War of the worlds: how to win the social media turf tussle (and why corporate affairs should take the lead)

By guest blogger Holly Clark

There is a turf war breaking out and at the centre of the struggle is social media. The land grab for shrinking marketing budgets has resulted in marketing departments all wanting a piece of the social media action. That is at least, when things are going well. Which brings us to the question of who takes charge when things are going pear-shaped?

Last week Target became the latest social media casualty after a mother with a strong opinion aired her disapproval of some of the store's clothing options for young girls on its Facebook page. Within four days, she found herself starring in a half page article in the SMH. If Corporate Affairs didn't move in to own social media at this point, I'm sure they received a knock on the door from marketing shortly after.

Ultimately this highlights an issue that has been bubbling away since the advent of Facebook, and that is, who owns social media? And no, I'm not missing the point, we all know that the consumer is the true owner of social media, but where should social media sit within a business?

It's not a straightforward issue. The recent ruling by the Advertising Standards Board means companies are responsible for all their content on their Facebook pages, even user comments, as Facebook is deemed to be a marketing tool over which a company has control and which is designed to promote a product. Add to the mix the vexed issue of censorship and we have a virtual minefield.

I'm not going to suggest that every business needs a large social media communications function to verify every comment and carefully develop 'on brand' responses screened for every possible reputational risk. But surely Corporate Affairs departments, which are skilled in producing content, communicating with external audiences and safeguarding their companies' reputations are ideally positioned to take the lead? And training and developing guidelines to ensure there's consistency and leadership from internal teams is a great place to start.

Day to day, the owner of your organisation's social media channels should, ideally, be the person who is best placed to deliver the experience that users are looking for. So it may be that Corporate Affairs manages the Twitter presence where comments might be about the company as a whole, whereas Customer Services may be responsible for Facebook, where things can get more personal. These are of course sweeping generalisations that will vary from business to business. While requirements may vary, there is always a place fora clean plan describing how social media is addressed and resourced.

We know that in years to come, this debate will become redundant - or at least muted - as social media takes its inevitable place as an ingrained part of an organisation's daily operations. But in the meantime Corporate Affairs has a large role to play in safeguarding the reputation of a business as it enters the social media landscape.

Holly Clark is BlueChip Communication's Account Director

Gold, gold, gold for social media strategy? How the IOC blew the heats, missed the final

By guest blogger Valentina Ciampi

Dubbed the first 'social media Olympics', it appears that it was understood, at least in theory, that London 2012 would not be immune to the popularity of social media. Social media was seen as a whole new way to hard wire the world direct to the happenings on the court, field and pool.

In spite of this, I don't think anyone was prepared for the huge role social media would play during the Games. Least of all, the International Olympic Committee (IOC)!

It was evident within the first few days of the Games that the IOC had failed to 'get' social media, how it is used and its growing importance in feeding the conversation in both on- and off-line worlds.

From fantastic ... to fail

To put it frankly, the IOC did a terrible job of managing the Olympic brand in social media. As a result, the concept of combining the social media and the Olympics quickly turned from fantastic to fail.

The wave of complaints and uproar saturated the social sphere quicker than you could click a mouse. The repercussions were not just (immediately) evident for the 500 million people on Twitter but rapidly filtered through to traditional media, too.

The online disaster ensured that social media was still a significant feature of the Games, but in a way most brands / organisations would prefer to avoid.

From the restrictions made on the athletes that prevented them from promoting sponsors on their social media platforms to the blame game that was put on fans for jamming networks because of excessive tweeting and posting about the Games (Mark Adams of the IOC even suggested, "perhaps they [spectators] might consider only sending urgent updates [on Twitter]." Hmmm... ). It was painfully obvious the IOC had little-to-no understanding of social media platforms and how their audiences engage with them - and each other.

If we think of the Olympics as an organisation and the athletes and spectators as its brand ambassadors and advocates respectively, then you can start to see how the IOC actually did itself a disservice by trying to stifle their voices. Asking them to limit usage and placing restrictions on what they post about, is not only disenfranchising them from the brand / event (and making them irritated in the process). It's also saying no to exposure that is not only highly effective but also free.

Where did it all go wrong?

The IOC's lack of understanding about how social media works led to a failure to produce a workable social media strategy. Note here the operative word is 'workable', because the fact that the London 2012 social media guidelines and rules ran to a hefty number of pages has been widely publicised.

The lesson here is that creating a workable social media strategy requires a deeper understanding of social media than just applying rigid and 'old school' media and sponsorship conventions, which appears to be what the IOC did.

