Any social media manager or marketer will tell you that part of the position is to expect the unexpected, including a worst case scenario – a social media PR crisis that jeopardizes the integrity of a client.
There are a number of things to put in place as a safety net:
- A cohesive social media and online communication strategy that has been reviewed by upper management
- Online reputation monitoring tools and alerts
- A customer service response policy
- A liability statement in line with legislation
- An understanding of privacy rights in social media, and many more specifics.
But nothing really prepares you to make those decisions when the conflict arises. In my case, the statement that started everything was factual and well-supported.
Without going into too much detail, one tweet shared the findings of a recent report by a respected international health organization on the topic of smoking – a divisive issue, at least in the United States. However, the statement was met with opposition from an “e-cig” advocacy group who refuted the statement, made false claims and maliciously aligned the organization. All in the public sphere – Twitter.
So, what’s a Social Media Manager to do?
Well, I could have engaged in a debate with these users, pointed out why they were misled, and directed them to some authoritative articles and sources. I could have researched them (which I did), only to blow the cover on their agenda and financial backing.
I could go on the defensive or apologize and hope to smooth things over. I ultimately decided, in this case, that my best bet was to disengage completely because this group would not be convinced otherwise due to the political nature of the topic. And in the end, engaging would do more harm than good for our client.
Although I know this was the right decision for this particular client (further confirmed when that advocacy group joined other social networks solely to cause similar trouble), I still feel conflicted. After all, the things I value most about social media – immediacy, shared knowledge, public debate, free speech, transparency, and virtual networking – all seemed less important than compromising the reputation of a harmless organization.
If you are faced with this decision, whether in your personal life or business, my advice is to stop and step back for a moment. Take the time needed to review your options and think about the “big picture” consequences of your response on the organization you represent.
There will always be critics, but diffuse each situation in context, take what you’ve learned and apply it to the next, and keep putting in place measures that reduce the potential of future feuds.
