To intervene or interrupt?
In our discussion of professional blogging, we talked about different options for handling negative comments on a blog. In a recent radio segment for Marketplace, Kenny Malone discusses different ways companies deal with negative comments on their facebook pages. After either reading or listening to the story, how do you feel about the different ways to regulate company pages? Do you think the tactics of companies like BP who interrupt their customers are preferable to companies who intervene? What benefits and downfalls can you see to each practice?
The companies such as AT&T, who respond to posts from their facebook page, whether it be positive or negative is clearly a professional and respectable approach. As Bruce Turkel stated, "the message is already out there", companies might as well address them, because what starts out being negative can end up being positive. As for companies, such as BP, who remove the vulgarity they are just interrupting their customers instead of addressing the issues, but that has been apparent as far as BP is concerned throughout this year. The benefits to companies who address the customers concerns, whether it be on a social networking site or other outlets, will end up in the long run satisfying their current customers and increasing the volume of new customers due to valuing people. On the other hand, it may also increase the negative comments that are unnecessary at times, but ultimately it will be beneficial for the company and the consumer.
ReplyDeleteAT&T has the right idea about intervening and making a difference. Companies who censor their audience are only putting the problem aside, rather than seeking improvement. The benefit of responding to customers, is a better understanding of what is wrong and how to fix it. This technique might be costly, but it helps to show customers how much the company cares for them. BP may be getting better PR for interrupting customer comments, but they are going far from creating a solution.
ReplyDeleteWhen companies prohibit vulgarity, or restrict users altogether, they are limiting their customer service. It is a benefit, to decrease an expense and limit social liability. I would prefer AT&Ts' service, against McDonalds or BP. At least with AT&T, you will get feedback on any problems that you, specifically, are dealing with.
I do like the idea of companies using social networks like facebook for feedback, but they'd better get used to the vulgarities. Look at almost any blog or youtube video and you'll find somebody who is looking for someone else to curse at.
ReplyDeleteAt&t had the right approach but I find it unrealistic to answer every negative comment. The fact that they attempted to understand the customer's point of view is enough for most people to respect them more than others.
Companies who try to hide negative comments, or prevent it entirely will eventually loose business to competitors who strive to improve on these aspects.