Social Media storm in a tea cup

Social media might be the latest fashion in communications strategy, but it doesn’t mean firms full understand how it affects them. There is a necessity for many firms entering the social media scene to evaluate some pretty core and fundamental cultural issues.

The problem is many social media projects are sold as the new must have by agencies or by internal PR functions keen to keep up with the Joneses. It is not normally looked at in greater detail.

While your consumer brand thrives on the boost given by a warm campaign based around giving out freebies, launching competitions and inviting photos, it sometimes hides problems that need to be addressed at planning stage.

Take a look at Twinings. Who could not like this warm and very British company, producing good quality tea and with a slick set of subtle adverts.

However, if you look at their own website there is a torrent of negative user generated comments pouring through, let alone their Facebook site. It seems a change to the blend has upset a large portion of their customer base that dislike the new blend brought in around June.

Looking around the social media sites and through their press release, there seems to be a key part of social media missing. There is nothing which engages with the customers whom find the new blend too lemony for their tastes. The closest to customer support seems to be talk of private correspondence confirming the change in product.

The Customer is Always Right

It might be an old adage, but the inaction is suprising for a brand with growing competition in the specialist tea market. Why would you buy an expensive blend you no longer like? Even if it leads others to experiment with other blends, it’ll lose customers as some will find that the supermarket own brand isn’t too bad.

There’s also a thought that a blend of Earl Grey available through the internet only or via specialist stores might actually retain loyalty. If its YOUR cuppa, then you’d be willing to pay a little more for the experience.

Brands are stronger than products



My other thought was the experience of Coca-Cola when they changed the formula of their drink.

Blind taste testing proved beyond doubt that a new formula was a preferred drink. So changing the
contents of a can should be an easy sell? Right?

We all know that wasn’t the case. The problem was that Coca-cola was the drink of choice for certain people. Changing the experience changed their relationship with the brand and made them sit up and think about why something seen as reliable and safe had changed.

I see the same issue here with Twinings. I’ve no idea which is the “better flavour”, but they’ve created an issue which could have been avoided. The person who buys a slightly different pack, is unsure about it, sits down and tastes the new blend will find their world has been changed a little. This makes them unsure about the world, the brand and the certainty the old blend gave them.

When I worked in radio, a change of DJ would cause a week of complaints, even if it was just for holiday cover. On the original DJs return, the same people would complain about the change.

Coca-Cola has learned from their experience. Have you ever wondered why they have so many diet colas? It’s not just to segment the market. They can launch the new TAB, or Zero cola whilst maintaining the original diet cola. Natural selection dictates whether the market fragments or replaces a moribund brand. Soap Powder companies have been doing it for years.

How could this have been avoided?

Good social media planning can avoid all the issues.

1.Is your organisation happy to be involved in an open, two way relationship with its customers. Not all firms are for reasons ranging from customer service strategy to resources available to quality of product to internal culture.

2.What social media will be entered into, who manages it and how.

3.What protocols do you have in place regarding topics, subjects, who should respond and when.

4.Putting in place a crisis management plan specifically for social media. Remember, silence is not an option and likely to be seen as an admission of guilt, even if you’re blameless.

5.What secondary channels can you use if their social media is flooded. Firms like Google use their blog to overcome torrents of feedback during outages. Traditional media is another useful channel despite obvious fears.

From the looks of it a big brand like Twinings haven’t grasped these five points. Deleting comments from your Facebook site and stoic silence is hardly a good strategy in the age of social media openness. It’s the second storm after an issue regarding the shifting of some operations to Poland and Twinings need to take a long hard look about how they react in future.

Just look at the problems caused to News of the World advertisers on social media. It doesn’t have to be an internal or controllable issue that causes a customer relations crisis.

The problem with good branding

Good branding is obvious and stands out in its environment to get your company’s messages out there in the open.

A well sited poster can direct those messages at thousands of people, creating an easily identifiable product or service.

