Should Social Media Voice Change During a Brand Crisis?
We all had a good laugh this week when JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater used profanity over the plane’s announcement system, stole a couple of beers, and slid down the emergency slide after a passenger cursed at him. (And in a stranger-than-fiction moment was arrested by police at his home while reportedly in flagrante.)
Now that the guy is out on bail, you’d think the whole thing would blow over in a couple of days. At least after the requisite articles, parodies, jokes, and late show appearances.
But something happened that’s pushing this whole thing back into the spotlight. At least from a social media case study perspective. A few members of the JetBlue Twitter team responded to some obviously tongue-in-cheek tweets and got called out for lacking a sense of humor.
Not a big deal, right?
Oh yeah, the tweeter that JetBlue responded to just happened to be famed satirist and reporter Andy Borowitz of The Borowitz Report.
Acknowledging his tweets is like poking a stick into a wasp nest. Doing it without a sense of humor is like sticking your whole arm in there.
The JetBlue Twitter responses weren’t necessarily social media smack talk, and certainly nowhere near the level of Nestle’s little Facebook tirade a few months back, but considering that responding to a Borowitz jab is the equivalent of pressing the big red button to confirm WWIII, you have to wonder what the JetBlue tweeters were thinking. The JetBlue Twitter responses lacked JetBlue’s familiar light-heartedness, and did little more than encourage a Twitter throwdown.
Borowitz ran with the ball and continued to tweet JetBlue jokes, leading followers in the Twittersphere to dub it a “Twitter War.”
JetBlue’s Twitter stream went dark for about 10 hours after the Borowitz incident and the next update simply stated JetBlue would not be commenting on an ongoing investigation.
Um, little late for that. It’s already gone from zero to take-off.
In the ensuing hours, a more polished social media response began to emerge that resonated with the JetBlue brand in a way the Twitter responses didn’t.
On JetBlue’s blog, the writer embraced the situation in a self-deprecating voice… with just enough humor to remind you that you love JetBlue almost as much as Southwest.
The JetBlue Facebook Page discussion area also filled up with posts calling for mercy for Steven Slater. JetBlue tastefully posted a link to the blog post within the Facebook Page, and continued to allow discussion without giving any appearance of censorship.
Everything that JetBlue has done AFTER the initial tweets has been right on target:
1. JetBlue used its venues strategically and soundly, choosing to communicate a response in a blog post instead of blanketing its channels with defensiveness.
2. JetBlue kept its voice real and human and didn’t switch to stark language and tone.
3. JetBlue left its channels open for comment and engaged in the discussion.
So what happened on Twitter?
In an Advertising Age article, JetBlue’s Twitter response is defended, asserting that not responding to Borowitz would have reflected a nonchalant attitude about the issue and encouraged lawsuits.
Considering there were other tactics engaged that handled the crisis both professionally and in-brand, it’s more likely the corporate tweeters were shut down after making personal decisions to respond to Borowitz.
From a brand perspective, a community channel isn’t the right place to break brand or scold a follower or commenter. A well-defined channel strategy that clarifies the purpose and boundaries of each venue is essential to the foundation of a social media effort. And a mandate that community managers stay in brand voice on all channels at all times should be the prime directive.
Conversing in social media may seem like a “just a conversation,” but it’s so much more than that. Every tweet and every response has to come from the soul of the brand. Even in the face of crisis or criticism.
Join the Conversation…
1. How should a brand respond to a crisis? Do you think breaking with established brand voice is justified in certain cases?
2. Should a community manager or channel manager be expected to have an intimate understanding of the brand before taking over the community reigns?
3. Is there a right place for a brand to respond sternly to followers or commenters?
1. Hell, no!
2. Hell, yeah!!
3. If you're The Ad Contrarian then every forum is a good forum in which to respond sternly to followers and commenters. If you're Jet Blue? I can't think of any appropriate place – other than a court of law – to respond sternly to anyone. Break brand at your own peril. Once the mask is off, it's off.
Excellent, Eric! “When the mask is off, it's off.” Love that. It's so true when it comes to brand voice. When there's a slip of the mask, the consumer is snapped out of the “brand trance” and feels tricked, loses trust. Brand voice is so important. It's sacred.
Really interesting topic, Michelle. And a great question to ask. Is this a case of feeding the trolls and starting a war of words that you just can't win? Or were they doing the responsible thing and making their stance known in response to someone being inflammatory?
My gut would have been to ignore the deliberatively provocative tweet, as I don't see any constructive solution arising from that and instead focus on all the other things that they did in the wake of it all. Taking the high road, so to speak. As a brand, I wonder if the responsible thing to do is to respond, proactively and in the voice that suits you, but let the provocateurs have their moments to themselves.
