[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
To\u00a0our amusement (and to our dismay), there are countless examples of online reputation management fails. Have you ever witnessed a company make an online reputation management blunder\u00a0and cringe a little on their behalf? In life and in business, learning through others\u2019 mistakes provides valuable lessons we can use so as to not repeat the same mistakes. Well, there are always a few stubborn folks who will have to do it the hard way and repeat the same mistake to learn, but for the rest of us, however, learning from these mistakes is a much less expensive (or detrimental) way to know what not to do to in order to avoid the same fate. <\/span><\/p>\n Since the world of digital marketing and social media<\/a> are relatively new, and even newer to the business world, there have been a few brave souls who have tried something and failed. Where there is risk there is reward, right? But… also penalty (or shame, or embarrassment) if it doesn\u2019t work out. How do you know if something works when it is a new field such as the social media scene? It has very much been an area of trial and error. And, as habits and tastes change in the digital arena (as they previously have done through print and traditional media<\/a>), how can you keep interest piqued and stay ahead of the competition? Online was once a clean canvas with little clutter to captivate consumers\u2019 attention. Alas, now it is the place where the new marketing clutter lives and where companies battle it out for the attention of viewers. <\/span><\/p>\n Much like the pioneers and voyagers exploring new land (well, land that was new to them anyways) and territories, the history of digital media is being shaped as we (digital marketers) break new ground. It is a very exciting time for the marketing and media industries, as <\/span>digital media is replacing<\/span> forms of traditional media on many fronts and companies must be concerned about their online reputation<\/a> now more so than ever or suffer the consequences. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Lessons have more meaning with examples. So, we have \u201cscraped\u201d (get it? Internet joke. Okay, okay\u2014scoured and surfed) for the very best examples of companies that have been made famous for their online reputation management fails that provide us all some teaching moments (or at least, moments that thoroughly entertain us). There have been so many of these fails, that this will likely become an ongoing segment so the entertainment, and.. ahem.. of course learnings, can continue. Knowing what not to do in the world of online reputation management <\/a>and what a company should do to recover after an online reputation management snafu is an essential part of good customer service.<\/span><\/p>\n While a few companies on this list made some avoidable mistakes, we thank them nonetheless, so other companies now know to be more careful. This list is not in any particular order, however, we\u2019d like to hear your opinions of the \u201corder of fail.\u201d Seriously, we\u2019d love to hear how each fail ranks with you! Also, we shed light on some lessons learned and recommendations, because the point of this post is to be educational, right? We\u2019d also love to hear how other digital agents and experts would handle these situations, or if you feel that the company did the right thing. Let\u2019s hear it folks!<\/span><\/p>\n On November of 2013, JPMorgan Chase attempted to open up a Twitter Q&A with top executive Jimmy Lee to improve public relations<\/a> amidst a series of events that had the company\u2019s reputation less than sparkling. While questions were slow to start, JPMorgan Chase got more than they bargained for when they were asked questions regarding their recent legal problems (their fine from the financial crisis), as well as varying questions about their corporate social responsibility practices… as well as a barrage of insults. While there was a high number of responses, over 66% of the 80,000 tweets sent with the #AskJPM hashtag were negative (<\/span>dailymail<\/span><\/a>). Ouch. JPMorgan Chase cancelled the Q&A as a result and openly tweeted that the event was a bad idea. <\/span><\/p>\n Quadruple\u00a0facepalm<\/span><\/p>\n Check yourself before you wreck yourself. While the idea of holding a Q&A shows an openness and effort towards transparency by the company, the company was not in a favorable position in terms of public opinion to open the floodgates for an open forum. Any PR expert knows not to put a politician or company head in front of the press without a plan (or plan b), and when facing a lot of negative questions, the safe play is to say \u201cno comment.\u201d The online arena is no different in PR, and the online reputation management lesson learned was that if doing a public Q&A session, make sure you know what the current public sentiment is about your company and how your company plans to handle the possibility of things going south.<\/span><\/p>\n JPMorgan Chase also learned, that while in person the number of questions can be somewhat controlled, \u00a0hundreds or thousands of people can submit their questions at the same time online (and they did in this instance). This also proved a very valuable lesson to know the current events and tastes of the public (and respect both) before going online (and opening your company\u2019s reputation to the world stage). In this situation, a hybrid approach of more traditional PR first mixed in with strategic online reputation management practices would\u2019ve worked better.