Despite what people say, they do align themselves with brands even if it is an unconscious action. We all have our favourite snack or preferred clothes shop even if we don’t want their logos emblazoned across the backs.

But what happens when the branding is placed in the wrong environment? Or in the wrong context? How does that message appear?


During a short walk I carry out most days, I’m exposed to branding messages despite the journey taking me next to open fields. Whatever the intention, my personal reaction to the companies is negative.

I’m talking rubbish. The litter left at the side of the road and blown across open fields is something I’ve never been able to understand – far better to have a clean car than an unspoilt countryside?

It isn’t the firm’s fault that their logos are left as an eyesore, but they do have a responsibility. They also have an interest to ensure their brightly coloured logos don’t send the wrong message. It also says a lot about a company’s customers.

Creating Market segmentation through a litter survey


So just who are these litter louts? One technique is to look at trying to create a profile based on the information available. This is hardly a precise way of looking at things, but it does create interesting results.

So what did I find? Cigarette butts everywhere; left, right and centre. The brands are too indistinct to be noticed.


Discarded smoking packets were brand specific. Richmond, B&H and Lambert & Butler seemed to make up virtually all of the packets found. I could name a number of brands, but I didn’t see any of their packets.

The most noticeable was McDonalds. Cups, meal boxes and bags seemed to be everywhere. Interestingly, I didn’t notice any KFC litter despite having the same number of restaurants in the locality.

Snacks made up the majority of the litter. Coca-Cola, Tango, Fanta, Robinson’s flavoured water seem to be the drinks of choice with takeaway coffee cups also prevalent.

Walker’s crisps packets and multi-pack bag wrappers making up a sizeable portion of the snack rubbish. There was surprisingly few chocolate bar wrappers, and some litter from Jellybeans.
Larger cans made a few appearances through the undergrowth with Fosters seemingly the brand of choice.

From this we can create a profile of a thirst, larger drinking McDonald’s fan who likes Walkers crisps and smokes one of the two brands mentioned. You can imply age, sex and demography to a certain extent. The danger is to create a single profile, where there might be two or three.
One question I have is whether this profile could be replicated or whether it is particular to the route. Having lived in the countryside I’d suspect more the former.

Equally, although the litter is everywhere, it’s not a huge amount suggesting that the problem is caused by relatively few individuals.

So what are the solutions?

Packaging is far from straightforward. It’s quite interesting to look at the McDonald’s coffee cup which is much less obvious than many other items of its packaging. Its muted green still does stand out in the correct environment, but is a little more hidden in the long grass. Clever design can be invaluable.


Degradability is a red herring. Products can take around a year to degrade even if it’s degradable. It can help, but is far from being an answer. Litter bins? I doubt they’d help. Some research shows a badly placed bin can create litter problems by attracting too much rubbish for the level of collection available.

Education is the best solution. I remember my father challenged some youths dropping litter, and they politely suggested it was keeping someone in a job. Litter pickers don’t work in the countryside and even community service projects cover an insignificant portion of our roads and pathways.

It is somehow easier to drop, even when it’s not, because it’s ingrained. I’ve not really seen any campaign by leading companies to tackle the issue or fund it. Possibly they think the halo effect of litter is too bad to go near in case it admits liability.

The alternative is to shame the companies into helping educate the public, particularly the young, through surveying the brands that leave the litter. The survey could even be linked to school projects clearing an area near them.

Or even better, could the local McDonalds create this sort of campaign to reduce their share of the litter and educate the kids at the same time.

Too often litter education is untargeted and by looking at the rubbish dropped we can start to identify where to target education. Equally punitive measures like a rubbish tax affects all companies. The most interesting thing in my small scale survey was the brand specific nature of the rubbish.

And finally, if it is you who has dropped the litter, carry it a little bit further and drop it in a bin.

Why injunctions are an outdated solution

I doubt many people in the country are really that interested in the love life of Ryan Giggs particularly if you consider the the personal issues faced by many of his team mates and peers in the premier league.


