How NOT to tweet during a crisis - 5 lessons we can learn from BP

So, BP has appointed a new Chief Executive, and in what was probably the best PR move they've made since the whole Gulf of Mexico oil leak disaster began, he's from Mississippi. Robert (Bob) Dudley certainly has a mess to clean up, and not just in the literal sense.   My view on BP's handling of this crisis in public relations terms is that it has been a disaster of similar proportions to the leak itself.  Although the handling of the issue by BP's communications team has been fatally flawed across the board, I'd like to focus here on their response on Twitter.

Not only were they parodied to the n'th degree by the spoof @BPGlobalPR Twitter account which quickly gained a huge online following , but their reaction to the whole episode was a combination of denial, whinging and ridiculously incomprehensible tweeting in response.  BP seems to have completely misunderstood not just the power of social media, but also the tone of it.

As an educator I love a good mnemonic.  So here are my 5 Hs of crisis management on Twitter (and how BP got them so wrong):


1. Honesty
Pretending that everything is ok when it's not will not win you any friends on Twitter.  Implying that things are moving quickly towards a solution has, in my view, been one of the worst failings of BP's Twitter communications.  Be honest, be open, be upfront and say sorry.  People will respect you all the more.

2. Humanity
Tweet like you're a human being (you are a human being aren't you?). BP's jargon filled 'infotweets' full of incomprehensible 'war on the leak' style language are not in the least engaging.  If you want people to be interested in your tweets it stands to reason that you have to make them interesting, and understandable, and appealing to the humans who will be reading them...

3. Humility
 Don't patronise us please...we're not fooled by the jargon and the 'we know what we're doing' speak; and don't throw your weight around just because you're a large blue-chip with deep pockets.  Trying to get the people at Twitter to disable the spoof @BPGlobalPR account was another nail in BP's coffin, making them appear petulant and too big for their corporate boots.  Respect the intelligence of your readers and try not to keep your corporate ego out of it...


4. Haste
Being quick off the mark is one of the key skills communications professionals need.  If you're not there right at the beginning, establishing your message as the issue emerges, you have little chance of clawing it back.  BP missed the boat on that front and they have been playing catch up ever since.  Be alert, as soon as a potential issue arises, set the agenda.

5. Help
Make sure you respond to replies and messages you get.  Give honest answers and show you care.  You're never too big to care about an individual, and by engaging in a dialogue with those in your online community you build trust and empathy.  Respond to everyone, say thank you, be kind.  It works..

In my view BP have failed, above all, to capture the public mood throughout this crisis, and failed to face the problem head-on.   What do you think? Have they done a good job?  What could they have done differently?  Does it matter?

Facebook's opengraph - should we be afraid of the new digital monopolies?

Watching Mark Zuckerberg deliver the keynote speech at last week's F8 Conference was an uncomfortable experience.  Not least because my innate British sense of embarrassment found the whole 'cool geek' thing cringeworthy in the extreme.  The high-five 'tag-team' handovers were particularly disturbing and self conscious...

Presentation aside, however, this was an extremely important speech.  The man who has 400million Facebook users and their data in the palm of his hand is ambitious.  He has a plan to weave Facebook so tightly into every aspect of our web experience that it becomes impossible to challenge its market position.  We are entering the age of the digital monopoly - Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter are becoming ever more dominant forces in their fields pushing other services aside as they grow ubiquitous - and hence essential.  Is it wrong that such firms should be able to erect ever higher barriers to entry in their industries?  Should access to (and control of) the personal data of so many be trusted to commercial organisations?  Am I being paranoid?

As individuals we give information about the things that make us who we are, freely, in exchange for the ability to participate in the conversation, the privilege of connecting with 'the network' the sense of belonging.  But are we always fully aware of the implications of evealing so much of ourselves to the digital world?

