Now Coles aren't joining an exclusive club when it comes to social media mishaps. There seems to be more and more reports every week of companies and brands, large and small, suffering a social media bungle.
Many of these examples are gaining a lot of negative attention. Not only in the social media space but in traditional media too, which is certainly amplifying the issue in many cases.
With so much to learn from, how is it that a large company like Coles, with a very active social media presence can still make such simple mistakes? Like not responding to potentially damaging comments for more than two days....just because it is the weekend? Or, dare I say, deleting a comment or 4500?
What do you think is worse... Not responding to damaging comments promptly? or Deleting comments altogether?
Hi Murray,
ReplyDeleteI think they both are very bad and can really ruin the brand image of the business. If i really have to pick one, i would go for 'deleting comments altogether', this totally ignore the notion of social media, 'the freedom of speech' and can cause much more anger to the customers. On the internet world, once something is written, it is always there.
p.s. If it is okay with you, on my blog i posted a link to your blog
very interesting case studies :)
Bas
Thanks Bas. I agree. Surely from what is known deleting comments (4500) is breaking the number 1 rule in Social media 101? Although it must be said that I don't know if there was a justifiable reason they deleted it.
ReplyDeleteColes if your listening, I'd love to hear your side of things? Happy to adjust my view if more information is provided. I'm sure many others feel the same.
Anyone else with thoughts on the issues Coles suffered?
Bas, of course, link away fellow blogger. I'll be sure to read through your blog later. I'm sure you have some interesting views
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on if the brand is high involvement or low involvement. If it was a brand which involved a high involvement purchase such as a car, and the person was complaining about the wheel falling falling off on the road, and the social media manager totally ignored or deleted the comment, then massive, massive damage.
ReplyDeleteAs Coles is "just" a supermarket, I think the majority of people who shop there are shopping there based on locality, choice of products, price etc.
There may have been a vocal majority who were posting negative comments on the Facebook page, but what's not to say that the people who are saying they will shop at IGA, the farmers' markets etc don't already do? And what of the people who will continue to shop at Coles? Do they really care enough to go on Facebook and defend it?
Hi Murray and Bas
ReplyDeleteFrom a strategic perspective perhaps the reasoning behind deleting the post was that it would be the lesser of the two damaging actions; trying to reason with detractors may simply add fuel to the fire. I’d assume any response, late or otherwise, by Coles would be met with a similarly vitriolic and damaging response by the same said detractors. So while ethically it may be questionable to remove post all together, I think that it would be worse (for the Coles brand) to respond.
Further to this, perhaps the reasoning Coles took to deleting the post was the belief that social media moves so fast that their action would be "yesterday’s news” in a matter of time?
Nice kick off Murray.
ReplyDeleteThe responses on Mumbrella show that it is the not only the dairy farmers issue, but a culmination of factors including collusion, staff issues etc.
I am bit perplexed at how Coles can spend millions on crappy, feel good, jingly (i don't think there is such a word), TV ads with washed up rock stars and be so clumsy with their business relationships, and ultimately social media.
Are the TV ads really effective?
I would love to see market research on how the public perceives the Coles brand.
Good point Gabriel. I definitely think there is a high chance that people who make complaints may not be consumers. Although I'd still propose that they can cause just as much damage as anyone else. I don't necessary think Coles would be worried about losing that particular consumers sales but I think they would be worried about the bad word of mouth they have created, potentially influencing many other 'actual' consumers.
ReplyDeleteI guess most consumers wouldn't come to Coles defence because it's easier to get on the bandwagon. Although you would be surprised what can happen.
Hi yvessocialmediablog, Interestingly Coles did respond then deleted the post later. I agree that most things in SM are yesterdays news pretty quickly. But if that is the case....why delete it??
ReplyDeleteHey Frank, a bit of SM vs traditional media huh? Although incredibly annoying I actually think the adverts are very effective. Effective or not they've spent a lot of money and I'd suggest a few dollars diverted to pay weekend penalty rates to the social media team would have been worthwhile, what do you think?
ReplyDeleteYes some overtime rates would of come in handy :), I guess my point is that brand building works when you have everything else right, and its not only Coles, its the banks the telcos, insurance companies and other behemoths.
DeleteHey Muz,
ReplyDeleteNice work! I guess it really depends on the kind of comment left more than anything else, doesn't it? I think If it's just an unprovoked and unjustifiable slamming of the brand, it's probably a good idea for them not to respond in the first instance because most likely their followers will do it for them. However, they need to monitor the comments the entire time and choose the right time to interject and not let it get out of control. In this case Coles should have responded at least after the first 2 or 3 comments made in response to the dairy farmer's wife. Their problem was that they allowed it to get out of control, and then made it worse by deleting it altogether after they had finally responded. I think the only time a comment should be deleted is if there is highly offensive material in it that would be inappropriate in any given situation.
I think failing to respond quickly and deleting are both pretty poor form, particularly from a company big enough to know better, but I was curious to see if the act of deletion fueled any further backlash - although according to this article, Coles are denying they deleted it
ReplyDeletehttp://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/08/01/517851_business-news.html
From what I can see it hasn't and all people have done is re-post the same letter over and over again but without the same level of response, so yvessocialmediablog you may have a point!
It really blows my mind that they didn't have anyone watching the site over the weekend. Businesses have had 'after hours' phone lines for decades, and they pay people to sit around at home, and just respond to any incoming calls. How has it not occurred to them that the same should be done (at the very least!) with social media?
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with Yvonne. It was the lesser of two evils available to Coles at the time. They took a gamble that with so many comments, the customers felt sufficiently 'heard', and that if they deleted the thread it would soon be old news. It was pretty poor form to release a statement about the importance of social media interaction, and then delete the post though.
I totally agree that they must hire someone to look over the site. Because it is there doesn't mean that you can leave it. I think once you have a social network of your own brand, you need more attention and need to take care it well. Once you ignore the site, the unpredictable story can happen at any time. So to answer your question, I would not let my social network site to be out of sight. Worse come to worse, I will just hire a computer geek to look after and call me if something terrible happens when the person who should take care my site is not around.
ReplyDeleteWell done, Muz. A topical first post, that has generated some great conversation... not much more I can say, other than "keep up the good work!" :)
ReplyDelete