The Daily Mash parodied the fact that it is hardly an earth shattering news story.

Yet the story has been played out for weeks. Even before the discussion about injunctions rose, the rumour mill had been churning out suggestions over the Manchester United player.

Like cats, curiosity is something most people have as a nagging urge in the back of their mind. Who was it and why keep it secret? Why an injunction? It’s this that has driven the media frenzy. My cat certainly hates a closed door.

The world has been changing subtly over the last ten or so years. With the information age has come a democratisation of facts, statistics and documentation. With the world opening up, the old tried and trusted tactics of the crisis manager have changed.

Many companies have learnt that clamming up is costly and it’s not the first time that an injunction or super injunction has caused this type of furore. A similar thing happened with Trafigura, one of the world’s biggest oil traders who put an injunction in place over claims made by The Guardian that waterways were being polluted in the Ivory Coast.

The barring of comment brought anger, recrimination and a serious vault face by Trafigura and their law firm Carter Ruck. This damage of reputation was worse than the investigation itself. Not only was there a slur on their names, but there was a concerted effort to cover it up.

That’s basically what an injunction is and an individual or organisation has to think really hard about why they are using an injunction and what it will achieve. In a blackmail case it would be justified, particularly if someone was being set up. Equally there might be genuine privacy issues at heart.

Playing away, in my mind, isn’t a privacy issue. It is a choice that individuals have made and normally the actions caused are made in public buildings like hotels rather than in the home. Equally, if you do something wrong, you face the prospect of being found out. Trying to obscure and hide your identity from your wife and children is a choice unavailable to most and hardly a just cause.

The easiest way to prevent a crisis situation is not to get yourself buried in one voluntarily. If a situation arises, you have two options. Silence or honesty.
In the older days it was easier to assess the situation. Who knew what, what evidence there is and how would a situation arise? A journalist asking uncomfortable questions would be trying to find a fact he can’t prove by bluffing and bravado. Ignoring journalists and carrying on regardless used to be the best way.

Nowadays with more information, it is easier to request information and search documents which may or not prove guilt. It is far more practicable to be honest and open. It not only makes businesses think more about the decisions they make but it also impacts on their social responsibilities in the community.

Corporate Social Responsibility has been seen as a smoke screen for business decisions. BP still has the oil tankers which claim to be carbon neutral. But true Corporate Social Responsibility goes to the heart of a business, its values and its brand. Footballers, too, have a brand image linked to countless sponsors desperate for their endorsement. Brand Giggs is/was a wholesome family man, active with charities and a vital part of a big team.

So he, and possibly his advisors, tried the closed door approach to crisis management to protect the reputation of the Giggs brand. At the point the information was to come out, Giggs instead should have taken a different course of action. He needed to tell those closest to him the situation and what was to happen. He needed to manage the information flow, possibly getting an “exclusive” with a tabloid. The reaction would be "oh dear, another footballer in trouble, now where’s the news."

Being honest, open and holding up your hands is more of a virtue than running for cover at the first sign of trouble. What has made it worse is the litigious second half of this situation – the legal disclosure request from Twitter and the potential contempt of court. Telling people who believe in free speech to shut up and stop mentioning his name isn’t going to do anything other than infuriate that group. It is against the public interest to prosecute en masse thousands of people for a widely circulated rumour.

There have been similar issues over graffiti before social media, proving knowledge outside court injunctions. If one person is selected, it is then seen as a malicious prosecution: “why only me?”. If the originator of the rumour is ever found, how can you prove their knowledge of the injunction and that they hadn’t found out another way. Looking at the twitter account mentioned in the media, it looks like a list of guesswork, parody and speculation rather than someone with any real knowledge.

Why the Liberal Democrats need to rebrand and communicate a new message

Communication should be at the heart of all politics. Communication isn’t a one way broadcast to the people. It’s a two way process where information flowing to the politicians should actually take precedent. They are the people’s representatives and are meant to represent their constituents.

