PR Campaigns – The blog

April 6, 2009

“Toxic Talk” in Social Media

Filed under: Fidelis — mlmyers @ 8:50 pm
Tags: , , ,

While surfing around the blogosphere I came across a post by Crisisblogger Gerald Baron  about “toxic talk” in social media and whether its effects should be taken as seriously as they have in the past. The example brought to light was how reputation management dealt with the backlash of a Motrin Ad that struck sour with mommy communities across the web. Did they respond well to the situation?

We’ve talked about this case in PR class a couple times, but the notion that Johnson & Johnson (the distributor of Motrin) may have overreacted hadn’t really crossed my mind. The post by Baron referenced an article in Advertising Age that suggested we shouldn’t be so worried about viral outrage online. It is clear to us that social media matters, so what is trying to be said here? Well…there is definite controversy.

The article on Advertising Age suggested:

  • Internet and conversations don’t directly impact everyone.
  • For those who aren’t exposed to the message, it is more likely the controversy will drive them to seek answers and go check out what the fuss is about. (which is positive)
  • The overall impression of a company won’t necessarily have dramatic altercations.

Crisis management is extremely important, but are cases where company’s overreact becoming more apparent?

Another blogger, Shel Holtz, pointed out that people don’t have to see the message to get caught up with the outrage. He also noted that small issues online can blow up into mainstream coverage like well-known newspaper publications leaving company reputations extremely vulnerable.

These two perspectives got me thinking. I have come to the conclusion that each situation should be evaluated individually to determine and develop proper methods of solving the problem. Any thoughts on what may be a better way of dealing with crisis in social media?


November 21, 2008

Twitter Idiots

Filed under: CAST Communication,Uncategorized — cclark2 @ 12:04 am
Tags: , , ,

I found this article, called Twitteriocy, relevant since we just talked about Motrin neglecting the power of Twitter (and all other types of social media) earlier this week.  Written by Jeremy Pepper,  he expresses his frustration with the fact that so many corporations are what he likes to call “Twitter idiots” and they need some serious Twitter 101.  I think he brings up some valid points that I would like to share with all you.  Most of these seem pretty obvious, however a lot of things often seem obvious yet people just do not get them (i.e. Motrin).

There are two main points that Jeremy stresses in this article.  The first being that Twitter is not for everyone.  You must first ask yourself, what are we trying to accomplish with Twitter?  However, he also points out that just because you choose not to be actively engaged in Twitter, you must still monitor the site. 

The second point he stresses is that if you do decide to move forward with a Twitter account, one must be active, engaging, personable and responsive.  If you are a corporation who creates a Twitter account and do not use it to its full potential then you are wasting your time and everyone else’s.  One must not only make posts, status updates, etc. but they must be engaging for their followers.  If you are not engaging your followers then there is no motivation for them to become active with the organization.  He points out that a Twitter account should be personable.  Not just another screen name.  He encourages organizations to include names, pictures and bios.  He emphasizes that social media is supposed to encourage conversations over the web, but how can one conversate with someone with no name or personality.

Really, I think his rules are the basics of PR.  Connect to your stakeholders, have the ability to tell a story, be responsive and communicate effectively.

Just curious, how often does everyone interact with Twitter?

Blog at