The social media emperor isn't quite naked – but nearly so, and highly over-rated. While there may be some value to it in some businesses sometimes, for most it is a faddish waste of time. And many of the businesses using it are misusing it.
Someone from the Harvard Business Review (imagine that – a Harvard person in a state of rapture over a useless business fad!) wrote about receiving an email offer from Groupon for something that tuned out to be a knockoff. She alerted Groupon via Twitter. Groupon fixed the problem. Full stop. End of story. But, of course, the story goes on.
Groupon has a perfectly good web site, with a fully functioning customer service mechanism for reporting such matters. They also have a toll free phone number. Through either means, our author could have contacted them to alert them of the problem. Instead, however, she 'tweeted' them with, "Is it false advertising if @Groupon_UK sends email clearly stating @Fatboy_original Buggle Up Beanbag 60% off, clicking thru it is knockoff?", and later with "Clearly states Fatboy Buggle Up Beanbag for #89 from ILocal Furniture in @Groupon_UK email, but then BigDaddy Beanbag on @Groupon_UK site." The lack of a clear description of her issue in plain English, of course, is due to the 140 character limitation of Twitter.
She called the article, and the event, "Boardroom Lessons from a Social Media Misstep." In fact, social media had absolutely nothing to do with it, other than the fact that she chose to use the truncated language of Twitter, rather than the more effective customer service form or the phone.
I have a Twitter account – you can find it at MFGWaddell if you want. The only thing I tweet is that I have posted another piece on the blog, or written an article that appeared somewhere. I figure that might save the folks who read my stuff the trouble of having to check every day to see if there is anything new. Other than that, I can think of absolutely no reason to harass people with my tweets. I follow few others because I don't need or want cryptic notices of the details of anyone else's thoughts clogging my phone or email.
I have a Blackberry (I know I should upgrade but I dread change cell phones) and through it I get emails, text messages and phone calls from just about everyone whose thoughts, lives and opinions are important to me. I can think of no reason why I would want any of those people to send me 140 character encoded messages instead. I suspect the same is true of your business. Who do you want to communicate with? Your employees? Customers? Suppliers? What exactly is it you have to say that is better done trough Twitspeak than email or a phone call?
Consumer product companies are a different story because you have a potentially huge, unknown audience with which to communicate, but you had better be a whole lot smarter than most companies. A guy I know in New Zealand once told me I should follow the airlines on Twitter because they occasionally tweet great, last minute ticket deals. I took his advice and followed United - for a little less than 48 hours. I don't care if they are giving away tickets, it isn't worth being inundated with crap about their daily (perhaps hourly) announcements about discount fares to Bermuda and the wonderful things that will happen to me if I get one of their credit cards.
And Facebook??? If you are running a cake decorating business out of your kitchen, perhaps Facebook is a valuable tool – but for a big time business I can't see the point.
If there is any business value to Facebook it would be from the opportunity to have two way discussions with customers. Better to do it over the phone – a lot quicker and more efficient – but Facebook might be a workable alternative. Not if you are one of the big pharms, however. As I mentioned a few weeks back, they are quitting Facebook before they will stand for people being allowed to hold up their end of a Facebook conversation.
GM hired a guy from a New York ad agency who doesn't even own a car – who in turn hired 35 people – whose "work includes running Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages for Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC." So much for two way communications about your car with GM through social networking. They view it – like the big pharms – as just another way to hype, spin and blow smoke at a gullible public.
If you are a legitimate business with something to say to your customers, pick up the phone and call them – send them a personal email – but don't twit tweets at them. And if you are going to have a Facebook page, then for God's sake let your customers post comments, and have someone who works for you who knows something about the business and the products respond to their comments.
Andy Wagner says
Southwest Airlines doesn’t take comments online. Only by mail. Snail mail. I know because in 2003 I was stuck in Chicago during the Great Blackout. They took great care of us and I wanted to thank them. I wrote the letter and they wrote back. They gave me a picture frame with little Southwest hearts all over it.
They already had a big fan in me, but that process surely impressed me. You comments are so important to us, we only want to listen if you think they are worth putting in ink and paper.
Bill Waddell says
Andy,
I just checked the Southwest Facebook presence and can’t find anywhere to ask a question or make a comment … looks to me like they still prefer getting comments slowly and privately.
I don’t have any opinion about Southwest one way or the other – I generally fly out of Chicago and they are not big players there. However, I have to scratch my head at companies that use Facebook to talk to me, but are not interested in hearing what I have to say in return.
A company genuinely concerned for its customers should make it the easiest thing in the world for its customers to communicate with them. Whether it is having to sit on hold for 20 minutes pushing numbers on the phone only to reach someone whose English is so fractured, or accent is so heavy, you cannot understand a word they say, or finding you can only submit an opinion, question or comment via an email form on their web site (with a promise to hear back within 3 days), or a Facebook page that does not allow you to post on their wall, it sends a strong message to me that they do not really care about my thoughts … or my future business.
