Nestle and the Social Media Meltdown
“Thanks for the lesson in manners.”
–Nestlé Spokesperson, Nestlé’s Facebook Fan Page
The goal of this document is to display a brand’s social media strategy in practice as seen in one really dreadful occurrence. The negative example observed is couched in commentary showing why certain choices on behalf of the company were so poor but also giving a glimpse of something better so it’s clear what is missing.
The brand of concern is Nestlé. Based out of Switzerland, Nestlé is almost 150 years old and is currently “the world’s leading nutrition, health and wellness company.” In other words, they make a lot of food products. There are many brands that fall under the Nestlé umbrella, including Lean Cuisine, Nescafé, PowerBar, Purina, and Butterfinger.
Nestlé, like any large corporation that is dealing with food products, is no stranger to crises such as a confirmed e. coli outbreak in some of their products[1] and alleged chemical poisoning in their milk products in China[2]. These were situations whose main offense was broadcast to the public through government agencies and traditional news media. Dogmatic approaches to PR can do effective damage control in these situations. However, a recent challenge from Greenpeace seemed to throw Nestlé into unfamiliar territory.
These were situations whose main offense was broadcast to the public through government agencies and traditional news media. Dogmatic approaches to PR can do effective damage control in these situations.
“…Nestlé struggled to contain a barrage of criticism from angry consumers on Twitter and its official Facebook page last week. The attacks followed claims in a Greenpeace viral that Nestlé is continuing to source palm oil from Sinar Mas, an Indonesian firm accused of illegal deforestation of rainforests. After a Nestlé employee responded on its Facebook page, the firm was chastised for its ‘arrogant’ approach.”[3]
The ‘Greenpeace viral’ mentioned in the above article is a short video that shows an office worker attempting to enjoy a Nestlé Kit-Kat bar only to find that he has instead bitten into an orangutan finger. The message being conveyed is that supporting Nestlé is to support the destruction of the orangutan’s natural habitat.
Nestlé’s response only garnered more negativity. Consider one of the early responses from Nestlé’s Facebook page moderator: “We welcome your comments, but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic — they will be deleted.” The ‘conversation’ escalated, and the Nestlé representative became outright snarky. An article in AdAge elaborates.
“[A Facebook user] offered that he’s ‘not sure you’re going to win friends in the social media space with this sort of dogmatic approach. I understand that you’re on your back-foot due to various issues not excluding palm oil but social media is about embracing your market, engaging and having a conversation rather than preaching!’ The Nestlé moderator’s response: ‘Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider yourself embraced. But it’s our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus.’”[4]
The Nestle moderator’s response: ‘Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider yourself embraced. But it’s our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus.
Beyond the removal of certain posts on the Facebook page, Nestlé also approached YouTube, requesting the offending video be removed on account of it’s misuse of a logo—the phrase “KitKat” was altered to read “Killer”. The video was not removed and, in hindsight, it was probably in Nestlé’s best interest, as it likely would have only fanned the fire of negative feedback. Furthermore, Internet censorship, as documented again and again by the Open Network Initiative[5], is a practice in futility—especially in the face of passionate people.
The outcry was enough that Nestlé did eventually reconsider and change their supplier of palm oil. However, this was not until a month later and much of the damage had already been done. Posts from users on the Nestlé Facebook page claimed to boycott not only on the grounds of their questionable environmental practices but also on account of Nestlé’s uncaring response to the situation.[6]
In his book Designing for the Social Web, Joshua Porter explains that a company has basically three options when responding to negative feedback: listen, ignore, or disagree. Porter claims that ignorance leads to a lack of innovation and that disagreement is the option that should be chosen by those not wishing to succeed at all.[7] It could be argued Nestlé has discovered a fourth option—antagonization—which is apparently the option for brands desiring to be hated and boycotted.
In taking this stance, Nestlé also postured their brand as an entity that is outside the sphere of people—be they customers or not. Whereas the environmental concerns that initially sparked the debacle were casting Nestlé in an inhumane role, Nestlé gladly reiterated it with their arrogant response. Evidence for or against the company in regards to how they obtain palm oil was not even necessary at this point.
“…[Customers] can use their reviews and complaints to have a big impact on a company’s reputation and business. Public relations has to take on a new meaning. It can no longer be about the press and publicity, which just separate companies from the public they are supposed to serve. Public relations must be about a new relationship with the public, with the public in charge.”[8]
Making the choice to listen to feedback and engage with customers in authentic conversation means “[p]eople will start to recognize that you actually care” and a company will be much healthier in the long run[9]. Brian Solis adds that “[t]he art of conversation is mastered through hearing and listening…experience the nature, dynamic, ambience, and emotion of the dialogue in order to sincerely and intelligently empathize and converse as a peer.”[10] This approach to engaging people places the brand on the same level as people. This is a tremendous opportunity to humanize a brand.
Solis explains the sequence of authentic conversation from the perspective of a brand representative: “I hear you. I’m listening to you. I understand. Action. [emphasis added]”[11] In order to ratify all the engagement that takes place in a conversation, action must be taken. But, action does not necessarily equate to an immediate submission to feedback—perhaps especially when the feedback is deeply passionate and severe. Furthermore, even if the desired action amongst the feedback is one that a company is interested in adopting, the said action might still require a lot of cogs in the machine to turn before anything can be done. This is perhaps a point of understanding that could be held toward Nestlé’s situation—they were being challenged to change a business practice that likely would require time and deliberation.