<\/span><\/p>\n In October of 2012 during the presidential debate, KitchenAid USA\u2019s Twitter account caught some fire as an offensive tweet about President Obama\u2019s grandmother was posted on their Twitter account rather than the personal Twitter account of the staff member writing it. The offensive tweet was quickly deleted (not quickly enough\u2014as there was enough time for screenshots and offense to be taken) and several apology tweets were posted by their head of branding. The mistake was addressed quickly with some lashback from users saying they would no longer support the brand as their appliance provider of choice. <\/span><\/p>\n One\u00a0and a half facepalms<\/span><\/p>\n The damage here was mitigated due to the quick reaction by KitchenAid, and thus the rate of failure is lessened. Nevertheless, it serves as a great lesson of what happens when companies act quickly, apologize and take responsibility. By claiming responsibility with her name and title, Cynthia Soledad gave a human element to the account and error. This means that when customers were tweeting, they were lashing back at a person and not a faceless company. Since we are all human and make mistakes, adding the human element makes the incident easier to forgive. She also apologized to everyone involved (including the President himself) and ensured Twitter users that action was taken by the company. This proves that it is possible to recover brand image through proper online reputation management practices. Taking quick steps to rectify a problem can help to lessen the extent of damage that can occur.<\/span><\/p>\n While seemingly innocent, the timing was unfortunate, as the tweet was posted the same day as the tragic shooting in a theatre in Aurora, Colorado. While it was likely a pre-scheduled tweet, Twitter users found it in poor taste considering the tragedy the nation was experiencing. The tweet was posted in the early morning and was deleted shortly after noon. Later in the day, the entire Twitter account was deleted. Media outlets alleged the NRA\u2019s PR contact claimed to not even know of the tweet\u2019s existence. <\/span><\/p>\n Triple facepalm<\/span><\/p>\n Online reputation management experts may argue to either delete the tweet or keep it posted and hold yourself accountable. While the first lesson here would be to stay attuned to what is going on in current events, the second lesson is to double check, or even triple check, (especially if the brand has any potential affiliation or controversy with the events) that the outgoing posts are appropriate in the context of these events. As we have learned from the successes of the Kitchenaid fail above, if it has already gone out, brands must act quickly! Respond quickly! The American Rifleman account could\u2019ve tweeted that they are sorry for the tweet given the context. <\/span><\/p>\n The American Rifleman account could have also been honest that this was a pre-scheduled tweet and at the time, they had no knowledge of the events that had unfolded. Additionally, they could \u00a0have sent their thoughts to all of the victims and families involved (you get where we\u2019re going here). <\/span>Not accepting responsibility nor apologizing for the misdeed only makes the company look like they do not know what is going on (so another lesson here is to share a <\/span>social media calendar<\/span><\/a> with all employees, or ones that should know what\u2019s on it). Deleting the account entirely doesn\u2019t make up for the online reputation management damage caused\u2014even though the tweet (and account) was deleted, there are still screenshots of it floating around, and many eyes have already seen it (and reacted). <\/span><\/p>\n On February of 2013, American Airlines sent an automatic reply tweet to a disgruntled customer. The trouble here is that American Airlines responded with a \u201cthank you for your support\u201d message rather than offering an apology, only adding insult to injury and making it painfully obvious the company uses automated tweets.<\/span><\/p>\n Extreme facepalm<\/span><\/p>\n While it is good to respond to customers\u2014especially angry customers\u2014automating responses is not the way to go. As this online reputation management case of fail shows, the company looks foolish and the customer is angry, for all of the internet world to see. If a business wouldn\u2019t automate the customer service experience in person, why would they do so online? This only fuels consumer rage and the opportunity for <\/span>bad word of mouth<\/span><\/a> to spread. <\/span>Power has shifted to consumers<\/span><\/a> now, and companies must do everything they can to win their consumers back (or at least not enrage them to speak out online for the world to see). <\/span><\/p>\n On March 23 2016, Microsoft Unveiled Tay, the Twitter bot that Microsoft described as an experiment to understand conversation. Apparently, the more that Tay chats, the smarter it gets as it learns to engage people through conversation. Unfortunately, it took less than 24 hours for things to, as Ron Burgundy would say, \u201cescalate quickly.\u201d Tay started out as pretty innocent and was corrupted very quickly. While many tweets were pushed out by Tay, only the worst were heavily circulated. Whether Tay was repeating phrases or was unprompted from users, Tay tweeted some very, very uncool things. Like an 80s movie with AI and robots getting corrupted, Tay only fuels the stereotype that technology can take a turn for the worst. As a result, Microsoft started deleting some of Tay\u2019s offensive tweets the next day, officially apologized on their blog, and suspended the project.