Donna Sink says
Wait, am I missing something? Twitter was so important and useful in the Groupon example because rather than complain to ONE person, an employee of the company, on the customer service line, she was able to communicate a company misstep to millions of people at once – massive public embarrassment caused Groupon to pull the ad. One private complaint won’t cause a company to do that.
In my own small business, direct personal service between my clients and me, in both directions, is critical. But to a large company public comments on social media can have a huge impact, both negative and postive.
Mark Graban says
And this blog is called “Evolving” Excellence? Just because you don’t like a new technology doesn’t mean it has zero value. Do some individuals or companies misuse it, sure.
I’m sure there are some who think blogs are a waste of time.
I generally only find that to be the case if somebody’s gone on a rant about some new technology having zero value.
BTW, Twitter does not clog up your phone or your email. That’s not how Twitter works.
Bill Waddell says
Ah Mark, here you go again.
You wrote, “Just because you don’t like a new technology doesn’t mean it has zero value.” No one said anything about “zero value” – only you Mark. I actually wrote tha “there may be some value to it in some businesses sometimes, for most it is a faddish waste of time.” In fact, I wrote that it can have value for consumer products companies.
I write an opinion piece loaded with examples and citations to support my opinion – and you write scathing criticism supported only by a mis-statement of my post.
Why don’t you point out where I am wrong, Mark? The central themes were (1) if you are not a consumer oriented company, Twitter and Facebook are unimportant; and (2) if you are consumer oriented you should use Facebook for two way communication. You conceded point 2, so how about addressing point 1?
Or just leave it at your unsupported opinion that my failure to see social media as a good thing is evidence of a lack of evolution on my part – however you wish.
Todd Sieling says
One potential benefit of using social media for customer support is that complaints and the response, or lack thereof, happen in a place where others can see them play out. A company with confidence in its customer service practices and team can enjoy a lot of good-will marketing by resolving complaints in a public forum that ends up being as searchable as any other anecdotes about that brand.
Customers often want to use the public aspects of Twitter or Facebook to put social pressure on the company to respond. It’s easy to send someone into a maze of self-serve phone recordings or letting an email go unanswered, but when there are other eyes on the issue, it’s a lot harder to not respond.
I’m not a social media pollyanna, and think a lot of what gets sold by its advocates is 50% snake oil, but there have been some incredible success stories and I’ve experienced first hand a customer service rep jumping in to help from a complaint on Twitter after they ignored an email for more than a week.
Bill Waddell says
Donna,
I don’t see where she made an effort to contact GroupOn directly – she went nuclear with Twitter right from the start. So I don’t know that GroupOn never would have fixed the problem without “massive public embarrassment” – she never gave them a chance to fix the problem simply because she pointed it out.
That said, if you are right and GroupOn only addresses mistakes when faced with “massive public embarrassment” they are doomed – with or without the existence of social media.
Todd – same thing. certainly social media can put pressure on a company with lousy service. Rather than embrace social media, I suggest a company fix the lousy service problem. My basic point in the blog post is that, if a company has great service, social media is largely irrelevant and not much use.
Steve says
I hate to use Toyota as an example, but their “Toyota Canada” facebook page is probably one of the best I’ve seen from a big business. They’re is an incredible amount of interaction between fans and the companies customer service reps. It’s a good page and they use it well.
Jamie Flinchbaugh says
I’m not sure about the thong analogy,but there is plenty of evidence this stuff isn’t useless. Of course, there is plenty of useless application,but that is true of any endeavor.
Personally, I consider it entertainment. I spend very little time on twitter, mostly on my Droid while waiting to board (bored) a plane or something.
However, saying this is a useless means of customer service compared to making a phone call is just wrong. I can find, connect to, and usuallly get a response In less time and less effort than it takes me to look up and dial a phone. For me, this has been true for Delta, Marriott, and several others.
This stuff isn’t for everyone, and much of it’s application is useless, but that doesn’t make the genre useless.
Bill Waddell says
Jamie,
I didn’t say it was useless. In fact, I wrote, “Consumer product companies are a different story.”
Delta, Marriott, Southwest … many citations of effective and ineffective use of social media among consumer products companies.
I would like to hear how social media has been of any value whatsoever to the typical manufacturing company … the precision machine company, the electronics assembler, the injection molder or contract manufacturer. I cannot see a single reason why any of them should have a Facebook or Twitter account.
And those companies make up the bulk of the lean community, and they make up the bulk of business and the economy. The business press are all over the end of the supply chain they see as consumers, but largely ignorant of the economy behind it. Social media can be useful at the end of the supply chain where companies interact with thousands, or millions of consumers, but again, largely irrelevant further up the chain.
