked PR

professionals what they thought

and the answer remained the

same: it’s “difficult for

stakeholders to have a civil

conversation about the issues.”

prweek.com

For several, this stems from a believe that the problem will ultimately

go away. Daniels notes:

“Others who talked with PRWeek about the issue suggest

GamerGate will have little impact on the video game industry in

the long run.”

But what if the movement is here to stay? And given the context of

today’s communications landscape where brands like Dove and Virgin

have benefited from taking a strong stand, is there an opportunity for

brands to get involved?

Rohit Thawani, director of digital and social strategy at

TBWA\Chiat\Day seems to think so:

“Advertisers supporting stands are seeing greater returns. The

era of running away from issues and problems are over.”

Renee Zellweger responds

mic.com

Background: A new look

Renee Zellweger made a comeback to the public spotlight with her

appearance at the Elle Women in Hollywood Awards in October.

Entertainment media and Twitter were filled with comments on her

new look and speculation that Zellweger must have had some plastic

surgery work. She simply looked “unrecognizable,” as The Daily Mail

and Fox News shouted in headlines. Even the New York Times and

Time magazine joined the bandwagon, commenting on her looks and

on people’s reaction to it.

Overnight, the internet was filled with slideshows showing before and

after photos and articles in which plastic surgeons explained what

Zellweger could have had done. Writers and bloggers debated why her

new look was such a hot topic of discussion. Others analyzed the

impact of show business on aging actresses.

The debate raged on, did she / didn’t she?, looks good / looks awful,

yay plastic surgery / nay plastic surgery, and a quick two days later,

Zellweger decided to speak up, to get others to calm down. Top news items the day after the Elle

awards show

people.com

Response: I’m happy and thrilled that it shows

“It seems the folks who come digging around for some nefarious

truth which doesn’t exist won’t get off my porch until I answer the

door,” Zellweger said to People magazine, and then shared her views.

She deflected the attention away from her physical appearance to

focus on happiness and health:

"I'm glad folks think I look different! I'm living a different, happy,

more fulfilling life, and I'm thrilled that perhaps it shows.

“My friends say that I look peaceful. I am healthy. For a long time

I wasn't doing such a good job with that. I took on a schedule that

is not realistically sustainable and didn't allow for taking care of

myself. Rather than stopping to recalibrate, I kept running until I

was depleted and made bad choices about how to conceal the

exhaustion. I was aware of the chaos and finally chose different

things.”

And, she subtly reminded people that she should look different as she

ages, but again, she’s happy.

“People don’t know me in my 40s. People don’t know me [as]

healthy for a while. Perhaps I look different. Who doesn’t as they

get older?! Ha. But I am different. I’m happy.”

Top to bottom: The Guardian, Buzzfeed, and Vanity Fair

Reactions: Dignified vs.

hollow

Many people appreciated the way

Zellweger handled the criticism

and nastiness, calling it

“dignified” and “brilliant." Others

focused on the fact that she was

happy, saying that’s all that

mattered. Yet others found it

‘hollow’ that she chose not to

comment on the rumors of plastic

surgery.

But her statement did provide

some closure and the

conversations finally began to

simmer down.

Walmart’s Fact Check

blog.walmart.com

Background: NYT calls Walmart a “drain on taxpayers”

Over the summer, New York Times contributor Timothy Egan wrote the

opinion piece The Corporate Daddy which painted a bleak economic

future and criticized Walmart’s impact on the American economy.

Egan’s argument:

“It’s a sad day when we have to look to corporations for

education, health care and basic ways to boost the middle

class….

“Walmart, the nation’s top private employer and the world’s

largest public corporation, is a big part of the problem — and

could be a big part of the solution.”

Egan then proceeded to point out the income gap between Walmart’s

lowest and highest paid employees, call Walmart a “drain on

taxpayers” and criticize the poor adoption of Walmart’s program to

help employees pay for tuition.

nytimes.com

twitter.com/walmartnewsroom, blog.walmart.com

Response: Walmart’s VP of

corp comms “fact checks”

the article

The very next day, Walmart’s then

VP of corporate communications

David Tovar responded to the

article, marking it up with his

comments in a red pen and

posting it to the Walmart blog.

