Utilizing Groundswell Response - A humbling but beneficial practice

Social media allows customers to constantly talk to each other- sharing reviews, experiences and suggestions. All of these customer to customer interactions are important but only if we, as business owners, listen and act. The groundswell is a teaming pool of knowledge for businesses to tap. The creators within the groundswell share valid input that if utilized, could help turn around an unsuccessful product or brand or revitalized products or brands that need improvement.

 "The key is, you need to do more than just ask for feed-back. you need to show that feedback online, good and bad, where people can see that you are ready to act on it, that you are committed to improving things" (p. 194) 

Turning a blind eye to criticism online is not helpful to a company. It looks bad in terms of customer care and in the long run is not helpful or productive to improving business. These are the points of Groundswell I'd like to focus on this week. 

Harnessing customer input in the development process by letting the customers tell you what they want and addapting to appease that desire (p.182) can be extremely successful. As demonstrated with the example of Loblaw (p.191) we see this in a real life scenario. VP of Loblaw, Jim Osborne tapped into the groundswell, listening to customer complaints and suggestions and acting to remedy the issues. He turned unsuccessful food products into successes by changing recipes, addressing packaging issues and continuously monitoring feedback. Loblaw is prime example of how to use customer generated social media content for the purpose of brand improvement.

Something to keep in mind in the endeavor of utilizing customer reviews from the groundswell is that there are risks. We need to know our objectives, know that communities can get out of hand and have a plan for how to deal with this outcome (p. 144). There are countless brands that have opened themselves up to the groundswell and been overrun by negative feedback. Some negative feedback is so harsh that it goes viral for its comedic ridiculousness- such is the case for Haribo Sugar Free Gummy Bears and their unfortunate product reviews which went viral in January of 2014. And more recently Samsung's 85 inch 4k HDTV reviews.

These products caused such intense illness and upset that their reviews read more like elaborate comedy sketches than a real life product reviews. After reading Groundswell we would assume that such negative viral feedback would elicit speedy public response and action to remedy these immense product flaws; yet despite my searching I've been unable to find any sort of reply from either company.

Can we assume that the problems are too deeply rooted in product development to change? Perhaps the brands feel that they are established enough to withstand the onslaught of negative feedback on a single product? How could either of these companies have addressed their customers and utilize their feedback in a productive way?

Instagram Promo Competitions- Nice n' Manipulative

Earlier this year I received a subscription to Ipsy - I liked it a lot. Every time a bag arrived in the mail it felt like Christmas morning. The shiny pink bubble wrap- the excitement and surprise of what would be inside. This month I got an extra unexpected surprise with my bag- participation in social media marketing for Ipsy.

Upon receiving my subscription I sat down at my kitchen table and dumped the contents of the package out. I turned them over, reading, inspecting, testing. And then I reached into the bag to find one last thing- a flyer urging me to share my "Glambag" on Instagram in order to potentially win a full year subscription. In my excitement with all of the products and wrapping laid out before me I thought, why not? I snapped a photo, added the competition hashtags and posted the photo.

Competitions are easy to participate in. The risks of competing are low and the effort required is minimal- snap a photo, add some tags and hashtags- and you're done. The potential pay off I would assume in most cases is something worth that amount of public action. In some cases (like this one) the prize may be a physical product but in other cases the prize could potentially be just acknowledgment and notoriety.

The hashtags in competitions group you, they get you noticed. They bring you into a conversation making you feel relevant or involved. But at the same time every ounce of effort put into this post is a bolster to the reputation of the host company. It's not about you- not at all. It's a scheme to utilize your interest and optimism to target your friends. Are we okay with this? If we look at it that way- are we willing to act as personalized ads that target the people you actually know and care about?

I thought about this when making my post just for a second. I felt a momentary twinge of shame- embarrassment at the ease with which their marketing team was using me. I assume that I'm not alone in this feeling. Why would we utilize the public platform which we have built up to represent ourselves on in order to promote a product or service that barely matters to us? Why would we openly help a company target our friends? Is it that we actually do care about the company and believe in their product or business or have we grown to overlook posts like this and their implications?

Groundswell Demands Real Content- Red Lobster, Take Note.

"...After seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company." 

