On the one hand, Social Media is great to complement the offline branding strategies of every kind of company, not only because Social Media increases brand awareness, but also because of the positive synergies with social networking and the greater interactivity with users (clients and potential customers).
On the other hand, a company's mistake can be easily spread online. If PR's reaction takes too long, consequences can be terrible. So, a single tinny mistake, followed by the wrong PR response, may become viral: as contagious as a flu. Then, there we have: an online public lynching against the brand.
Innwise: A model not to follow
 |
| https://twitter.com/abadgz |
Alejandro, a Spanish young joobseeker had an interview in Innwise, a marketing consulting company. Hours later, he received the following email, obviously by mistake: The liked ones (...) I'd may be harder to get the candidate from Toledo for 400€ [monthly] than the "pipiolo" (little boy) for free. I'd hire Alejandro for 3 months, trying free or up to 200€ in part time and 400€ to César". As you can imagine, Alejandro was very upset with the email, not only because they used the word "pipiolo", synonim of "little bird" to refer one of the candidates, but, more important: it reveals how some companies in Spain agree with the extended practice of youth exploitation with the excuse of the weak economic situation. A manager from Innwise contacted the candidates to apologise, some workers of Innwise tried to minimise the mistake saying it was out of context and the company apologised on Twitter, too. It was too late: #becariopipiolin had became trending topic. And so, the damage to Innwise reputation had gone viral. Besides Twitter and Facebook, #becariopipiolin has been main topic in Hufftington Post and it has been the most read post in Menéame.
Tweets about "#becariopipiolin"
What to do in this situation?
Well, first of all, a company should not allow this kind of policies and pay more attention to private communications in such topics, where information is meant to be confidential. But after there has been an incident like this, a trust and quick apology is vital.
The apollogy note should contain:
- The vision of the company about what actually happened.
- The name of the person on charge: the company needs a face to prove the apology is not fake. Hidding is not going to help at all.
- Any way to contact the company: it is always best to face problems than avoiding them. It is going to be a hard day, but an effective response will reduce the damage for the brand reputation.
- A trust apology (not only "empty" words).
The PR team should contact the whole staff to let them know what is happening, instead of allowing/promoting their staff trying to minimise the damage. It makes things worse, as users become angrier while interacting with them. It is the company (and its PR department) the one that has to sort it out the issue.
What would you have done in their situation?
