Literally love this super-hot article from a great branding blog site I regularly follow for inspiration.
It reveals a highly demonstrative case of misuse of Social Media by companies that think of Facebook, Twitter and all other Social Media as of shopping windows for their products. Or advertising displays. Or simply places where you an get "free" contacts and spread some "word-of-mouth" for just nothing.
Now, look at the image below. It's the image that Chapstick, the leading American brand for lip balm and other cosmetic products, advertised just recently. Well, I find it's such a cool image: provocative, ironic, showing a young girl tilting off her sofa to try and get her chapstick. As I said: I find it just great: communicative, inspiring, allusive.
Obviously it did get to irritate some women, and, particularly, a blogger, who posted a comment to rise her complain. And that was the beginning of the storm: post got deleted, other comments followed and soon mounted into a super-big turmoil of hundreds of fans complaining about their comments being deleted.
Well: a great lesson. Social Media is a place for conversations. And conversations can be smooth or rough, but still conversations. I wonder whether Chapstick has learned the lesson...
Food for thought...Enjoy!
Over the past few days lip balm icon Chapstick’s Facebook page has been ground zero for social media controversy.
It all started when Chapstick posted a new ad on their Facebook page that featured a woman searching for a lost Chapstick container. The ad’s not-so-flattering depiction of the woman’s hind side inspired a feminist “Reel Girl” blogger to write up a scathing review of the ad.
When the blogger posted a link to the review on Chapstick’s Facebook page, the page’s moderators promptly removed it. This spurred many follow up posts inquiring about the deleted link. When these subsequent posts were also deleted…all hell broke loose.
As Chapstick fans began to notice the ongoing censorship negative comments began to poor in faster than Chapstick moderators could delete.
The most unfortunate part of the entire episode for Chapstick’s brand is that all the negative feedback could have quickly been avoided had Chapstick handled the initial negative posts better. Users were looking for an explanation. They were looking for a dialogue. Chapstick’s “delete first and answer questions later” response has led many fans to boycott the lip balm company.
Branding is all about the conversation. Most consumers understand that while they try so hard to be, businesses are not perfect and everyone makes mistakes. It’s the response to those mistakes define character, and in a business’ case, define brands.
Chapstick had the opportunity to admit their error, remove their offensive ad, and move forward. Chapstick could have invited their consumers in an allowed them to belong. Instead, they ignored the people who purchase their products.
Chapstick got people talking for all the wrong reasons, and now they are desperately trying to find a way to change the conversation.
Are you listening to the conversation online?
Yet another fashion blog