<\/span><\/p>\n Two\u00a0facepalms for humanity, two\u00a0for AI<\/span><\/p>\n Did Microsoft not plan for this to happen or have a safeguard in place? Before releasing something, you hope that Microsoft would\u2019ve tested Tay for corruption and negativity (to put it gently). Microsoft may have let Tay go for a little long before suspending it, but the fact that the company reacted fairly quickly, apologized and made clear the result of the offense helped calm down the public. The disappointment for those who can\u2019t wait for the progress of robots and AI continues. <\/span><\/p>\n Back in early 2010, Greenpeace started a web video campaign aimed at Nestle. Greenpeace supporters (who were encouraged by Greenpeace) changed their profile pics to anti-Nestle slogans. Users were also writing on Nestle\u2019s Facebook fan page. Nestle wrote to users asking them to not use any version of their logo (due to copyright infringement), otherwise their comments would be deleted. Comments made by the page administrator only poured more fuel on the online reputation management fail fire, and cue the angry online mob effect. The Nestle rep apologized for snapping back at fans, including the comment regarding deleting profile photos with the logo. <\/span><\/p>\n Epic facepalm\u00a0and a jaw drop<\/span><\/p>\n Do not fight with consumers, whether you personally believe you are right or not. People will get offended and everyone is entitled to their own feelings\u2026 arguing with people about their feelings, or telling them to do something when they are already mad at you, is not a good idea. As a child, did you ever try to tell your mom what to do after she got mad at you? Not a good idea. Never ends well. Here, Nestle should be on top of social media posts quickly and have had a plan of action for possible backlash (I bet Nestle has a plan of action just incase this sort of thing should ever happen again). When a mob ensues, it is best to be active and apologize before the mob gets more angry. You should always be authentic and make sure customers know they are being heard.<\/span><\/p>\n In February 2011 amidst the protests held in Cairo, Egypt, Kenneth Cole made light of the serious events taking place. This is what is referred to in the online reputation management community as hashtag jacking. This practice can be seen as offensive and in poor taste. This is especially so when a company jacks the hashtag of a serious event or cause in order to self promote. This hashtag jacking in particular was made famous from the fact that it angered people on an international scale. An apology tweet was issued, however, it was a semi apology and stated that they weren\u2019t trying to make light of the situation. Kenneth Cole later issued an official apology on his Facebook page and removed the tweet. <\/span><\/p>\n Triple\u00a0facepalm<\/span><\/p>\n Usually it is best to say to double check the context of a hashtag before using it. Unfortunately, the context was known here. Making light of events and hashtag jacking is not cool. Humor is hard for even comedians to master, and since everyone has a different sense of humor, it is best to approach it carefully. On that note, humor around a serious event is something that the pros, for the most part, even tread lightly on (unless it is what they are famous for). While comedians can bounce back from guffaws, it is harder for brands. Kenneth Cole was right to apologize, but half apologizing doesn\u2019t help rectify the situation. It is better to immediately claim full responsibility and apologize. <\/span><\/p>\n Speaking of hashtag jacking, In September of 2014, DiGiorno hashtag jacked #WhyIStayed. This hashtag was created in response to Janay Palmer, the then fiancee of Ray Rice.\u00a0She was\u00a0questioned as to why she would marry someone who knocked her unconscious. DiGiorno didn\u2019t look into the context of the post before tweeting with the hashtag about pizza. The tweet was deleted within minutes as it was\u00a0seen to be in poor taste. The brand apologized and admitted that they didn’t look before posting. The brand went so far as to writing a personalized apology to each Twitter user.<\/span><\/p>\n One giant\u00a0facepalm<\/span><\/p>\n While the company made an error by not checking what the tweet was about, this signifies how damaging hashtag jacking can be to a brand. The online reputation management recovery efforts here were effective, as the company accepted the blame and went so far as to tweet every single person that replied with a heartfelt apology. The company also acted quickly and swiftly and accepted full responsibility.<\/span><\/p>\n What\u2019s worse than hashtag jacking a serious cause or event? Creating a hashtag with meanings that conjure images of traumatic events. In 2015, Bud Light was under fire for creating the hashtag #Upforwhatever underneath the slogan \u201cthe perfect beer for removing \u201cno\u201d from your vocabulary for the night.\u201d The brand was accused of promoting date rape culture and an online uproar ensued. The company apologized on its website, and the company\u2019s vice president Alexander Lambrecht said that the slogan and hashtag would no longer be used in their campaign. The company admitted regret and that they would never condone such behavior. What makes this story worse is that the company was under fire for a St. Patrick\u2019s day tweet with the hashtag that implied it was okay to pinch people who weren\u2019t #UpForWhatever.