“We had some fun with it,” he

says in the blog post, and begins

his response with a sarcastic note:

“Tim - Thanks for sharing

your first draft. Below are a

few thoughts to ensure

something inaccurate doesn't

get published. Hope this

helps – WMT”

twitter.com/marketingprofs

They found the approach refreshing and indicative of the possibilities

of a digital world, which provides corporate communicators with new

ways to reach audiences. Others pointed out that Walmart’s response

too should be subject to a fact check – several news sites and

organizations complied.

Some professionals and journalists felt the approach could be more

constructive. PRWeek has a good round-up of PR professionals’ views

here, best summarized in Salon contributor Ari Rabin-Havt’s

comments: Walmart missed the opportunity to use the NYT column as

a “moment for serious introspection”:

“Wal-Mart isn’t going away and any conversation about wages,

manufacturing and the reliance on public benefits by the

employees of America’s largest corporations is ultimately going

to include its participation. This latest salvo seems to indicate it

remains intent on making it as unproductive a conversation as

possible.”

The Coca-Cola Content

Journey debate

27sparksheet.com

Background: Is Coca-Cola’s corporate website worth the

investment?

In the beginning of this year, social media manager Mark Higginson

wrote an article for content marketing blog Sparksheet questioning

the benefit of content marketing and citing the Coca-Cola Journey

corporate website as an example. The corporate website had just

completed its first year and was under some scrutiny from marketers

who were trying to determine the impact of the initiative.

What’s different about Coca-Cola Journey? It’s more of a digital

magazine with multiple posts a day on a broad range of Coca-Cola

topics – recipes, #cokestyle, Coca-Cola’s initiatives in the start-up

scene, happiness – and some non-Coca-Cola topics like Halloween. In

short, a huge leap from the typical corporate website.

The new website is backed by a multi-million dollar investment and a

proper newsroom. This caught Higginson’s attention and inspired him

to ask – is it worth it for Coca-Cola? He analyzed 78 random blog

posts, determined that number of social shares were in the hundreds

and concluded that for a company that sells 1.8 billion beverages a

day, the site does not offer a good return on investment. coca-colacompany.com

One of many comments Brown posted on Sparksheet

Response: Founder of the

Journey presents a strong

case

Ashley Brown, the founder of the

website and Director of Digital

Communications and Social Media

at Coca-Cola at the time, wrote

back two days later calling

Higginson’s argument flawed.

Brown’s point of view: his team

was happy with the number of

social shares they received, and

were more interested in “things

like time spent on page, unique

visitors, referrals, and more than

a hundred other inputs” when

evaluating the success of their

site.

ashbrown.org

A deep, four month long conversation ensues

Sparksheet readers took advantage of the presence of both Higginson

and Brown in the comments section and asked questions on both

arguments. Since Sparksheet attracts a niche audience of content

marketers, a healthy conversation followed with readers sharing their

own view points and even tips for the Coca-Cola team on audience

strategy and search performance.

Both Higginson and Brown responded to comments and the overall

result was a much deeper picture of the behind-the-scenes evaluation

at Coca-Cola and the lack of agreement within the content marketing

industry on measuring success. In fact, the latter was a key reason for

Brown to be so vocal about his experiences on Journey – it was a new

concept for a corporate site and needed to be both explained and

justified.

It’s also worth noting that both Brown and the Sparksheet team were

committed to having a constructive conversation– they even invited

each other to contribute to their respective blogs. Readers

appreciated the continued discussion and joined in as many as four

months later, proving not only the long-tail of online content but also

the value of responding publicly online.

McDonald’s Our food. Your

questions.

