Other People's Problems

I need to get back to this blog. I've been so disheartened with The Company's social media work, and so busy with other things, that I've let this blog slide. Bad Tam. No cookie.

I was reminded of this when I read the comments on this Smart Blog on social media post. blog is running a contest for a free ticket to the Facebook Success Summit 2010. One of the ways to win is to post your biggest Facebook marketing challenge as a comment. Reading through, I realized I do need to get back to this blog. There are a lot of folks who have social media challenges; if I can help, I want to.

Facebook Fan Pages: Company A's Story, part 5d

Company A has allowed its one discussion posting to be hijacked. They asked for people to provide stories of positive experiences with Company A, which some people have done. But soon after posting the request, one person responded with complaints about The Problem. Someone else responded, disagreeing. The original poster explained why she was upset. Through an ongoing discussion, the poster who hijacked the conversation convinced the person who had disagreed to rethink his position (as he posted in one of his posts). At no time did anyone from Company A respond.

The thread has become a sounding board for people who want something to be done about The Problem. And those who are posting are becoming more frustrated because no one is listening.

---

What should you do when someone hijacks a conversation on your Facebook fan page?

1. Ignore it. At least someone responded.
2. Delete the hijacker's comments.
3. Ban the hijacker from your site.
4. Respond to the hijacker's comments.
5. Start a new discussion about what the hijacker wants to talk about.

The truth is, it depends on the situation. Any of the above choices could be the right one. Let's look at each of them.

a. Ignore it.
You should never ignore the conversation, but you can't respond to every post. If you have a good conversation going, and if other people are ensuring that the hijacker's comments aren't getting a toehold, then you can ignore these specific comments. But only if they aren't causing a side discussion.

b. Delete the comments.
Most of the time I'll tell you to leave comments where they are, but if the comments add nothing to the conversation and are hateful, pornographic, or have another legitimate reason to be dumped, delete them

c. Ban from your site.
This is an extreme reaction that, hopefully, you'll never have to use. It should not be used as a first response to anyone. However, if you encounter a problem commenter—someone who is actively stirring trouble, making threats, or disrupting the conversation; someone who is a repeat offender; someone who is a troll* or a flamer*, banning may be the only option.

Again, make sure this is a last resort option. Give them warning. And let the other people in the conversation know that you have banned this person and why (the posts will likely have been read by many of them, so, if it comes to this, most of them will probably support you).

d. Respond to the comments.
Often a simple, quick response to these comments is the best solution. Sometimes people are not actually meaning to steer the conversation in another direction, but, instead, thought of something while they were reading the original post or a response. Just letting them know that this isn't the right place for that discussion, and giving them another venue (public or e-mail) to continue the new discussion (if appropriate) will often take care of the problem.

e. Start a new discussion about the new topic.
This is usually my favorite choice. If the topic of conversation brought up by the comment hijacker has anything to do with what you're company does, there are probably others who would like to talk about it, too.

After one of the hijacker's comments, post a reply letting them know that you've created a new discussion topic that addresses their concern. Ask them to move any further comments over to that thread. Also thank them for bringing up the discussion and ask that, in the future, rather than posting in a current topic, they create a new discussion post for anything they feel needs to be addressed.

I know that a lot of people are uncomfortable with letting their audience (customers, consumers, etc.) have the power to create their own discussion, but doing so gives you a much better idea of what is actually important to them. Again, if an inappropriate discussion posting is created, you can take it down—just let people know why you did.

Had company A chosen to go with this option, rather than ignoring the hijacked discussion, they might have kept peole from having their opinions publicly and negatively swayed. They would have shown that they recognized their audience was unhappy. They would have shown that they were willing to listen. By ignoring the posts (it's been a month, and they've responded to nothing), they show, accurately or not, that they don't really care.

Facebook Fan Pages: Company A's Story, part 5c

As I wrote in the first post about Company A (Company A's Story, part 1), when I was asked to create a list of discussion points for their new Facebook page, Company A had a caveat:

"But nothing that might get someone talking about The Problem."

The public, the people whom Company A wants to reach - they know about the problem. Hiding from it isn't going to change that.

Company A needs to acknowledge its problem. It needs to let its audience know that it recognizes people are unhappy. Problem areas are perfect for conversation, and it's a mistake to try to avoid those conversations. People will talk about The Problem, whether you want them to or not.

Although Company A requested that I not include any questions or discussion points that would get people talking about their problem, I disregarded that request. One of the questions I put on the list was

What suggestions do you have for changing or improving The Problem?

This sort of question lets the audience know that Company A is aware that there is a problem, and it invites those who care about The Problem to join the conversation. It helps keep people from simply complaining or tearing the company down, inviting them to offer solutions instead. It offers those who are potentially the biggest detractors to become part of process, giving them the chance to feel involved and invested.

It only works if the company is sincere in wanting to fix the problem, and if they join the discussion. Sadly, at this point, I don't expect Company A to do that.

Facebook Fan Pages: Company A's Story, part 5b

The Story

I received a phone call from one of the Public Affairs Specialists (PAS) at Company A. He let me know they were going to launch a new Facebook page and asked that I post nothing else to the old one. He also asked for a list of questions he could use to spark discussions on the page.

That afternoon I started crafting a list of a dozen or so questions or leads that could help spark conversation on the company Facebook page. The next morning I looked at the list again, did some fine-tuning, added some discussion sparks, and then e-mailed it to the PAS.

When the Facebook fan page went live there was one discussion topic posted--the first one from my list:

Tell us about an experience you've enjoyed (because of/ with/ through Company A). What made it special?