<\/span><\/p>\n Eternal facepalms and multiple\u00a0head shakes<\/span><\/p>\n While it wasn\u2019t bad enough that the company was under fire for previously tweeting the hashtag on St. Patrick\u2019s day, the company went ahead with the campaign despite the previous uproar on Twitter. The company could\u2019ve consumer tested the hashtag before printing it on all of their beers (especially if not taken well before). When it comes to online reputation management recovery, the company did post an apology on their website and take accountability in a timely fashion. It\u2019s safe to say Bud Light indeed missed the mark on their messaging, unless that mark was trying to offend people.<\/span><\/p>\n On January 2015, a recruiting analyst for ESPN by the name of Gerry Hamilton attempted to post a tweet about football recruit Roquan Smith with a highlight video. Instead, Hamilton accidentally posted a link to a pornographic video to his 15,000 or so followers (<\/span>Daily Mail<\/span><\/a>). While the tweet was deleted within minutes, screenshots of it were already going around the internet. Another tweet was posted later, this time with the correct link. <\/span><\/p>\n Hamilton did not comment on the error, but to make matters worse, the adult video site reached out to Hamilton. It seems they could not resist poking fun at him for his online reputation management fail. Media outlets reported that ESPN was not available to comment about the situation and no public apology by Hamilton was reported either. While users tweeted their anger, it appears that no online reputation management action was taken, and it was a sweep it under the rug kind of approach. There was no evidence to suggest that\u00a0Hamilton was penalized for the error. Hamilton\u00a0has gained more followers since the ordeal, as he now has over 26,000 to date.<\/span><\/p>\n All the\u00a0facepalms<\/span><\/p>\nOnline Reputation Management\u2019s History: A Tale of Trial and Error<\/span><\/h2>\n
Online Reputation Management: Tales of Fails (in no particular rank of fail or facepalms)<\/h2>\n
\n1. JPMorgan\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: #AskJPM<\/span><\/h3>\n
JP Morgan\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
JPMorgan\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
JPMorgan\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By JPMorgan: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n2. KitchenAid\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: Personal Account Mix Up<\/span><\/h3>\n
KitchenAid\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
KitchenAid\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
KitchenAid\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By KitchenAid: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n3. NRA\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: Beware of Current Events<\/span><\/h3>\n
NRA\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
NRA\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
NRA\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By the NRA: <\/span><\/h4>\n
4. American Airlines\u2019 Online Reputation Management Fail: Automated Mishap<\/span><\/h3>\n
American Airlines\u2019 Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
American Airlines\u2019 Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
American Airlines\u2019 Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By American Airlines: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n5. Microsoft\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: Tay, Tay, Tay<\/span><\/h3>\n
Microsoft\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
Microsoft\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
Microsoft\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By Microsoft\u2019s and Tay<\/span><\/h4>\n
6. Nestle\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: Are You Talking to Me?<\/span><\/h3>\n
Nestle\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
Nestle\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
Nestle\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By Nestle:<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n7. Kenneth Cole\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: #Cairo<\/span><\/h3>\n
Kenneth Cole\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale:<\/span><\/h4>\n
Kenneth Cole\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
Kenneth Cole\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By Kenneth Cole:<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n8. DiGiorno\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: #WhyIStayed<\/span><\/h3>\n
DiGiorno\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale:<\/span><\/h4>\n
DiGiorno\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
DiGiorno\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By DiGiorno:<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n9. Bud Lights\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail: #UpForWhatever<\/span><\/h3>\n
Bud Light\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
Bud Light\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
Bud Light\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Online Reputation Management Lesson Brought to You By Bud Light:<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n10. ESPN Online Reputation Management Fail: The Case of the Unfortunate Link<\/span><\/h3>\n
ESPN Online Reputation Management Fail Tale: <\/span><\/h4>\n
ESPN\u2019s Online Reputation Management Fail Scale Level:<\/span><\/h4>\n
ESPN\u2019s Online Reputation Management Areas of Fail: <\/span><\/h4>\n
\n