31

mcdonalds.com

Background: Fielding doubts about McDonald’s food

People have been concerned about the quality of McDonald’s food for

years now, due to questions raised by the documentary Super Size Me

(2004), individual experiments to test if the food will rot like the

Happy Meal Project, and more recently Jaimie Oliver’ campaign to

make McDonald’s stop using pink slime in the United States (2012).

McDonald’s Canada was the first to launch Our Food. Your Questions.

to prove that they used 100% pure beef and had never used pink

slime. In 2012, they launched an online platform inviting people to

send in questions about McDonald’s food.

McDonald’s Canada received 16,000 questions in its first four months

and posted 10,000 answers in real-time. A question about the

appearance of the food in ads even led to the creation of the video

Behind the Scenes at a McDonald’s photo shoot which has received 10

million views to date.

Following the success of the Canadian campaign in changing

perspectives, it was re-created in Australia in 2013 with a similar

platform showing questions and answers, and video responses. In

2014, it was introduced in the U.S.

Watch: Is McDonald’s beef real?

Our Food. Your Questions.

comes to the United States

For the U.S. edition, McDonald’s

partnered with former host of TV

show Mythbusters Grant Imahara

to create a series of webisodes.

People were invited to share their

questions on social media, and

Imahara would visit McDonald’s

suppliers to find the answers.

McDonald’s suppliers walk Imahara

through the production process,

answer his questions and then

invite him to taste the food for

himself.

In one of the webisodes, the

person who asked the question

was invited to join Imahara at a

factory, and was featured in the

video What are McRibs made of?

Reactions: Not yet enough

There seems to be strong interest in the U.S. campaign, with two of

the longer webisodes about beef and McRibs receiving over 1.5 million

views each. But the number of dislikes match the number of likes and

the comments show that people aren’t yet convinced.

As Adweek’s Rebecca Cullers notes:

“What I most admire is that they're letting the comment feed on

YouTube be just as brutal as it wants to be. And man, is it

brutal.”

The comments are filled with cynical comments, with people still

choosing to believe the ‘myths’ rather than a mythbuster hired by

McDonald’s. It doesn’t help that the media is using the campaign to

highlight bigger problems they want McDonald’s to focus on.

For instance, John Oliver made a parody of the initial McDonald’s ad

to highlight the low wages McDonald’s employees get paid. Time

contributor Naomi Starkman wondered about the lack of questions

around more relevant hard-hitting themes like antibiotic-use and

cage-free eggs, arguing that McDonald’s competitors like Chipotle

were winning market share because of better food practices.

Our Food. Your Questions. in: Canada, Australia, U.S.

McDonald’s will have to adapt its

campaign to the U.S. audience to

drive a real change in

perceptions. It could start by

analyzing the questions to identify

what its customers care about

most and analyzing their reactions

to guide the next phase of the

campaign.

McDonald’s could also take a leaf

out of the Canadian and Australian

book, and create a warmer

repository of questions and

answers on its website.

NFL’s shaky stance on

Domestic Violence

nomore.org/nflplayerspsa

The first video released on tmz.com

Background: The Ray Rice

debacle

In the beginning of the year,

Baltimore Ravens footballer Ray

Rice was arrested for assaulting

his then fiancé in an elevator at a

casino. That very week,

entertainment channel TMZ

released the video of Rice leaving

the elevator, dragging his

unconscious fiancé behind him.

The video led to public outrage,

which was further fueled after a

court agreed to drop charges

against Rice if he enrolled in

counselling, and after NFL

Commissioner Roger Goodell

announced a suspension of only

two games in July.

nj.com

People and players alike were furious that a player who was guilty of

domestic violence would get a lighter sentence (two games) than a

player who was guilty of substance abuse (in one case, a year-long

suspension).

During Rice’s trial, a few other NFL players were accused or found

guilty of domestic violence and child abuse, straining the image of the

NFL further – especially when the media shared a USA Today database

which lists all 765 arrests of NFL players since 2000. 88 of 765 were for

domestic violence.

The crisis reached a new peak in September when TMZ released a

second video, showing the events that took place within the elevator –

Rice punching his fiancé.