Whether you're thinking about dipping your toe or jumping head first into the big online universe, it pays to do some work upfront. Audit, test, look at case studies and consult with experts about what social media is, how the platforms differ and align and, importantly, feeds into conventional media. Ask for expert help in facilitating some training if you need it.

From there, you'll be well placed to develop a WORKABLE strategy. It doesn't have to be complicated. It's about understanding what you're trying to achieve (goals and objectives), who you're trying to talk to (audience) and how to reach them (channels / platforms). Not having a strategy means you are perpetually running in crisis management mode and can mean the difference between protecting and promoting your brand reputation and damaging it.

In short - between claiming the gold - or not even making it into the finals.

Valentina Ciampi is a Senior Account Executive for BlueChip Communication

What goes online, stays online. So how are you safeguarding your company's reputation?

By guest blogger Nicola Michel

The recent ruling by the Advertising Standards Board that advertisers are responsible for third party posts on their Facebook page has, not surprisingly, been labelled "a challenge" by the body that represents the $30 billion a year marketing industry. "Challenging" barely begins to address the ramifications of the decision, which goes to the heart of whether social media campaigns are even viable in a world where marketers are held responsible for the ill-judged comments of followers.

A number of examples ignited the fire under the ABS, but chief among them were some of the comments posted on the Facebook page of Carlton & United Breweries (CUB's) 'VB' beer brand, when followers were asked a supposedly innocuous question: "Besides VB, what's the next essential needed for a great Australia Day BBQ?"

Whether or not you consider the question innocuous (the phrase 'asking for trouble' springs to mind), the majority of the answers certainly weren't. Of those that actually made sense, they ranged from the vaguely moronic to the downright distasteful, spanning the gamut of sexist, racist and homophobic.

The North Korean Solution?

The basis of the ABS decision was that it deemed the Facebook page of an advertiser to be a marketing communication tool over which the advertiser 'has a reasonable degree of control'. As such, the Code that applies to all advertising also applies to the page in its entirety, including comments posted by third parties.

Outrage over the decision has been fast and furious, with some calling it the "North Korean version of social media" and others questioning whether, if brands are required to censor offensive or misleading comments, how long will it be before they censor negative comments about their brand (which is not to say that the latter has not already been happening...)

Most comments centred on the fact that the decision changes the very essence of social media as a two way conversation that reflects the rough and tumble of real-time, spontaneous social interaction itself.

Some of the comments on the CUB VB Facebook page were described as akin to those you might hear in a dodgy pub late on a Friday night. This may hardly make them what you yearn to hear, but does that also mean they shouldn't be posted online? If social media is an extension of the conversations we have in life, is there a place for censorship?

One essential difference between Facebook and the pub is, of course, that a hazy conversation on a Friday night is said and done, whereas what goes online, stays online. And in the case of the VB Facebook page it really did stay online, with some comments left posted for over a year. It's likely that the situation would have been very different if the comments were removed quickly.

Regulation: guaranteed to fail?

Although regulation seems to fly in the face of the nature of social media, this and numerous other examples lead some to the conclusion that some form of legislated (attempted at least) censorship or control is inevitable.

Many major social innovations have required evolving regulation. Few would argue that the laws covering driving, for example, after the advent of the car, should never have been enacted.

However, I would argue that increased and, in particular, blanket regulation usually ends in unintended consequences - which often defeat or make a mockery of the purpose of the regulation in the first place.

And even if you accept that most people would find at least some of the comments on the VB Facebook page offensive, (and that therefore some regulation is required) who decides which of the other comments are offensive and which aren't - or which move from the grey realm of offensive to discriminatory and inciting of hatred? And how on earth do you police it? Some brands get thousands of comments per week on their Facebook pages. Do they need to employ an army to monitor them?

An army of social media monitors?

The answer regarding monitoring is probably "yes". But you probably won't need an army.

So what is required to manage and moderate a company's social media activity?

The conventional wisdom has been that the essence of social media is that it comes straight from the horse's mouth, and that employing a PR company or other 'mouthpiece' to communicate for you on social media is somehow cheating and depriving the medium of its immediacy and relevance. That's absolutely fair enough. But equally, the evolution of social media has been so rapid that a company now demonstrably needs to address the issue of protection and reputation and, bottom line, staying out of court.

The good news is that there is middle ground: the space between having any social media so stage managed as to lose its meaning (think, London 2012), and stepping to the abyss and subjecting your brand and business to a damaging free-fall.

