Snakes on a Social Media Plane: When Your Brand Gets Hijacked
Posted on May 28, 2010 by
At Page One, we talk a lot about the benefits of using social media to engage with your customers and community. One of the most interesting aspects of the social web is that it’s a two-way conversation: your customers can talk back to you, whether you like what they have to say or not.
The Nestle Facebook debacle in March is a now-legendary example of how NOT to respond to criticism online. In this case, angry consumers began posting comments on Nestle’s Facebook wall about their use of palm oil in products. A page that was supposed to promote Nestle got hijacked by consumers and became a place to criticize the brand, instead. That was unfortunate, but the real trouble began when Nestle began censoring and removing negative posts from their wall. An Internet-wide backlash resulted, and Nestle was forced to apologize. In the end, Nestle conceded to the critics and partnered with The Forest Trust to support the sustainable harvest of forests. Lesson learned: when you engage via social media, you have to be prepared to listen to what your customers have to say, and if what they have to say it negative, don’t even think about trying to censor it.
Another interesting example is the Bros Icing Bros phenomenon that is currently sweeping the nation by storm. What started as a frat-boy drinking game has expanded to universities, offices, and Wall Street trading floors, mostly driven by social media as people post photos and videos of “bros” and even celebrities being “iced.”
Many have speculated that this is an undercover marketing campaign devised by Smirnoff, but that seems unlikely to me. Sure, this fad is helping them sell more product, but the catch is that Smirnoff Ice is the butt of a joke. As brosicingbros.com says: “try and buy the most disgusting flavored ice or a 24oz ice. Pineapple, mango, and grape are top of the list for the most gut wrenching, mind numbing, throw up in your mouth, Smirnoff ice flavors.” Somehow, I don’t see Smirnoff’s marketing team writing that.
How should Smirnoff respond to this hijacking of their brand? On the one hand, it’s a popular phenomenon that must be helping to drive sales. But on the other hand, the game is immature and potentially dangerous, and Smirnoff doesn’t want to be seen promoting irresponsible drinking, not to mention the possible legal liability. If you go to Smirnoff’s website, you will find no mention of “bros” whatsoever. Smirnoff’s official statement is that: “Icing is consumer-generated and some people think it is fun. We never want underage “icing” and we always want responsible drinking.” What Smirnoff is doing is probably the best strategy: acknowledge the fad but stay out of it as much as possible. If they condemned the practice or tried to shut down the Bros Icing Bros website, people would probably revolt. If Smirnoff embraced the game and tried to promote it, people would assume it was a marketing ploy all along and shun it.
Another current example is the fake BPGlobalPR Twitter feed, which posts funny, derisive comments about the Gulf oil spill, as if written by BP’s public relations team. In only a week, the feed has grown to more than 74,000 followers (by comparison, BP’s official Twitter feed has only 7,754 followers). To add insult to injury, BP’s official feed was just hacked this week, as well.
When you take your brand to the social media channels, you have to be prepared for criticism. Trying to censor people’s comments is a PR disaster waiting to happen. Instead, your best strategy is to listen, acknowledge your customers’ opinions, and consider whether to incorporate their feedback into your business practices.











RT