Tricky balance, huh?
Amber Naslund,
Radian6
One of the things that strikes me about the twitter responses here is just how snotty they come across. It's like a teacher telling you off. One of the probs with twitter is that the paralinguistic information doesn't come through. I mean, try reading the tweets with a smile, and a positive tone. It's just lost in the text.
Makes you wonder whether they've had any training in basic online writing skills.
Personally, I think a community / crisis manager has to know how to communicate effectively across social media channels, no matter the audience. In this instance the blogger rocked but the twitter response was potentially harmful to JetBlue's brand perception.
To quote Sgt Hulka, “Lighten up, Francis.”
That would be my advice to the Jet Blue Tweeter who responded to Borowitz's obvious tongue-in-cheek salvo. My God, people it was a joke. I know, I know not all jokes are jokes. I get that but coming from Borowitz? C'mon…
As for JB's other Social platforms they surely handled it perfectly, allowing for open dialogue.
Transparency… ah, yeah, that's the ticket.
Thanks for weighing in, Amber.
Yes, it looks like JetBlue tweeters inadvertently fed the troll and “engaged” in a war they couldn't win. I'm with you… as important as it is to keep lines of social media communication open, there are times when community managers have to recognize they're being baited. That's where the “tricky” part comes in and why it's so critical for people on the team to really get the brand they represent, and have the judgment to know when to leave things alone.
Jon, I'm glad you pointed that out. The first time I went back to read the tweets before posting I felt like maybe they weren't so bad. But after giving it a few more glances it was clear the tweets did go outside of the brand and were attempting to scold Borowitz. Yes, that JetBlue blog post rocked.
I agree with you that it takes special skill to write short communication without coming across like you're in a bad mood or making a judgment. Not just in the writing style but in the choice of content and response. As Amber said, it's a tricky balance. I couldn't agree more, and we see this balance broken a lot by brands. No one is perfect, but brands need to either do a better job of training people with an aptitude for brand communication, or start social-facing people with deep brand experience.
Granted, the JetBlue tweeters were doing what they thought was right, and defended their company, but one of the most important traits of a community manager is the ability to expertly manage emotions… the consumer's and their own.
Thanks for the comment! I love that you're bringing that up. The JetBlue tweeters had to know Borowitz was trolling for an interaction he could milk. It would be like calling in a response on Howard Stern. Really? Do you want to seriously do that?
I'm not 100% sure they knew Borowitz's influence. However, I'm curious as to why they didn't just Google him. Taking him on like that was simply dumb.
1. How should a brand respond to a crisis? Do you think breaking with established brand voice is justified in certain cases?
They could have responded in the JetBlue voice with a couple of tweets to also indicate that they're not sanctioning flight attendants to quit so dramatically. ;) Basically, to take a term from drama, they could have make the same points “in character”. Their mistake was not doing that.
2. Should a community manager or channel manager be expected to have an intimate understanding of the brand before taking over the community reigns?
Absolutely. It's essential that I channel my clients' brands when I'm behind the scenes in any and all of their spaces.
3. Is there a right place for a brand to respond sternly to followers or commenters?
I think you have to be measured in your reply. That is IF you choose to reply at all. I do believe that, most of the time, feeding the trolls is bad. In this case, I don't think Borowitz is a troll. (Disclosure: I follow him and with any provocative news story, he's there to say something funny. Had they just looked at his stream they could have figured that much out.)
I think, if they would have responded with a sense of humor that also made it clear that they can't make light of what had happened, he still would have had a witty reply but they wouldn't have come off looking so bad.
The best way to control the trolls in other spaces is to think about it beforehand. That means thinking through possibilities and being ready for a crisis. For my clients, I put community standards on their respective pages. That way people joining know that you've set a tone and that you will enforce it, if necessary. On Twitter, you really don't have the room.
You have to be very conscious of the tone of your replies. That seems to be the essence of the mistake they made at Jet Blue.
Awesome answers, Regina. Your first point is probably accurate in that the JetBlue tweeters might have either focused on the tweet and overlooked Borowitz' name or didn't realize he had the power to turn it into something bigger.
But then again… in social media things go viral quickly… whether you're engaging a celebrity with 20,000+ followers or a mere mortal with 50 followers… it doesn't matter. Someone with less apparent influence could have caused a blow-up, too. It just might have taken longer to get traction. Community managers can't afford to use the excuse that they didn't realize someone had influence or that they would have behaved differently if it was Joe Schmoe who'd tweeted something controversial. The key is to stay in brand and these situations typically won't escalate.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response and taking the time to answer the questions. One thing we can all take from this is regardless of the influence of the people you engage, stay in brand! I love how you put it… “channel the brand.”
