Social media has become a great platform for people to come together and organise to take on a cause. At any given time, there are several high-profile, politically charged, grassroots hashtag campaigns making headlines on social media.
While public figures such as politicians usually have to answer to these online constituents, what should a brand do when a faced with a similar online protest?
Making Headlines
Campaigners know that if their campaign goes viral on social media, they stand a good chance of getting the issue discussed in the mainstream media. For example, although the @nomorepage3 campaign hasn't resulted in The Sun banishing topless women from its third page, the campaign has hit the headlines and achieved massive amounts of support from the public and celebrities.
Driving Awareness
Media coverage, social sharing and online petitions drive awareness, helping campaigns gain high visibility; not only with members of the public who've yet to hear of the campaign, but also with the key stakeholders of the business under fire. (For example, when the News of the World's advertisers were targeted by campaigners in the wake of the phone hacking scandal back in 2011).
The Anti-Campaign
Brands need to consider each campaign on its own merits, and resist the immediate fight or flight reaction. What's the motivation behind the campaign? Do the campaigners have a point? When people put pressure on businesses not to host the 'pick up artist' Julien Blanc, they're protesting about the way he advocates treating women. Any business that decides to work with him risks alienating at least half of its clientele.
However, social media campaigners are rarely a unified group, even when they purport to be fighting for the same cause. The GamerGate movement has people calling for clarity in gaming journalism, saying that some journalists are too close to game publishers and developers when they should be unbiased. At the other side of the spectrum, the campaign is being used as an excuse by some people to post threatening and abusive messages online - mainly directed at women in the games industry.
The problem in a situation such as GamerGate, is that the mainstream media has taken up the negative side of the campaign, while some brands have capitulated under the weight of the campaigns protests. For example, Gawker, which is one of the sites coming under heavy attack from the campaign, has seen Intel, BMW and Adobe pull advertising because of pressure from the campaign group. But is pulling advertising the right thing to do in this instance? With public perception of this campaign being so negative, do these brands risk causing more reputational damage to themselves than if they'd ignored it?
What's a brand to do?
If the campaign is the result of a genuine mistake or misstep, take action to correct it. For example, clothing retailer Zara apologised and pulled a product from sale when people pointed out that a children's pyjama range resembled a concentration camp uniform.
Should the brand show that it's listening, or not respond at all? It's not true to say that brands don't do politics. Brands will get pulled in to politically charged discussions whether they want to or not. Silence can only work for so long, as people clamour for a response to their arguments. In this situation, it's always best to take the time to assess whether engaging with the campaign is wise, and if necessary, have a plan in place for what the response will be, and how it will be communicated.
Brands should ask themselves if they're willing to change anything to meet the campaign's demands. If not, then getting involved in a conversation will probably just frustrate both sides.
Either way, it's imperative that those on the front line of social media presences know what they can and cannot say in response to campaigners and others who inquire about the brand's stance.
Factual responses for 'anti-campaigns'. If the campaign has a strong negative reputation, and is an emotionally charged one, such as GamerGate, there's really no way for some brands to win. For example, a gaming brand may worry that by going against the campaign, it will anger its core audience, but by supporting it, it will alienate the audience where gaming is growing (according to the IAB, 52 per cent of gamers are women). For these brands, it would be more efficacious to remain neutral.
Stick to brand values. The best responses are inspired by a brand's own values. Brands that forget these can easily find themselves swayed this way and that by one campaign after the next.
Doing what's right. There are some campaigns that are driven by a toxic combination of outright hostility or fear, such as the anti-halal movement in Australia (which is targeting businesses for producing or selling halal products). Brands need to stick with what's legally and morally right, even if that means suffering a backlash from people who hold a passionate opinion about the issue.
Communicate with stakeholders. Brands need to maintain open lines of communication with employees, clients, advertisers and other stakeholders. As brands have seen in the past, a reputational crisis can easily start to affect sponsors, advertisers and other people and organisations associated with the brand.
Bank goodwill in the good times. Brands that bank goodwill during the good times will have a much easier time of it when things go wrong. There's a foundation of trust that the brand can get support from, and an understanding that the brand represents an ethical organisation that's caught up in a bad situation (whether of its own making or not). This can dampen down the immediate crisis, and contribute to a quicker resolution period.
Businesses make mistakes. People generally don't expect perfection, but they do expect some kind of stance, whether that's the brand stating its position or just telling people that it understands why they are passionate about a particular cause, and explaining its reasoning. Brands that do this will build up respect from customers that will serve them well in the long term.