In order to ratify all the engagement that takes place in a conversation, action must be taken. But, action does not necessarily equate to an immediate submission to feedback, perhaps especially when the feedback is deeply passionate and severe.
So what might ‘action’ have meant for Nestlé in their sticky predicament? It is likely there was some level of internal conversation occurring at Nestlé in regards to the matter. This could perhaps count as action—at least enough to address the outcry on the Facebook page. Something to the tune of: “The feedback we have been receiving lately has been passionate and challenging. We here at Nestlé have begun discussing how to begin taking action on your feedback. We are listening and want to continue this conversation.” This could perhaps be one of the most crucial (but often overlooked) moments for a company to have employees that grasp the brand’s tone-of-voice.
“[The goal is to train employees] to be able to recognize when a piece of writing is in line with the brand’s values…Any time that an employee spends thinking about how to correctly implement the tone of voice is time well spent toward understanding and living the overall brand.”[12]
This is what makes the entire Nestlé meltdown a tragedy. It was a matter of a few sentences. As mentioned earlier, Nestlé eventually addressed the issue of how they obtained palm oil. Assuming they would have done this even had the situation not escalated, all they needed was the correct response. However, a culture that must exist inside a company that would allow for the behavior as seen by the Nestlé Facebook moderator is likely not a culture that is interested in listening to people to begin with. Therefore, it is questionable as to whether or not they would have taken relatively swift action to change their business practices. There are likely much bigger issues to be addressed regarding Nestlé’s internal culture and brand strategy.
Michelle Trip, brand consultant and social media strategist, shows further evidence of these deeper issues:
“Are we surprised that Nestlé was the next big brand to experience epic brand fail whale? Not after I came across this press release issued by Nestlé looking for “FUNterns” to promote one of their product lines in social media. Seriously. They were looking for “digitally-skilled marketing mavens” for internships. The only real qualifications for these skilled mavens were that the applicants be at least 18 years old and feel equally comfortable on Facebook as they are having a night out on the town…after reading the back-and-forth on the Nestlé Facebook Fan Page my guess is they’ll let pretty much anyone have a whack at it.”[13]
Brand strategy regarding social media is still somewhat nascent. Many companies view it as something that is required for relevance but also view it as being rather trivial. It is probably safe to say this was Nestlé’s posture before the Greenpeace incident. However, thinking it trivial is perhaps the most dangerous approach to social media engagement. When it comes to passionate people surrounding your brand—for good or ill—triviality is harmful.
Nestlé’s negative experiences in the world of social media are not restricted to the event discussed in this article. Furthermore, Nestlé is far from being the only brand to make substantial errors in the realm: the list is long and continues to grow. This undoubtedly makes for a lot of nervous execs. This is not a bad thing. In the words of Jeff Jarvis: “[t]he age of caveat emptor [buyer beware] is over,” and the era of ‘seller beware’ is dawning[14]. Brands should feel the ground moving beneath their feet, and if they are not prepared for the shift, they should be nervous. However, avoiding social media is not an option. A brand handles it well or handles it poorly—either by negligence or ignorance.
[A]voiding social media is not an option. A brand handles it well or handles it poorly—either by negligence or ignorance.
[1] Layton, Lindsey and Greg Gaudio. “E. Coli Confirmed in Nestlé Samples.” About E. Coli. June 30, 2009. http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli_outbreaks/news/e.-coli-confirmed-in-Nestlé-samples/ (accessed October 25, 2010).
[2] Einhorn, Bruce. “China Milk Scandal Update: Nestlé Hits Back.” Bloomberg Businessweek. October 2, 2008. http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/eyeonasia/archives/2008/10/china_milk_scandal_update_Nestlé_hits_back.html (accessed October 26, 2010).
[3] PR Week, Hit or Miss? Nestlé faces a storm of criticism on social media sites. March 26, 2010 faces storm of criticism on social media sites 2010): 2.
[4] Patel, Kunnur and Emily Bryson York. Nestlé to Facebook Fans: Consider Yourself Embraced. March 19, 2010. http://adage.com/adages/post?article_id=142881 (accessed October 23, 2010).
[5] About Filtering. http://opennet.net/about-filtering (accessed October 24, 2010).
[6] Lee, Julian. “Handling bad PR can be sticky, Nestlé finds.” Sydney Morning Herald, March 26, 2010: 11.
[7] Porter, Joshua. Designing for the Social Web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, 2008: 49.
[8] Jarvis, Jeff. Dell hell: Seller beware. July 1, 2005. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/07/01/dell-hell-seller-beware/ (accessed October 26, 2010).
[9] Porter, Joshua. Designing for the Social Web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, 2008: 49.
[10] Solis, Brian. Engage! The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010: 209.
[11] Solis, Brian. Engage! The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010: 209.
[12] Mitchell, Rob. Lose the Jargon, Voice Your Brand. September 19, 2005. http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=281 (accessed October 23, 2010).
[13] Trip, Michelle. “Social Media Smack Talk: When Having a Bad Day Goes Wrong.” Brand Forward. March 20, 2010. http://michelletripp.com/index.php/2010/03/20/social-media-smack-talk-Nestlé-facebook-marketing/ (accessed October 24, 2010).
[14] Jarvis, Jeff. Dell hell: Seller beware. July 1, 2005. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/07/01/dell-hell-seller-beware/ (accessed October 26, 2010).
Tags: branding, customer feedback, Nestlé, research, social media, strategy