The Discussion

It's great that Company A was thinking ahead. In the social media plan I'd put together for them I had stressed that conversation with their audience was important. It's one of the major reasons to implement a social media campaign. Company A wanted a list of questions to spark conversations and discussions, and they wanted that list before they ever launched the company Facebook page. That's a great example of the company being proactive and planning their strategy.

Probably because so many people use it every day, many business people think they should be able to handle their own social media marketing. But using social media to keep in touch with your friends is a lot different than using it to promote your brand. Reaching out for help from someone with more expertise and experience, as Company A did, is smart.

Unfortunately, after the launch of the Company A official Facebook fan page, things fell apart on this front. Although the page was launched a month ago, that first discussion spark is still the only one posted by the company. And, although there have been a few posts in response to the discussion spark, no one from Company A has chimed in. Without some official feedback, there is no conversation.

Company A gave its audience control of any discussion to be had on its Facebook fan page. While asking for feedback and listening to what customers have to say is important, if you don't use that information, it's worthless. One way to use it is to let it help you lead and shape the conversation you have with your public. If you don't respond, you can't do that.

Social media marketing is unique because it allows such easy interaction between the company and its customers. If you don't take advantage of that, you're wasting social media's power.

Facebook Fan Pages: Company A's Story, part 5a

When I sent my plan to Company A, I had already visited the Facebook fan page for the site, and had even become a fan. There was very little traffic on the page, so one of the steps I outlined was to start posting regularly to the Facebook page. Until they were ready to do that, though, I said I would take it on, posting links to relevant news articles and posting upcoming events that they sent in-house e-mails about.

For the next three weeks, I did just that, posting two or three times per week. As I started posting, so did others. The site, which had hundreds of fans, was starting to wake up.

And then I got an e-mail from the person who had initially contacted me. He had just found out that this was not an official Facebook fan page. The powers-that-be had decided to take down the unofficial page and launch an official one.

I immediately shot an e-mail back.

"Gah! Don't do that!" (Though worded more professionally.)

I shared Coca-Cola's story.

In essence, many fans had created Facebook pages as tribute to their favorite soft drink, but one page rose above all the others in sheer number of fans. Rather than Coca-Cola getting upset about this page, or trying to start their own official page from scratch, they contacted the page's "owners." They worked with the two fans who had created the page, and turned that page into the official Coca-Cola Facebook page.

The fans (on that page they numbered in the thousands) got to stay put. They got to see Coca-Cola as a company that respected its customers and fans, which wouldn't have happened if the company had tried to shut down that fan page. And the two who created the page became minor celebrities in the world of Coke. (Read more about Coca-Cola's Facebook fan page story .)

The following day my contact in Company A wrote me and said he'd shared the story with the decision-makers, and they were going to migrate the existing fans to the new page. The fans wouldn't have to do anything.

What happened, instead, was that a new page was created and the fans from the old page were asked to become fans of the new page.

In theory, this isn't a bad approach, but the reality is that the fans of the old page have no reason to take action. They don't necessarily care that one page is official and one isn't. They just want to feel like they're part of a community and have discussions about things that are important to them. Official, for those purposes, is irrelevant.

Company could have made it relevant. They could have posted links, invitations to events, and plenty of other information that wasn't available on the fan-created page. But they didn't. They've given their fans no reason to leave the original fan page. Over the next few posts we'll look at things they could have done differently, and things they're doing right, with their new Facebook page.

The Company Blog: Company A's Story, part 4b

Responding to reader comments

Briefly:

• Respond to comments to encourage discussion
  
• Respond to comments to show you care what your readers have to say
  
• Do not respond to every comment
  
• Respond appropriately and in a reasonable amount of time

The head of Company A is very good at responding to reader comments. He does not get drawn into flame wars, but does respond to legitimate complaints and concerns. He answers direct questions, and even poses new questions to his audience in response to comments left. His comments are worded so that he puts no one down, but when he sees a suggestion or question he finds particularly insightful, he is quick to praise.

He also reads through his comments more than once, recognizing that more comments are likely to be left after his first round of responses. He seems to check post comments two or three times in the week after he posts something to the blog, responding to comments when appropriate. If the discussion calls for it, he may continue checking the comments after that first week, too.

Social media has to focus on social, and that means conversations. If you don't respond to comments on your blog, you lose that conversation.

The Company Blog: Company A's Story, part 4a

In the story I posted about Company A I left a comment on Company A's blog. Having a blog that the public can read is a great tool, but, like any tool, it needs to be used correctly in order to do its job. The way Company A's blog is used isn't terrible, but it could be even better.

For my next two posts we'll look at two different aspects of Company A's blog:

Written by the head of the company

Briefly:

• Heads of companies often run companies better than they write engaging blog posts
  
• Blog posts from the company head provide authority
  
• Company heads often can't make blog posts a priority over tasks directly related to running the company
  
• Blog posts from the company head can make readers feel like part of the inner-circle

Company A's blog is well written, but there have been only five posts in three months. That's too few to keep people really engaged. The lack of posts doesn't stem from a lack of things to write about. Company A is involved in at least two major undertakings right now--one which will drastically affect the company, one which is likely to affect the entire industry. At the same time, they're involved in all of the activities they're typically involved in. So, if not lack material, why have there been so few posts?

Lack of time. The head of Company A is incredibly busy, and writing blog posts has taken a back-burner to the work of actually running the company. If someone else had been in charge of posting to the blog (even if they were doing so under the head of the company's name), the blog would be kept updated. Readers would be able to turn to the blog to see what's happening with the company's actions and decisions, and get brief explanations of those decisions. As it stands, his blog readers are left in the dark.

Due to the head of a company's areas of expertise and priorities, it is often better to have someone else writing the company's blog posts.