Nestlé Facebook Crisis: A Different Perspective
March 23, 2010 | Written by Priyanka Mathew
I’m sure by now you’ve read more than one article about Nestlé’s![[Picture+4.png]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_K_jWT0byI2s/S6ORXZjPrII/AAAAAAAAApc/K9dhCl78n-w/s1600/Picture%2B4.png)
“PR fail” that took place yesterday on Facebook. It all started with a status update from Nestle requesting users to not post using an altered version of any of their logos as profile picture as they would be deleted. What this was primarily referring to is a picture of Nestlé’s logo with the word “Killer” inserted instead of “Kitkat.” This logo was devised as a protest against Nestlé’s use of palm oil, which endangers animals and creates greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia.
Now, it’s to be assumed that there would be those who would consider this comment rude and post retaliatory remarks on the page, but what really caused the outrage were the responses posted back by Nestlé.
Nestlé @Paul Griffin – that’s a new understanding of intellectual property rights. We’ll muse on that. You can have what you like as your profile picture. But if it’s an altered version of any of our logos, we’ll remove it [from] this page.
Nestlé Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider yourself embraced. But it’s our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus.
Nestlé Oh please .. it’s like we’re censoring everything to allow only positive comments.
Finally culminating in my personal favorite:
Nestlé This (deleting logos) was one in a series of mistakes for which I would like to apologise. And for being rude. We’ve stopped deleting posts, and I have stopped being rude.
Undoubtedly, most of the articles you’ve read have probably been negative towards Nestlé, scolding them for conducting bad PR and telling them that they’ve missed the point of social media. But I disagree.
I think most of the people wagging their fingers at Nestlé have forgotten what social media is all about. In the beginning, social media was a tool to connect and interact with your friends virtually, all the while, being yourself. Granted, the entrance of corporations and businesses into the social media space has changed a few rules, but they must remember why they chose to market on this platform in the first place. If it was merely to create a brand presence, then this isn’t relevant, but if it was to interact with their audience and create a dialogue that would make them relevant and current, then they’ve lost sight of their goal. As a consumer, I have no desire to be redirected to other sites, and if I wanted to read PR, I would find a press release. I seek out authentic discussion with the face of my brand as I’m sure most other consumers do or they may have not chosen Nestlé’s Facebook wall to launch a protest. With all that being said, I realize the importance of brand equity, and I do strongly agree that the person sitting behind your Facebook fan page should be the ideal representation of your company and brand. Maybe Nestlé didn’t chose that ideal person. Even if they did, social media is risky because people make mistakes, but if it will eliminate reading canned messages and mindless PR, I can be very forgiving.
More from RFI Studios
- Facebook Games and Quizzes Lure Young Recessionites – Right Brain
- A Usability Disaster – Right Brain
- Cyberbullying: Who is Responsible? – Right Brain
- My new eTerm – Right Brain
- YouTube Goes to College – Right Brain
Tags: social media
Comments (7)
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm Posted by Ruth
I definitely agree that I’d rather have a genuine interaction with a company’s rep about an issue that mattered to me than be handed a canned statement. To me, though, the problem with Nestle’s responses is that they were rude to the very people who were trying to have those genuine interactions about issues that mattered to them. I’ve had two jobs in my life in which I’ve been the front line of customer service (a ticket salesperson at a theater box office and a receptionist at a hair salon), and in both cases, rule number one is that if the customer gets angry, you do not get angry back. Even if they’re straight-out abusing you, even if you think they’re being completely insane, you say “I’m sorry you’re having this problem. Let me offer you some possible solutions.” I think there’s a difference between offering canned statements and staying cool in the face of customer dissatisfaction.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:19 pm Posted by Andy
I’ll give a +1 for being contrarian WITH substance and insight. i’m not sure i agree, but i appreciate the discourse.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm Posted by Tyler Pennock
I think there’s an added level of complication – and it’s called lawyers. From a legal perspective, the FB Wall moderator may be unable to really address the accusations directly. Sending users to a legally-reviewed and approved article or webpage may be as far as the moderator can go in addressing the issue. But I think the main lessons learned here are A. be careful about telling customers that they CAN’T do something (because they’ll start doing it twice as much), and B. treat everyone with respect – even when they’re not returning that same level of respect.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:29 pm Posted by Priyanka Mathew
Sadly, yes, that’s true. And that’s what I think is deteriorating social media. But I do agree with your take-aways, Tyler!
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 pm Posted by Yan Shikhvarger
Nestle fought a battle that they could not have possibly won. Numerically their opponents will generate more buzz every time. They had to stick to their message and do it consistently. That did not happen.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 pm Posted by Priyanka Mathew
Well, I think it would have been a bad idea to stick to a bad idea (that is, deleting comments made by people with the anti-nestle logo). The Nestle rep even said at one point, “We’re learning as we go.” I think if he was honest and polite, this wouldn’t have turned so sour.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:40 am Posted by Abby Malik
Thanks for the post Priyanka! I think you’re right, social media is so effective because it’s a platform meant to allow dialogue, rather than a one-way conversation from an organization to stakeholders and the media, most of which consists of hyper-controlled, jargon-filled information. I’m a publicist, so this isn’t a negative comment, just an observation!
Ruth, I think you’ve hit the real issue when you say that the problem stems from the way in which Nestle handled the situation, not the situation itself.
I do media relations for a college. A few days ago on Twitter, an apparently disgruntled alum Tweeted some attacking comments regarding our sustainability efforts and our advertising. Long story short, she was pissed and was making it public.
We answered her questions, thanked her for her suggestions/concerns and told her we valued her contributions as an alum. We invited more feedback from her.
We didn’t get angry publicly (though you should have heard the talks among my colleagues); we gave her the information she requested, but nothing more. Also, we never even considered deleting her comments. That’s a very dangerous road to travel.
We also gave her a real name and e-mail address she could use if she was serious about having a discussion. We pulled back the curtain, so to speak, and revealed a human, not just a social media entity.
The customer is always right, up to a point. But, that point is always miles away in most situations. And Nestle jumped the gun on turning angry and combative.
Post Your Comment
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)