NFL’s Response

By the end of August, Goodell acknowledged that the league needed a

stronger violence and abuse policy, and sent out a memo to the team

owners admitting he didn’t handle the situation well.

But his stance on Rice didn’t change until TMZ released the second

video in September. Hours after the video was released, Goodell

announced an indefinite suspension for Rice and the Baltimore Ravens

dropped him from the team.

The league also stepped up all their efforts to address the problem of

violence, and announced several initiatives in September and October:

• External investigation into the Rice incident

• Partnership with organizations NO MORE, Futures without Violence

and Coach for America

• A rehaul of the league’s Personal Conduct Policy, such that first

time offenders of violence and abuse will receive a six game ban

and repeat offenders a lifetime ban

• Hiring of female advisors to shape the league’s stance

• A 60 second PSA in which NFL Players say NO MORE, which aired

during game time

• Donations to organizations that offer support to victims of abuse

• Policy to cater to victims

• Presentation of a 40 minute training video on domestic violence to

team owners, which will also be sent to high school and college

football coaches nationwide

Current players @dougbaldwinjr, @anthonydavis76 and @charliebatch16 share their

views on Twitter

Reactions: Walk the Talk.

Reform won’t be easy for the NFL,

which faces heat from two sides

of this issue.

On the one hand, the public,

media and other NFL players are

demanding it to commit to a

serious change in the way it

handles cases of violence and

abuse. They aren’t happy with the

lack of concrete statements and

actions on the issue (see John

Olivier’s attack on Goodell on Last

Week Tonight) and are standing up

for change. Even current NFL

players are criticizing the

commissioner on Twitter openly.

bleacherreport.com

On the other hand, the NFL faces

some resistance from the players

union and guilty players on

stricter penalties. For instance,

Rice has appealed his indefinite

suspension from the league saying

that he was honest with Goodell

from day one and shouldn’t have

been punished ‘twice.’

The true test of the NFL’s new

commitment will most likely come

in November, when Goodell

decides on next steps not just for

Rice, but also for footballer

Adrian Peterson, who just pleaded

guilty to assaulting his four year

old son.

People’s Insights is a collection of inspiring initiatives, insights and

foresights shared by MSLGROUP’s SPRINTers – our global team of 100+

strategic planners, researchers and insights experts.

We feature the best of these initiatives as People’s Insights monthly

briefs, and original insights and foresights – from our SPRINTers and

other MSLGROUP experts - in our People’s Insights magazines. We

share these reports on our social platforms and distribute them freely

to inspire more engaging campaigns.

People’s Insights covers the latest trends in engagement on both

consumer and corporate sides. Check out our latest magazine, The

Future of Business Citizenship, for data and insights on how Millennials

want businesses to be better active citizens.

*

People’s Insights is available as a blog, powerpoint decks, infographics, white

papers and magazines, a Kindle eBook and even an iPad app.

Follow us on Twitter at @PeoplesLab or subscribe to our newsletter to receive our

monthly briefs and quarterly magazines.

People’s Lab is MSLGROUP’s proprietary crowdsourcing platform and

approach that helps organizations tap into people’s insights for

innovation, storytelling and change.

The People’s Lab crowdsourcing platform helps organizations build and

nurture public or private, web or mobile, hosted or white label

communities around four pre-configured application areas: Expertise

Request Network, Innovation Challenge Network, Research & Insights

Network and Contest & Activation Network. Our community and

gaming features encourage people to share rich content, vote/

comment on other people’s content and collaborate to find innovative

solutions.

The People’s Lab crowdsourcing platform and approach forms the core

of our distinctive insights and foresight approach, which consists of

four elements: organic conversation analysis, MSLGROUP’s own insight

communities, client specific insights communities, and ethnographic

deep dives into these communities. The People’s Insights reports

showcase our capability in crowdsourcing and analyzing insights from

conversations and communities.

For People’s Lab solutions,

please contact:

pascal.beucler@mslgroup.com