Chapstick evidently didnt “get it,” and they’ve paid a huge price while taking a big hit to their brand. But the story serves as a great reminder for all business folks, albeit at Chapstick’s expense.
It all began when they started running an ill-conceived ad of an attractive woman losing her Chapstick behind the couch. The print ad was essentially a huge shot of her bent-over, skinny-jean-clad backend.
Regardless of whether you think the ad crossed beyond the line of good taste, or couldn’t care less one way or the other, the undeniable fact is that it caused a (negative) stir and consumers started saying so, posting negative feedback comments on the Chapstick Facebook fan page.
In this case it went viral in the worst sense — like its real world brethren, a contagion of negativity and dissent.
What happened next was downright shocking to anyone who works in social media: the folks at Chapstick started deleting the negative comments!
Presumably the folks managing the Facebook presence of a national mega-brand ought to know better! This breaks one of the cardinal rules of social media. It’s like censoring a newspaper and removing any articles critical of the government or a certain person or business, for example.
Social media is supposed to be about engaging your audience and interacting with them. This would have been a non-issue (and non-story) if they had merely responded to the negative posts with empathy and a promise to rethink their approach.
A simple “gee, we’re sorry you were offended. We certainly didn’t mean that. We were just trying to be funny. We’ll pass along your comments and see if the creative team can rethink their approach” would have not just quelled the negativity, but in fact would have been a major “win” for the brand. The folks at Chapstick would have demonstrated that they listen to their customers, and are responsive and approachable.
That sort of approach would have been exactly what social media is all about — interacting and engaging your audience and being responsive.
Instead, by trying to cover up the problem by deleting the negative posts, they just inflamed the community. Now even the people who didn’t care about the original ad were taking up arms. It wasn’t the ad that was the issue, it was the handling of the issue — the censoring of comments.
The story grew legs, so to speak. Facebook postings went thru the roof. The Twitterverse went viral with the story. And even worse for Chapstick — it crossed over into the mainstream media! It’s been a PR disaster.
Like Watergate, it was the cover-up that inflamed a citizenry.
Lest any reader get the wrong idea here, the takeaway from this is not to stay out of social media — do that at your own peril. As I always say: the conversation is going to go on with or without you. If you don’t participate then you have no hope of ever steering it or, in times of trouble, “setting the story straight.”
No, rather the issue here is how one handles its presence.
C’mon people, it’s not that hard. It’s like you were taught as a kid — honesty is always the best policy. If a bad situation arises, tackle it open and honestly, head on. Your customers will appreciate you for it.
That is the takeaway from this debacle.
