Slashdot Mirror
SeaWorld and Others Discover That a Hashtag Can Become a Bashtag
HughPickens.com writes Alison Griswold writes that in an effort to improve its tanking image, SeaWorld launched a new advertising campaign this week to educate the public about its "leadership in the care of killer whales" and other work to protect whales in captivity and in the wild. As part of that head-on initiative, someone at SeaWorld decided to invite Twitter users to pose their questions to the company directly using the hashtag #AskSeaWorld. That was not a good idea as twitter users bashed Sea World relentlessly.. "As easy as it is to make fun of SeaWorld here, the real question is why any company still thinks hosting an open Twitter forum could be good for public relations," writes Griswold. "So maybe SeaWorld's social and PR folks just really have no idea what they're doing. Even so, you'd think they'd have learned from the corporate failures before them."
Let's review some of the times this has backfired, starting with the infamous McDonald's #McDStories Twitter campaign of January 2012. Rather than prompting customers to share their heart-warming McDonald's anecdotes, the hashtag gave critics a highly visible forum to share their top McDonald's horror stories. MacDonalds pulled the campaign within two hours but they discovered that crowd-sourced campaigns are hard to control. Three years later the #McDStories hashtag is still gathering comments. "Twitter Q&As are a terrible idea.," concludes Griswold. "A well-meaning hashtag gives critics an easy way to assemble and voice their complaints in a public forum. Why companies still try them is a great mystery. Maybe they'll all finally learn from SeaWorld and give this one horrible PR trick up for good."
Let's review some of the times this has backfired, starting with the infamous McDonald's #McDStories Twitter campaign of January 2012. Rather than prompting customers to share their heart-warming McDonald's anecdotes, the hashtag gave critics a highly visible forum to share their top McDonald's horror stories. MacDonalds pulled the campaign within two hours but they discovered that crowd-sourced campaigns are hard to control. Three years later the #McDStories hashtag is still gathering comments. "Twitter Q&As are a terrible idea.," concludes Griswold. "A well-meaning hashtag gives critics an easy way to assemble and voice their complaints in a public forum. Why companies still try them is a great mystery. Maybe they'll all finally learn from SeaWorld and give this one horrible PR trick up for good."
to control their own image, so they don't need to control the campaign. If patrons are happy, they'll do the advertising for them.
Ad campaigns are easily subverted. Case in point. If you're going to do something like that, you'd best be sure you're squeaky clean and that the public loves you. And if you're a souless corporation, the answer to both those questions is inevitably "no."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Share your heartwarming stories about Slashdot at #slashdot!
These situations are all proof that one cannot control the feedback that one receives. That's the whole point of feedback, by the way, to attempt to gauge a realistic view of what's going on. Asking for a negative review or asking for a positive review has already prejudiced the review process, and will usually rile-up people that have had the opposite experience that have the opposite view of the asker.
If the distinguished lady from Oregon wanted realistic feedback then she should have simply asked for feedback. If she asked for positive feedback (as an attempt at reverse-psychology), knowing that she was against the ACA, she would have gotten positive feedback by a motivated crowd. Asking for negative feedback, know that she was against the ACA, she got positive feedback by a motivated crowd.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Let's find examples of it working, and let that encourage more companies to engage over twitter. Because the common thread here is these are all companies that deserve criticism.
but why the hell would anyone use Twitter? What's your reasonable best case scenario? You could get a book deal maybe. On the other hand, you're playing Russian Roulette with everything you post. Say something the internet finds offensive at that time and they'll burn you to the ground.
Publicity.
Try posting something on your web site, if you're not one of the biggest or most-watched companies in your industry, and see what reaction you'll get.
Why would we complain about Slashdot on Twitter when we can complain about Slashdot on Slashdot?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Yet these are two of the most "hated" brands for reasons that have nothing to do with the services they provide patrons.
Disagree. They are loved AND hated for exactly the same reasons and often by the same people. People love low prices but hate the side effects of relentless focus on low prices like low wages. People love consistency and knowing what to expect but hate the monotony of those very same things. People love good service but hate paying for it. People love having jobs but hate working.
In short, people are bi-polar in their attitudes towards big corporations. It's not as simple as saying people love big corporations or hate them. It's both at the same time.
Well gamergate uses it as one of the main pushbacks against moral authoritarians and prudes. The "social justice" crowd loves social media, so there needs to be some people who are willing to push back against those who are out to try and cause actual harm.
Om, nomnomnom...
Putting social justice in scare quotes while blathering about moral authoritarians is amusing enough, but to do it while equivocating about your side's wilful invasion community spaces for the purposes of moral crusade? Classy.
Except it's accurate. You miss the attack against lionhead studios and their support for national cleavage day? Or how about their attacks against various types of dress? Of course, when they use exactly the same thing it's not 'sexist' anymore. Then again, we didn't start the invasion now did we. They did, when they decided they wanted to turn everything into a political pissing match and people said "enough."
Then again aGGro's are so small in number that they can't even trend a hashtag. There goes that myth that GG is 300 people.
Om, nomnomnom...
First, check your links. That's a 404.
Second, while libertarians froth at the mouth over individual rights, they fail to mention how the "individual right" most often defended is the one that puts CEOs in corner offices making 350 times what their workers make. The only "individual right" they really care about is the right to exploit others for personal gain.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The McLibel case shows the sort of PR Disaster that often results from trying to manage negative PR.