At a local level, the Liberal Democrats have had a fine pedigree of taking on local issues, listening to the people and delivering a policy that won favour from the people. The local councillors probably paved the way for Lib Dem success at a general election level, particularly in by-elections.

It seems odd, then, that the party has been dogged by the national party and personality issues rather than the local fight on the doorsteps. In fact, it’s this variable message which has seen the party criticised over the years. The party is different in its grass roots policy making and it is this disconnection with the traditional Lib Dem members and the group of MPs that is making this worse.

In the weeks preceding the elections, the Lib Dem MPs were parading the party line as if there was no problem. People like Norman Baker and Sarah Tether were suggesting that the reports that grass roots supporters were unhappy with reforms to the NHS, tuition fees and the depth of cuts were untrue. Surely this tack was just sticking in the craw of potential voters and the results bear this out.

Norman Baker used to be the attack dog holding Governments to account through a ruthless search for factual evidence to undermine unfairness.

But why hasn’t this affected the Tory vote? Well, basically, their supporters are quite happy with the small government approach. There aren’t the issues which clash with the manifesto which the Lib Dem’s have. Equally, the party is not supposed to divert its attentions too much from the straight and narrow.

In areas like Chesterfield, a majority of 26 has turned into a Labour majority of 20 seats. In Barnsley, the Liberal Democrats had a lower share of the popular vote than the BNP. At the time of writing, the Party were approaching losses of some 500 councils. In Scotland the Liberal Democrats have a quarter of the seats they had last time.

So what are the issues which could have improved the situation?

Before the government was formed there were problems. The deal struck entwined the Liberal Democrats into the government inextricably. The coalition was a whipped single front with little room for dissent, disagreement or a clear division of responsibility.

Since then, the Liberal Democrats have been paraded when there’s bad news, the Conservatives when it’s good irrespective of who came up with the ideas to resolve the situation. The confusion has caused much negative press, often going against the impression voters had of their aims and objectives.

Had the Liberal Democrats taken a different approach, they could have followed the Northern Irish example. There, the coalition partners could not be more diverse and it works because departments are run by one party or the other, coming together as a cabinet. This means there is autonomy and clear accountability. It wasn’t us - the other lot run that department.

Second, the party has barely mentioned that they cannot influence the government fully. They have made some positive contributions to “toning down” the Conservative policy, but they also have less mandate and less people to push the points. If the Conservatives want to do something, they will. Rather than stand up and say this is a Tory policy we are supporting purely to get other policy through, they pretend to support the initiative.

Thirdly, they are not used to mudslinging. They put forward positive stories that have been swamped by negative focus on Nick Clegg by the Conservative supporting allies.

And finally, what makes the Lib Dem’s distinctive from the Conservatives? Because they are so entwined, the public don’t know what they stand for any more. Before the coalition, you might have felt the Liberal Democrats stood for Education and supporting the student. That group has been lost and there is no direct approach to win them back. Standing on a platform of no tuition fees and ending up trebling them, even if there are advantages to the system, could only lead to disillusionment.

So what should they do?

Listen – What are members and former members wanting.
Engage – Rather than blindly follow opinion, discuss the situation with key groups in, for example, the argument over the NHS reforms and make strategic alliances to force reform.

Differentiate – Put forward a policy document that shows voters what Liberal Democracy stands for in the coalition. It needs to be distinctive from the Tory view and show the divisions in policy making. It can’t be woolly and needs to be substantive, based on real action.

Claim Ownership – Take sovereignty over issues in the government or at least argue to be given power that makes it clear what difference they are making.

Ditch Clegg – It might not happen straight away, and it might not all be his fault, but it was he who agreed to a raft of policies that go against their own manifesto. He is the scapegoat who can hold his hands up, say mia culpa, and refresh the ‘old’ party vision.

And if they don't? Well the Greens are making some strong gains....