That middle ground involves a combination of using the new and evolving tools available, and having a solid, workable and well understood social media policy in place.

Facebook, for example, provides some ready-made tools. The recently updated Timeline for brands gives page administrators the ability to pre-moderate comments, to restrict access to underage Facebook users, to restrict the kinds of posts users can share and to set "page visibility", so administrators are required to approve all posts that appear. Critics say that not only does this pre-moderation substantially increase the workload for page administrators, it seriously affects the brand's ability to have the types of real-time conversations with followers that are what Facebook is all about. Nonetheless, it does exist and is an option.

Social media policy: the latest must-have accessory for corporates

When it comes to social media policy, a good start is to review the excellent McKinsey framework for companies engaged in social media. According to that framework, the very first step is to monitor. The next is to respond to consumers' comments. Few would believe, for example, that CUB really wanted to encourage racist and sexist comments or to have those comments associated with their brand. If they had been monitoring, they would have been able to respond, potentially by taking the comments down. So, while some marketing executives are screaming about the difficulties and costs associated with monitoring, surely monitoring is a necessary cost associated with using social media and needs to be weighed against the benefits it provides as well as, significantly, the risks of not engaging in the conversation at all?

The fact is, that if well done, it really isn't that hard. Not only are the tools already out there (and improving all the time), most brands using social media effectively are monitoring their social media presence already (and if they're not, they should be).

Ultimately, the whole debate over the ASB decision highlights the fact that companies need to engage with their social media presence in the way they hope consumers will engage with their brand in the offline world.

That means, just as a company has guidelines around what it says and does in real life, it needs guidelines around social media that, among other things, removes the doubt and grey areas around what's offensive or illegal (and should be removed) and what constitutes robust, vitriolic and hard-to-hear criticism of their brand - and should stay online and be responded to.

If you don't have the skills or the resources to effectively monitor your social media presence, or don't know where to start, seeking expert help to get set up and potentially monitor responses down the track can be a good move.

The latter seems to be the move that CUB has taken: it was 'managing' its Facebook page itself and has now given the responsibility to an external agency.

While it's easy to say in hindsight, it looks like CUB could have saved a lot of pain by getting some help setting up a policy that involved monitoring and response in the first instance - and in the absence of the in house resources or skills to continue to do so, engaging a social media partner to do it for them.

It really is Reputation Management 101.

Nicola Michel is a writer for BlueChip Communication

Day One of the Financial Services Council Annual Conference

When MC Tracey Spicer took to the stage to introduce the regulators panel the conference mascot, Reg(ulator?) the goldfish headed for the exit. After all how could he compete with APRA and ASIC representatives?

I'm not sure if Reg (much discussed on Twitter #fscmascot) felt unloved or in fear of a looming lack of oxygen as the four regulatory representatives filled the air with warnings to the audience of wealth management and financial services executives.

Reg may have been followed by delegates were it not for some quite frank comments from the panel.

For anyone who missed it, here are a few of the things on the regulatory hit list this year.

For insurers, APRA's list includes governance in group life schemes, disability and mortality claims experiences, and direct life business - for the latter, concerns around the quality of risk and marketing. Specifics included poor data in pricing and poor tendering processes in group life. In direct life, the spotlight is on discontinuance rates and the potential for reputational damage. Boards of direct businesses are well advised to take note.

ASIC talked about FoFA and a continued focus on consumer protections.

So what advice did the regulators give the industry?

1. Start at the top - governance has to come right from leadership down. Perhaps, if we go back to Reg the goldfish, we'd paraphrase as "fish rots from the head". The suggestion was that regulators will be sniffing around management teams in insurance as a result.
2. There's an enormous amount of change, and regulators don't underestimate its impact. So talk to the supervisors, understand what they want and provide feedback about their guidance based on your own experience - don't lose the opportunity to have input.
3. Think about the long term outcome we want from the changes we're making. By all means implement change but don't lose sight of the longer term outcomes the regulatory channels aim to achieve for all stakeholders.
4. Engage with the regulator - either directly or through your industry association - it will improve the guidance you get back.
5. Finally, while we're going through change stop perhaps to have a closer look at what you think is "business as usual" or standard practice. Otherwise you may get a regulatory wake-up call.

And finally? Watch what happened to the reputation of the banking industry in the UK. We haven't seen that in Australia. Expect a touch time ahead in terms of reputation if we don't support regulatory change.