We learned that a business’ reputation is essential to survival this week. The use of social media leaves businesses at the mercy of their consumers since anything posted can go viral.
The Home Depot had their reputation put at risk in November 2013, after an outside agency posted from their official Twitter account for ESPN show “College Game Day” (which Home Depot sponsors). The rogue tweet featured a photo of two African-American men and a man in a gorilla costume playing the drums and read, “Which drummer is not like the others?”
The post was reported immediately, but not before screen shots of it circulated on social media, in addition to being picked up by NBC and CNBC. Virality at its finest.
Thankfully, Home Depot acted swiftly to remove the post and issue a public apology:
Understandably, they fired the person and severed ties with the Landor Associates branding firm that produced the picture. I was most impressed with Home Depot’s initiative to reply to individual tweets:
I found this especially commendable – they could have left it alone after issuing the public apology. This course of action helped followers and customers feel confident again. Home Depot obviously cares about their public image and understands the importance of maintaining goodwill with them.
Home Depot’s spokesman, Stephen Holmes, made a statement that the company is closely reviewing its social media procedures to determine “how this could have happened, and how to ensure it never happens again.” This mishap now serves as a case study of what NOT to do on social media. It’s unfortunate, but social media is really a trial by fire.
I think the way in which Home Depot handled the event went well and I would have reacted the same way. They were responsive and resolved the mistake. I'd work to establish a 1-to-1 communication with users who were offended by the tweet just as they had. I wouldn't hide from criticism and publicly address/apologize for the mishap. But this crisis is the perfect example why companies cannot afford to treat social media as an afterthought. People need to think before they tweet. Their reputation and profitability depends on it.
WOW, this is terrible Tiffani. I hadn't heard of this incident; however, it sounds as if it was handled incredibly well, which I believe can help an issue like this lose steam more quickly (and long lasting). I reviewed the DiGiorno #whyistayed Tweet in my post and also commended them for apologizing to individuals. Not only did it sounds as if Home Depot did that, but they also appear to address mentions of the incident that were intended to spread awareness of the tweet. Recovering from these types of instances is often like putting out a fire. Not only did Home Depot put the fire out, it appears as if they also made sure the smoke had cleared as well. Shame on the second party for creating such content, and many kudos to HD of not thinking twice about the action that needed to be taken. If this were a smaller company and the social media was in house, it may have been a more difficult and less prompt decision, as terminating one of your own is often harded than breaking a contract (especially if your team is limited and you would have to scramble for a replacement).
ReplyDeleteSome people might agree that replying to each individual comment is prolonging the length of time that the post is live and constantly being reminded of. But as you mentioned, you cannot only put out the fire, but must clear the smoke as well. I think their going the extra mile in responding to the individuals was a nice touch. It's so important to quickly apologize and rebuild that trust.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a valid point, Kaitlin. I hadn't even thought about how an employee contract may slow down the process of firing. That's an unfortunate reality since social media teams are still one of the last departments to be allocated resources.
Thanks for sharing the Home Depot example. This was a great reaction from our recent readings and lecture. What stood out most for me was Home Depot’s tone. I thought this matter-of-fact, direct voice fits perfectly with the company’s customer base. Home Depot followed the social media formula:
ReplyDelete• Reply swiftly
• Acknowledge you are listening (a holding position)
• Apologize
• Be human and show empathy
• Explain why, explain your course of action
The only thing missing, was to follow up afterward. But I’m not sure that was necessary after Home Depot showed final resolution, implicating the agency it used and firing them and the individual responsible.
It appears that this social media gaff did not have any impact on the company’s stock. In reviewing Home Depot’s stock for November 2013. The stock price appeared to go unphased. One thought that occurred was if the stock had decreased or there was a negative financial impact, could Home Depot hold their agency responsible liable for any financial loss?
I’d also like to throw out a new factor in using social media to fix a company’s reputation, commitment to a cause. Home Depot cited they are committed to ensuring this does not happen again, but I’m suggesting that there may be more positive reputation opportunity or good will credits if the company’s actions / response are tied to a socially acceptable cause, charity or movement related to the factor that surrounded the issue. For the case of Home Depot, could have the donated or partner with the NAACP? For the DiGiorno pizza mistake, could the company have partnered with domestic violence shelter or coalition? For an oil company, could they partner with an environmentally conscious nonprofit to help oversee oil cleanup and restoration. By focusing on a cause that matters to stakeholders, does the company gain credibility, accountability and third party endorsement? Or is there a risk with it being a publicity stunt? If done properly and authentically, I believe a company can pivot from a negative to a positive.
Thanks again for your post and comments.
- Frank Clouser
Thanks for your comment, Frank. I think if the stock had decreased shortly thereafter the mishap, the Landor Associates agency could definitely be held accountable. I like to think that HD's effectiveness and authenticity is what really saved them from suffering financially.
ReplyDeleteI like that you mention a "commitment to a cause." I think partnering with a third party and finding a way to make a negative situation into a positive one speaks volumes of the organization. It's unfortunate that it takes a mistake on social media to be more philanthropic or demonstrate consideration for bigger issues.