Over the coming weeks and months you will begin to see 'like' buttons appear on all manner of web sites. You will also see your friends faces appearing on these web pages.  What facebook's opengraph means is that whenever a friend of yours clicks a 'like' button on a web site that has included the (very simple, very developer-friendly) piece of code that Facebook provides - you will see their face on the web pages they like.  Equally, if you click 'like' on a page your profile picture will appear.  This data about who and what you like will be public and available.  So should you be worried?

You do, of course, have the option not to participate, but the very simplicity of the the system and the sense that 'everybody's doing it so it must be ok' is likely to encourage many Facebook users to simply see it as an extension of their facebook profile.

I predict a swift and wide-reaching uptake of the opengraph.  Why?  Because Facebook have certainly got one thing right - they've made it easy  for us to participate.  Quick and simple to use, the like button doesn't interfere with our browsing experience and it plays upon our eagerness to define ourselves within an online community by our preferences.  Plus it's oh so simple for even the novice web page creator to apply - for those marketers amongst you,  that's a tick for both pull and push strategies...

Great work Facebook - as a marketer I think you've got a winning strategy.  As a human being and socialweb user, however, I admit I'm concerned.  My fear of having my real identity replaced by an online construct may seem far fetched - and I have to admit that this has been fuelled by reading Jaron Larnier's You are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, a frightening treatise on the erosion of humanity through increasingly restrictive technology.

The bottom line?  I don't know what the future holds but from here it looks as though the online environment will be dominated by a few California corporations and the group of extraordinarily intelligent (and predominantly white male) executives who run them.  Are these our elected leaders? Are these the right people to shape human society in the 21st Century? Has the world even noticed the sheer weight of power we have gifted them? I fear not.

My advice to you?  Think it through before hitting the  'like' button...

Watch Mark Zuckerberg's Keynote here:   http://apps.facebook.com/feightlive/

Clarity, consistency and congruence - the cornerstones of a strong brand identity

I've just been taking a look at Brand New's Best and Worst Identities of 2009 - a round-up of some of the highs and lows of brand identity updates and developments over the past year.  There really are some shockingly bad examples of logo design in there, and some greats, but what makes a 'good' or 'bad' logo?  And, why on earth would a major company like AOL (Brand New's somewhat controversial choice for number 1) spend a fortune changing all of their materials, signage etc when they had a globally recognised logo already?

Brand identity is one of those tricky aspects of marketing that it's always difficult to pin down.  Just like advertising it's hard to measure the impact or value of a brand or logo. Many have tried, and there are plenty of complex models out there for valuing a brand, but these methods are still based on an element of conjecture.  So what does this mean for the smaller organisation trying to establish itself and gain recognition for its brands?

Well, in my view, there are three key aspects to successful branding:  Clarity, Consistency and Congruence.

Clarity - Ensuring your customers can clearly identify you and your brands.  you should be clear about how your different brands fit together and who they are aimed at.  Your visual identity should be unique and recogniseable.
Consistency - All your communications should use your identity in familiar and consistent ways.  Colours, fonts, layouts, furniture, uniforms, sounds, language and anything else that forms the impression your customers get of your company are included here.  Making sure everyone in your organisation is involved in this is vital.
Congruence - This is the key thing to get into place before tackling either of the above.  You need to look at your organisation and decide what makes it special - think of the words you'd like to hear your customers say when describing you, and use these as the basis of your brand personality.  Does the identity you are currently presenting match up to this?  If not you have work to do. 

Sounds simple doesn't it - well in some ways it is - but the really important thing is making sure you get the groundwork right, and for that you may need a bit of professional help from marketers and designers.  Find yourself some good people to work with and you'll reap the rewards in terms of happier, more loyal customers...

M&S, Chocolate knickers, and the UK's 'Christmas Culture'

It seems M&S resorted to a good old bit of British sleaze to add the wow-factor to their Christmas ad campaign this year.  Philip Glenister's demand to see 'that girl prancing around in her knickers' was designed to appeal to the nostalgic, middle-aged male buyer of inappropriate underwear for 'the mrs', but caused a sexism row that resulted in an investigation by the Advertising Standards Agency.  The ad was cleared, but what was the thinking behind this risky strategy for the usually uber-conservative M&S?