Groundswell p.6

From the beginning, Groundswell shows us how important the truth is to social media users.  The example of Kevin Rose, creator of  Digg,  powerfully demonstrates the corporate-fighting, honesty-seeking nature of the groundswell. It also shows us the benefits of addressing social media issues honestly rather than working behind the scenes to cover up scandal. By posting in a truthful, unfiltered way, Rose created a dialog. This dialog generated support and sparked new conversation- where as persisting with a cover up would have led to further prodding and criticism from the groundswell.

There is a ferocity with which social media users threaten institutional power and attempt to expose the reality of corporations. As Rose showed us, corporate powers can gain trust and change opinions of social media users through candidness which creates a bond within the groundswell.

However, despite all proof that the groundswell values the truth, I see a disconnect between this value and the practice of constantly contriving, editing, and filtering content obsessively. On page 61, Groundswell briefly mentions the validation impulse which I believe is partially responsible for these pressures felt by content producers (note the case of ex-Instagram model Essena O'Neil.)

But more so than the desire for validation, I believe that it is the idea of "no going back" (p. 74) that frightens corporations as well as individuals into overworking content. No going back can apply to a single post or to an entire strategy. But essentially what it means is that once you post, you can't make your audience un-see something. Each post has the potential to change the way you are perceived by your audience and that is an incredible pressure to take on.

This desire to not misstep is what leads creators to overthink or overdo. People and companies feel the need to present wittier, more beautiful, more unique content in order to capture the groundswell. Because of this they forget the underlying importance of honesty, truthfulness and simple connections.

We see this phenomenon at work in the pubclic's response to a Red Lobster's tweet which recognized a shout out in Beyonce's newest release.
Their response was late, tried too hard and lacked creativity. Red Lobster's social media team likely fell prey to the pressures of "no going back" and the desire for validation in trying to please Beyonce's fans with a clever response. The groundswell was left wishing Red Lobster had just stuck to basics by thanking the artist.

Here's hoping that they stick to the basics of the groundswell (truth, connection, etc.) in repairing their social media image.

When GoPro Met Periscope

The tale of an up-and-coming app power couple. 

Who doesn't love watching incredible footage of unique, daring, and exciting events? Few. Who doesn't love watching bored people sit at home in front of their webcams? Many. This is why Periscope should be thanking their lucky stars for their new partnership with GoPro.

Last week Forbes author Larry Magrid posted a piece that highlighted the news of this union as a blessing for GoPro. He noted the potential to reach a new market "beyond its traditional sports-action users" as well as the benefit of giving every average user the opportunity to create truly interesting video with its two-camera live broadcast. While these benefits for GoPro are real, the true winner in this partnership is Periscope.

Periscope (Periscope TV) first came into sight a few months back after being acquired by Twitter and reaching 10 million accounts in just four months. Offering live streaming videos and constant viewer commentary and questioning, the app promised a new and dynamic social experience. Periscope had the potential to integrate our favorite elements from Snapchat, Twitter and Facebook into one mega app. It was intended to be personal and compelling, allowing users to see from another's perspective.

Unfortunately Periscope users have turned the camera around so rather than seeing through someone else's eyes we're seeing exactly what we've always seen. The app is currently reminiscent of Chatroulette, the 2009 site which allowed users to chat or video chat with other users around the globe at random. The similarities are due vastly to the content of the video streams as well as the randomness of subjects. The majority of common users stream footage of recreational drug use, singing  and themselves sitting at home alone - hardly providing the intriguing, thought provoking footage advertised by Periscope.

Periscope will become vastly more interesting and true to its pitch through this partnership. Users will have the technological ability to stream multiple angles at once making their footage more professional and simultaneously more immersive. Existing GoPro users who already fall under the "sports-action" title will contribute content that aligns with Periscope's vision. This partnership will give periscope the technology and user base to re-focus become the app it was intended to be. 

However, despite the implications of the GoPro technology it is possible that Periscope users will continue the pattern of turning the camera around. Could there be a deeper issue that cannot be solved by introducing new technology and a more adventurous audience? Maybe Periscope users are more interested in showcasing themselves rather than just their perspective. How can Periscope capitalize on GoPro technology and users to combat what seems to be an attention-seeking epidemic?   

Let's hear your thoughts!