Of the many marketing pitfalls faced by brands when they’re creating an online presence is the production of a personality. Like it or not, every brand’s digital marketing output has the added factor that anyone can – and will – contact them, expecting to directly talk to ‘the brand’.
This is where brand publishing, agile marketing and content marketing were all borne from, this need to produce a story of the company, explaining who they are, what they do and what they stand for in order to establish a brand personality.
This last one can cause a major issue for companies ranging from the small start up to the international conglomerates. Whether the company are responding to personal criticism, or find themselves in digital hot water, there’s no escaping a potential avalanche of publicity garnering controversy from one wrong tweet.
Over the past year there have been countless examples of brands getting caught in the online storm, or vaulting over their critics to reach an even wider audience. Once upon a time, no one expected a company to respond to current media events, and some still believe this to be true. However, the internet gives everyone a voice; when those voices demand a response a company may have no option other than to speak out.
Following from yesterday’s article about brand ethics, it got us to thinking about how a brand’s ethics are now not just reinforced by their actions, but by how they operate online.
#GamerGate: Adobe and Intel
For many readers, they may have heard of GamerGate as a current passing whisper by a news outlet. For others, the effects of this mass online movement have been industry shaking to both the video game developers and the gaming community. GamerGate is currently a firestorm of debate concerning videogame journalism, sexism and online terrorism.
Whilst the last one may seem extreme, you only need to see the treatment that actress and video game enthusiast Felicia Day has received, for simply voicing her concerns over the issue, to see how active this campaign is. To briefly summarise the contentious issue, members of the gaming community are accusing the gaming journalists and independent developers of becoming too intertwined, therefore resulting in a bias of coverage.
A particular area of harassment is with the perceived coverage given to female game designers and developers, a belief that some games have been given undue acclaim and positive publicity due to being developed by a woman rather than the merit of the game. This is a massive issue not only for individuals caught in the crossfire, but also companies.
Adobe’s Anti-Bully Mural Response to the controversy, courtesy of blogs.adobe.com
In particular, the latest casualties, for better or worse, have been the software developers Adobe, and hardware company Intel. Both brands, through software such as Adobe Flash and Intel’s core processors, are intimately involved in both the creation and widespread enjoyment of the video game industry. However, neither expected to receive quite as much criticism when they were brought into the GamerGate debate.
Both brand’s stories are similar; after receiving a hurricane of feedback from members of the GameGate community, they responded by removing their advertising from gaming community websites. For Adobe, this was from the website Gawker coinciding with a series of ill received tweets from staff member Sam Biddle about the GamerGate group. After requesting they be removed as a featured sponsor – which they have since claimed they never were – they opened the floodgates to a wave of criticism with accusations of caving in to bullying and sexist agendas. Intel faced the same backlash when emailing Gamasutra to remove advertising.
Whether this was a deliberate attempt to side with GamerGate or not, the damage to each company has been done. By doing either action, they have taken a stance that immediately alienates the other audience. Both companies have released their own apologies, but their brand images have certainly taken a hit from this.
The lesson to be learnt here is that when a company exists online, they’re open and accountable for any social action they take. This can lead to situations such as GamerGate, where tough public decisions need to be made. Whether this will affect company profits remains to be seen but there’s no denying the PR nightmare that will plague brand marketers sleep.
Facebook critics
Whilst responding to criticism, or engaging at all, can lead to some hot bother, this is not to say that all brand reaction to criticism is to be avoided. Here we have a famous success story, framed in the online marketing hall of fame as a prime example of a brand successfully responding to its critics. We’re talking, of course, about Bodyform’s advertising response.
The offending comment was admittedly clearly in jest, but the amount of attention it garnered since being posted has highlighted an issue within Bodyform’s marketing. Namely, that they were perceived to be lying through their branding and advertising. This was the standard advertising patter for a women’s sanitary product company; outdoor activities showing customers not being held back from their everyday life.
With gauntlet laid down, Bodyform had to respond, and what they did was one of the finest moves in online branding history. They released this video, featuring their CEO responding directly to the comment. Down to the detail of the blue dyed water, it is perfectly executed. With over 5 million hits on youtube, it reached not only it’s customer base, but managed to promote the Bodyform brand beyond this demographic.
Brand Controversy
Clearly, it’s easy for brands and companies to get drawn into all sorts of criticism whilst online. As customers and members of the public are given the ability to directly express their opinion, the expectations of company communication are following suit. The importance of online brand imaging has never been more important.
Whether the topic is political, commercial or less divisive, brands are expected to respond. We’ve only looked at two examples of how online branding can be used for and against companies caught under critical fire, but there’s plenty more. The failed #MyNYPD twitter campaign earlier this shows how important an online presence can be, with catastrophic events to those who misfire a social media piece.
Do you think a brand needs to become personal when online? Have you experienced any examples of brands responding to criticism online? Let us know in the comments below or get in touch on @OV_group