Jamie Flinchbaugh says
No, you wrote “faddish waste of time.” I don’t think I overstepped the bounds of interpretation, if you really want to splice hairs about word choice.
And if your whole post was about manufacturing companies, then why was your whole example about Groupon?
I follow several manufacturing companies on twitter, and “liked” their facebook page. I find out some interesting things about them that I would otherwise not know. If someone called me with that information, I would put a call block on them.
Maybe you would prefer they print 1,000s of press releases and mail them all over the world.
Bill Waddell says
C’mon Jamie.
I wrote “for most it is a waste of time” and “Consumer product companies are a different story”. You proceeded to tell how it is useful in your experience with consumer products companies – Delta and Marriott.
What non-consumer products companies – manufacturing or otherwise – do you follow on Facebook or Twitter, and how is it helpful to you or them?
As for Delta their Delta Assist Twitter home says “We’re listening around the clock, 7 days a week. We try to answer all tweets but if you require a response pls visit http://www.delta.com/talktous or call 800-221-1212″ It has 34,000 followers – one tenth of a percent of the American public. Their Facebook page has 3,300 people who like it. There are nearly that many who like all of the Facebook pages with names like “Delta Airlines sucks” and “I hate Delta Airlines”. Just how important can social media be to Delta Airlines?
Mark Graban says
Well, your post was pretty much a rant – it is what it is – so I didn’t think it really called for a point-by-point retort.
You said up front “While there may be some value to it in some businesses sometimes, for most it is a faddish waste of time.” That’s a pretty strong statement, combined with the title of the post, that pretty much implies Twitter is useless.
That, combined with your misstatement about how Twitter works (clogging up your phone and inbox) makes it seem like you’re outside your core expertise here. That was my point, I guess.
To point #1 – Twitter can be a helpful networking and marketing tool. Is it possible to prove ROI on that? No, but as Jamie said, it’s a great way to find things to read and it’s a way to follow and keep a pulse on the market.
I’ll agree with you that GM shows its idiocy by hiring a marketing expert who doesn’t drive a car.
Bill Waddell says
Have it your way guys, but I’ll bet you a beer at the 2012 AME Conference that by then Twitter will be used only for its best purpose – so high school sophomores can keep each other informed as to who was holding who’s hand in study hall – and Facebook will be the sole purview of Farmville addicts and folks sharing pictures of the family gathering with those who couldn’t make it.
Jessica Fischburg says
I work for a medium- sized distributor and we have been utilizing Twitter, Facebook and other social media mediums for over 2 years now. I took a class at Harvard in 2009 called Social Media Marketing and was told Twitter would have a huge impact on our business. I am still waiting to see any real impact on our business since then. I strongly believe the large majority of people still use social media predominantly for the social aspect. However, I do think it gives us a lot of control over our brand, and that alone makes the presence on Twitter & Facebook worth it.
Our blogs have had a ton of success though and I believe they are in a different category than Twitter and Facebook in terms of their relevance & success for businesses.
Paul Todd says
I was pretty underwhelmed by a Facebook experience with Ford. While trying to answer a product feature question on the Explorer website, I was invited to “Ask the Explorer Team”, which generated enthusiastic but uninformed responses not from Ford, but from owners of the vehicle. When I asked where the Ford reps were hiding, I got a helpful hint that maybe I should send a personal message to a certain guy who usually monitors the site. Great tool for building an online buzz in this case, but not a substitute for actual customer service.
Todd Sieling says
Bill,
A couple quick replies to your response:
> Rather than embrace social media, I suggest a company fix the lousy service problem.
Amen! That’s the most logical and satisfying course to take. However, if the reputation has become a problem, social media becomes a solid way to get the evidence of the fix out into the open where it can disseminate. Waiting for word of mouth to correct the repetitional problem can be much more costly, if not fatal. But you’re right on that there’s no benefit to advertise without actually making a fix.
>My basic point in the blog post is that, if a company has great service, social media is largely irrelevant and not much use.
Starting with a culture of great service definitely prevents the repetitional problems from starting in the first place. Where there is a strong expectation of social media presence, though, a real effort has to be made to direct those customers into channels where they can get the service that will make them happy.
Jacqueline cindrella says
Twitter and Facebook are the two social media platforms that helps branding of the business. There are some negative points with T and F like you wrote already in the above space. But when it is all about marketing, these social networking sites are just the small tools. People cannot take this as a guaranteed advertising methodology.
Finally, quality and customer satisfaction wins the race apart from social media marketing. If you take Groupon’s e-mail advertisement, it is not a best advertising format. Most of the people hate to get daily deals in their inbox. Therefore, any business methodology does have some pros and cons.