AdamWohl.com

Social Media: why brands need to be there

Beyond coming up with creative ideas, one of the biggest things I do is sell; I sell my company’s capabilities.  And in many cases, that means selling through a social media plan to brands, or to agencies on behalf of brands.  And along with conveying a need for a social media presence that deals with the positive (reaching and engaging customers, promoting new products and services and introducing new interactive or immersive experiences that further promote the brand and the brand message), there’s also a need to deal with the negative: mitigating problems.

We’ve all heard it and said it: conversations about brands are going on, whether the brand likes it or not.  The idea that a brand would choose NOT to be present, listening, responding to criticism or identifying and correcting false information is beyond foolish; it can be costly.  A bad review of a product or a rant about poor customer service that goes unaddressed makes a brand look out of date, disinterested in its customers, or both.  False rumors that circulate about a brand can spread through digital word of mouth like wildfire.  If circulated by credible people with a large following, it’s a potential crisis.

Last week, I played a part in what I believe to be a microcosm of exactly how a problem like this can develop.  I happened to be trolling around on the Crispin, Porter + Bogusky website, looking at the work (and Alex’s silky smooth hair) when I noticed the title of the most recent article in the CP+B aggregator – an engine that scrapes the net for anything which contains pre-programmed keywords related to the agency.  The article headline was “Ad Agency MDC Partners Could Be for Sale, Deutsche Bank Says — Let the Bidding Begin.” Wow, I thought.  I know people at that holding company and some at nearly every agency MDC owns.  Had I been in a coma?  Did I not notice someone previously mention this?  Surely the article had to have been referenced.  I looked at the article date.  It was published that day — possibly moments earlier, especially considering it was at the top of the CP+B engine results.  For a quick moment, the idea that MDC might be for sale – something that I’d prefer not be true – was overshadowed by the fact that I might be the “twitter scooper” in my circle of friends, or followers, a group over a thousand strong, many of whom work in the ad and marketing business.  So I tweeted what I believed to be breaking news and a link to the article.

My tweet was retweeted by a several people, most of whom have over a thousand followers, and the net of potential recipients of the news was quite wide.  The next morning, Miles Nadal, Chairman and CEO of MDC Partners saw the tweet and responded, denying that MDC was for sale.  I retweeted Miles’ response, and so did several others.  It’s remarkable how quickly the spreading rumor was shut down.  I attribute that to two things: the level of credibility associated to someone like Miles (he is the CEO) and the speed with which he responded.  This potential publicity hiccup was birthed, lived and died in less than fourteen hours. AdAge actually devoted a story to MDC’s denial of any potential sale.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t know if MDC is actually interested in selling – I’m not on Miles Nadal’s speed dial no matter how much I’d like to be.  What I do know is that MDC got a lot of publicity for nothing, which isn’t so bad.  The article mentioned how highly regarded MDC is by financial experts who suggested holding companies with even deeper pockets than MDC (specifically Dentsu and Havas) might be circling.  Again, these are not the worst things to have written about your company.  And to be honest, even if they aren’t entertaining offers, I’m sure the phone may ring a few times this week and give Mr. Nadal a taste of who might be interested and how eager they are, measureable on a scale of 60-foot Hatteras to private Carribean island.  By the way, when the article was written, MDC partners stock was at $8.87 a share.  Today it hit $9.00, its 52-week high.

More than anything else, I think this experience is a cautionary tale to brands.  What happened exemplifies how having the right brand representative following or informed about online sentiment is vital.  Being able to identify and respond to false information and rumor is equally important.  What you don’t know can and probably will hurt you. If any brand managers or CMOs think otherwise, there’s a bridge I’m looking at out my office window here in Brooklyn and…well you probably know the rest…