I thought Cornelissen’s last chapter was a decent ending to
the book. Continuing from the last two chapters, I felt he finally showed more
of the critical eye that I had been looking for in earlier chapters. The
subject, social media, is also something that looks toward the future. I think
it could have been woven more into earlier chapters as well. How companies
respond to issues and crises by social media isn’t a point for future
consideration. It’s happening right now.
As rude as Nestle’s Facebook spokesperson was in Cornelissen’s
case study, I found it refreshing that a massive corporation suddenly spoke in
a blunt, conversational manner. It feels more honest than the bland press
releases we usually get. It’s just too bad this person had to be so rude.
Immediately after reading the chapter, a friend shared a link to a petition to
boycott a large company for its water use in drought-stricken California. The
company: Nestle.
I wondered how the multinational was responding to this issue. Well, the response seems to
be a little more mature this time. In response to a post
promising the company is “looking back” on the year, so it can “continue to do better”,
several people posted links to articles criticizing Nestle for pumping water
out of San Bernardino National Forest. The company account responded with
more-or-less identical posts linking to an
official response to the allegation.
Nestlé US is looking back so we can continue to do better. Read about how we’re putting more good in food, our sustainability efforts, community partnerships, and more: http://bit.ly/1j90T6Y
Posted by Nestlé on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Another
post invited readers to look into Nestle’s “commitments to environmental
sustainability.” One person asked whether “So, are you as a company going to
take any accountability for the drought in California and your part in taking
so much water when they cannot afford to waste or take one drop more?” The company
assured her that they “share [her] concern for conserving water in California
and around the world” and linked to a
Q&A about the company’s operations and the California drought. Another
person responded with a link to a YouTube video of the Nestle CEO allegedly
calling water “not a human right.” The company account replied by charging that
“this article takes our Chairman’s views out of context. He certainly believes
that everyone, everywhere should have access to water” before linking to an
interview with the CEO. The use of the phrase “this article” in response to
a video tells me it’s another canned reply.
Did you know 25 of Nestlé's factories in the US achieved zero waste to landfill status this year?It gets better: We’ve...
Posted by Nestlé on Friday, October 9, 2015
I am, by nature, deeply cynical about these matters.
However, regardless of Nestle’s actual policies, I’ll give the company credit
for clearly improving its social media communication over what Cornelissen
depicted in his case study. It may be impossible to respond to each critical
post (and there are many), but they appear to be doing their best to come
across as straight-forward. The official statements and Q&A’s linked from
the social media account aren’t even all that terrible. I suppose we should be
thankful for small (PR) blessings.
Neil, your posts are always so enlightening. Thank you for sharing the expanded case study of Nestle and their social media practices. I too find it refreshing when corporations can communicate outside the traditional bounds of "corporate-speak". However, to do that well is quite challenging. Once again, executing sound corporate communication hinges as skilled human talent.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed seeing more examples of Nestle's responses to environmental concerns. They have clearly made efforts to be more polite, but I agree that the general public seems to crave candid responses from companies - it reminds them that the companies are run by actual human beings. One example I saw recently was a Twitter response to a picture of a female Star Wars character's armor. One follower posted, "not to be sexist but its really hard to tell that's female armor for me." The official Star Wars Twitter page bluntly replied, "It's armor. On a woman. It doesn't have to look feminine." Most fans loved the blunt reply, and viewed it as evidence that the franchise supported feminist ideals. Social media can be a great way to depart from the canned press release style of communication, especially if the PR writers know the right times to be blunt and avoid being rude!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed seeing more examples of Nestle's responses to environmental concerns. They have clearly made efforts to be more polite, but I agree that the general public seems to crave candid responses from companies - it reminds them that the companies are run by actual human beings. One example I saw recently was a Twitter response to a picture of a female Star Wars character's armor. One follower posted, "not to be sexist but its really hard to tell that's female armor for me." The official Star Wars Twitter page bluntly replied, "It's armor. On a woman. It doesn't have to look feminine." Most fans loved the blunt reply, and viewed it as evidence that the franchise supported feminist ideals. Social media can be a great way to depart from the canned press release style of communication, especially if the PR writers know the right times to be blunt and avoid being rude!
ReplyDeleteYes-->"showed more of the critical eye that I had been looking for in earlier chapters." I definitely agree. Another thought I had about social media is that companies choose someone to be in charge of social media without training. Social media isn't easy. It's challenging especially on a corporate website.
ReplyDelete