The casting of Glenister was, of course, an inspired choice.  His character from Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes reminding us how different life was in the 70s and 80s.  Benny Hill...Carry on films...if it was alright back then, why isn't it alright now?  In my view this is the key to the ad's success - it hits exactly the right note with many of M&S's customers.  The sad thing is that it also highlights just how entrenched our gender stereotypes are - particularly when placed in the context of 'Christmas in Britain'.

Ok, lets break this down a little and take a look at some of the iconic figures of the UK's 'Christmas Culture'.

#1 The incompetent male

We're bombarded with ads at this time of year aimed at men who are portrayed is incapable of buying a thoughtful gift for their partners.  We're all still buying into the stereotype that every man's brain turns to jelly when it comes to gift buying - and how wonderfully comforting and convenient this must be for men.  The pressure is off - you're allowed to rush out to the nearest service station on Christmas Eve and buy your wife a box of Roses because that's all that's expected of you.  The bar is set so low, that Thorntons is considered a result.   If anything this idea is as sexist as the portrayal of the 'prancing' model - how patronising to the many men who do put thought and effort into buying gifts?

#2 The time-starved mum

Another key figure in our Christmas panto is the downtrodden Mum.  She has so much to do in the run up to Christmas that she hasn't a moment to herself.  The most important thing she has to do (of course) is shop. Shop for Christmas dinner, shop for gifts, shop for parties, shop, shop and shop some more.  The time-starved mum is another cultural creation whipped up by advertisers to keep women buying until their credit cards can take no more.

and finally..

#3 The Christmas Fairy

Not only do us girls have to rush around buying food and gifts, but we also have to be the Christmas fairy.  Hair, nails and looking cute in cashmere scarves and furry boots.  We have to be airbrushed Twiggy or perfect Mylene, or look like Noemie Lenoir in our knickers.  Well that's a tall order...but who knows...if we shop at M&S that Christmas magic might just happen...

We're all as guilty as each other of buying into these myths, and who can blame M&S for cashing in?  My personal reaction to the ads was mild disgust, but I'm (hopefully) not their target so that's of no consequence. It was a risk, but a calculated one.  Well done M&S and well done Stuart Rose for going out with, if not a bang, a bit of fizz...

Watch the ad

The Joy of...BMW?

BMW's latest campaign by agency Dare is predicated on the idea that you buy a BMW for the 'joy' of it...hmm... is it me or does this just seem...well...wrong?

Joy in a Jar

The whole concept that 'joy' is at the heart of any decision to buy a BMW seems to jar with their long held positioning based on status and quality.  I know the campaign was originally commissioned for the launch of their new improved Z4 (which incidentally does look so much better than its Batmobile predecessor), but the extension to the whole product range just simply doesn't ring true for me.

Keeping up with the Joneses

People don't buy a BMW for the fun of it.  If they want fun they buy a Mini (which begs the question of whether BMW just applied the campaign to the wrong part of the company..?)  The truth is, people buy a BMW to impress other people.  You may argue; but in your heart of hearts BMW driver, you know it's true.

So why do it? 

Trying to reposition a major brand in one of the worst slumps the car industry has ever seen is a brave move, but perhaps it's seen as a necessity.  Maybe the idea is that we all need cheering up because of the recession, -so buying a BMW is a treat that will make us feel better. The danger here is that you end up with an extremely confused brand proposition that doesn't actually meet the needs of any of your customer groups.  Showing a picture of old beamers at an owner's rally just doesn't have the same charm as it would if they had all been owners of a Ford Capri, and is likely to call in to question the exclusivity that's been a part of the BMW brand architecture for decades.

C'mon - buy a Beamer, it's fun!