I didn't mean to say that Borowitz based just on who he is should have been treated with care. They should be handling everyone with care.
I think in the urgency of the situation they all forgot exactly what you said: stuff goes viral fast. JetBlue has a good track record, so I do think it was a flub on their parts. It's just that with someone notable things have a higher chance to go viral, fast. Things can also go viral with people who aren't noteworthy simply based on timing and who they're connected to.
With that said, time for me to go and channel the brands of my clients. Thanks for a great post!
Tsk-tsking a popular satirist: bad idea. Using Twitter @ reply: not a safety measure.
Another fun and pointed post, Michelle. Thanks for your original reporting and insights.
On brands in general: I think when a brand is genuine, impressive and dedicated to their customer experience, they can weather a perceived crack in voice – a misguided tweet – and even a thorny news story. When they are inauthentic to begin with, it’s over. Strong brands are real. One stressed-out employee (or two) making a bad snap decision won't hurt the “soul of the brand.” But if it shines light on a bigger internal issue, then the culture isn't matching up with the voice. And that's a whole other nest of wasps.
You're welcome, Regina. Thank so much for the response!
Stacey, strong brands CAN weather a crack in voice, but the risk is high in doing it.
People remember the negative… A brand break has so much more impact than 1,000 (or maybe even 10,000!) on-brand tweets. Because an on-brand tweet is the expected, it's the norm, it's sustaining. But a tweet that feels wrong (or is seriously off-brand) can send a shockwave.
I look at it like a restaurant that serves great food for years, and then one day has a food poisoning epidemic. That single day is what everyone remembers. It's burned into the mind because the positive days of service blended into each other. The food poisoning day is an aberration, but it's now a permanent part of the essence and history of the restaurant. It will take a long time and a lot of positive experiences to counteract that one misstep. And it's always in the back of the mind of the consumer. That's just how a brand works.
You're right… a little “mistweet” may not cause a brand collapse, but it's a good idea for companies to take social media seriously and not look at it like a playground or “we're not doing brain surgery.” Every interaction counts.
Thanks for bringing up an interesting point!
Yes, I'm seeing your point. The level of infraction is the key. An individual temper flaring on a corporate Twitter is a big fumble for the brand (and, in this particular case, it's not like Andy Borowitz needs to add a #BaDumTsh to his tweets: admonishing the funny looked uppity – so off-brand). And this is what companies and institutions struggle with – and small brands can get paralyzed by: is one person actually the “voice of” a brand? Can a “mistweet” take us down? It surely can, but it especially can if you are a flimsy brand with a so-so culture. For JB, one bitter-tweet isn't social media botulism. But, you're right: it's all about the consumer's gut – and what sticks. Michelle, the way you write about these topics with good humor, but serious intent and advice, always helps me to reflect on them better. So thanks.
Thanks for following up, Stacey… you hit it right on the nail. The tweets came across as “uppity.” Definitely not JetBlue's brand.
And you point out something else really important… one person (or a team of people) can become the voice of the brand. This is not something we brand strategists like to hear necessarily, because it means the slightest infraction can have big consequences. My belief is that if management makes good decisions, they'll have people in place who really understand the brand, who get the social media space, and who value the role of marketing in building a brand.
I just get concerned when we see poor decisions being made. Not that JetBlue doesn't have sophisticated marketers behind-the-scenes on the Twitter account. This situation just shows how delicate the role is.
You know, to be honest it probably might have been easier to just ignore it.
Clearly the satirist is trying to take advantage of the situation. If it's off message, responding only validates it. Let it go out into the void…
just walk away. =)
Look at the time on the 1st and 2nd tweets. Only 13 minutes between the initial Borowitz tweet and the JB response.
No one HAS to respond that quickly to something like this. Even if they didn’t know who Borowitz was, and even if he didn’t have the reach he has, his tweet should have been their trigger to huddle internally and say (as if this were any surprise at all), “People are going to make fun of us in social media. Do we respond? If so, how?”
On question #3, I don’t think sternness should be the tone in any response. Professional, yes. Meeting guidelines for potential legal action, yes. But that type of response can be framed in a tone that respects the followers/customers you’ve worked so hard to get in the first place and doesn’t provide more fuel for the flames.
Great topic. I’m sharing internally to continue our discussion about what voice we have in our accounts and how to maintain consistency.