Social Media: A Land of Controversy

Social media! The digital landscape where our voices can be heard (or read) across the world. Individuals are using these social platforms, like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, in a variety of ways. Many use it as a way to document their life adventures and hardships through photos/videos, share inspiration and know how, entertain, and run pyramid schemes among other things. It pains me to admit being guilty of that last example but it was just the one time. Social media is also being used to get news, share our opinions, and have discussions on a limitless amount of topics. From movies and books to politics and global warming and everything in between. Businesses and organizations use social media as a tool to market their product brands and engage with their consumers. As pointed out in one of my previous posts, social media is even used to influence our purchases through targeted ads. Controversy is inevitable, though, as seen with the recent social media stir revolving around the new Nike campaign starring NFL player Colin Kaepernick. It definitely has social media roaring. And, apparently it even has some burning and cutting up their Nike gear in boycott of Nike and their new brand ambassador alongside the hashtag #NikeBoycott. Nike isn't mad, though. After a small dip, their online sales have increased by 31 percent according to Global News. The other half of the population has been getting a good laugh out of it through an onslaught of memes like this one here:

Nike has been known to choose brand ambassadors that have spoken out about important controversial issues, such as social and racial justice, which includes the likes of Serena Williams and LeBron James. They knew there would be some political backlash and were prepared to take a stand, (or a knee if you prefer) behind Colin Kaepernick and move forward with the ad campaign. The ad itself sends a great inspirational message which is partially being overlooked by this social media controversy. Nike makes no apology (as they shouldn't) for their choice of brand ambassador, and the brand will likely not lose any sleep, I mean money, over the destruction of their products that have already been purchased. Nike, obviously, has a grasp of who its consumers are, enough to take such a calculated risk. Whether or not this will develop into a public relations nightmare with Nike shareholders remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see how Nike responds to those boycotting their brand and where the conversation goes. When it comes to social media from a communications standpoint, what we say and how we say it does matter. It will be important to monitor and understand the negative commentary coming from this controversy.

Pepsi had a slightly similar situation over one of their ad campaigns starring high profile celebrity, Kendall Jenner. However, in this situation it wasn't the brand ambassador that was causing backlash but the content in the ad itself. The video shows Jenner joining a street protest and handing a Pepsi to a police officer. One source says the advertisement was harshly judged for "trivializing demonstrations and serious social issues." The uproar that ensued put Pepsi in what is called a "reputation crisis" and their market value suffered. Pepsi was quick to respond by taking down the video from its social media platforms and making this statement:

Pepsi did do the right thing by admitting to their mistake and being transparent about the intended message of the ad. However, I do agree that the crisis could have been prevented had they taken the proper care to test the ad to a small group of consumers before launching the campaign. It is far better for brands, such as the ones mentioned above, to be the first to address these types of controversies head on before they become breaking news. Not doing so could spark even more negative criticism by giving the impression that they don't care what consumers think. Social media users are quick to tarnish brands for publishing ads they find offensive. Once content is out there, there is no turning back.

It is important for businesses to have a social media plan in place to address potential reputation crisis. Most businesses already have some kind of crises communication plan to address the media and general public. Having a plan in place for social media relieves some of the added stress that comes a conflict and prepares a business to be swift in its response. Yulia Dianova, a public relations professional with Axia Public Relations, suggests three key ways to use social media for crisis communication:

1. Delivering your message

2. Monitoring

4. Addressing concerns

By being transparent and honest in notifying audiences of a crisis or mistake made in your organization, you can really make a difference in how people react to it. It is important to engage your audience not just by posting content, but also by looking to see what is being said about your business and responding appropriately to negative commentary and crisis situations. I, once, made a negative comment about a skin care product on social media because it did not give me the advertised experience. But, the way they quickly responded to my comment about the way the product works changed my perception. The company also sent me a private message about the product. I appreciated the concern that they showed for my personal experience which engaged me and turned my negative thoughts about the product into positive thoughts about the brand itself. If you are marketing a product or business that you truly believe in then you shouldn't stand idly by as people slander its name. Take the time to understand their concerns and learn something from it. Then, move on. Having a plan in place could reduce the need to learn the hard way.

Thanks for reading! I hope you will come back for next weeks topic.