BMW seem to have chosen a positioning somewhere between the cheaper brands that offer 'fun' (e.g. Mazda's 'zoom zoom', Vauxhall Corsa's 'C'mon'), and the mid life crisis cars (e.g. Porsche), but who is their customer? What does the joyful BMW driver look like? And can they maintain their price premium in this market space?  Who knows, but sometimes the boldest moves can be the most successful.  You never know, next week when the economy has recovered (!) we might all be going out and buying BMWs in crazy colours for the sheer joy of it...

"Yes Pecan!" The Obama Brandwagon Gathers Pace

With this week's inauguration stirring Obamania to new heights the marketers are wasting no time in aligning their brands to the new president's as yet untarnished image. From ice cream to Ikea furniture, Obama-themed campaigns are springing up all over the US and beyond.

So, is this a sound strategy? What are the potential risks and rewards for those brands aligning themselves with the new administration? And what lessons can we learn from history?

As Obama himself says, there are tough times ahead. What happens if the shine wears off the presidency and a backlash comes. What then for those brands firmly linked to Obama? Back in 1997 plenty of brands picked up on the mood of public optimism that came with the New Labour government's rise to power, but soon jumped ship when the backlash started - but was there any damage done? Hard to say, but for musicians (e.g. Oasis) and public figures who were staunch supporters of Blair, there was undoubtedly a hangover in terms of their public image.

However, right now it looks as though it's a risk worth taking, especially in FMCG markets where campaign turnover is fast and brands are struggling to maintain revenues. However, there is a risk of saturation and those brands who are quickest off the mark and most creative will undoubtedly reap the greatest rewards.

Also important is the need for relevance and a real sense that the campaign and brand values reflect those of the administration and the mood of the nation. Reported in The Guardian yesterday, the chairman of M&C Saatchi Worldwide, Moray McLennan gave this caution:"When it is done with intelligence and wit, then people can like it. But if there is no particular reason for a brand to be connected to Obama, then people will see through that, and superficial marketing strategies don't work. They can backfire."

So what are the keys to a successful Obama campaign?

• Speed - you need to be the fastest off the block in your sector...if you're seen to be bandwagoning the bandwagon this could do more harm than good. In fact, you're probably already a bit late, but never mind there are still probably some gains to be had.
• Creative - your creative needs to be spot on to avoid over-politicising your message. Partisan messages won't work, tap into the public mood instead. Humour will work.
• Make it worthy - linking your brand to the public mood but also showing a contribution to the cause is a winner (see 'The best of the campaigns' below).
• Beware the backlash - make sure you are not relying on this as a long term campaign plan. The public mood could shift and you need to be ready to move on - again, linking to the mood instead of the man is a better bet here.
  

The best of the campaigns:
Ben & Jerry's have taken all of the elements above in their latest campaign which kicked off with a naming competition on 'Digg' which resulted in the development of their 'Yes Pecan' ice cream (above) - a short term promotion from which donations will be made to an Obama cause. This integrated campaign has all the ingredients of a successful Obama campaign, and poses the minimum long term risk to the brand.

:~

A Cratchit Christmas?

Has the economic downturn impacted your plans for Christmas yet? It seems we're all tightening our belts and battening down the hatches for a Christmas of Dickensian squallor following years of excess consumption fuelled by endless Nigella cookbooks and allstar M&S ads.

I'm all for the paring down of Christmas to something more meaningful and familial, reminiscent of Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim and the rest of the family - poor but happy. But what does it mean for us marketers? In a world that has relied on bigger, better, and more not least in terms of the temptations presented by advertisers, this means a serious change of tactics.

Value has replaced luxury as the key word in this year's campaign briefs, and the agencies are having to seriously rethink the some of the sure-fire routes to success that have been developed over the past ten years. Indeed, we're seeing a return to the type of benefits-led, upfront, price-led advertising we might have last seen decades ago. It seems everything has been pared back - but this doesn't give an excuse not to be creative. The DFS approach to discounting just isn't good enough for those brands attempting to move into value territory for the first time. I've been racking my brains to think of anyone who has done 'value' well this year...I'm yet to come up with a single, memorable campaign. Answers on a postcard please...