If you’re not adding value, say nothing
Is it ok for brands to build content from a tragedy? If it’s not and business as usual approach is taken, is it ignorant?
It was debate time in the office again just over a month ago. September the 9th to be precise. As we prepared brand content for the days to follow, a prominent date was on the horizon that none of us could ignore.
On the dawn of the anniversary of September 11th, we were asking ourselves a very moral question – can one courteously continue to post regular content for a brand on social media, when the world is in a pensive state of remembrance for those lost in the tragedy? For a brand posting on such a powerful day you have a choice to make – either, you acknowledge the day in a way of your choosing, or you ignore it.
You can never be too cautious. Or can you?
I’ve always erred on the side of caution, leaving a neat space in content planning over September 11th. To me, or indeed brand managers, it’s always seemed like something that could so easily go wrong and to not post avoids issues altogether.
I found myself in the same position on one of our clients. A very high-spirited, fun-loving brand, whose tone of voice lends itself more the colloquial, playful side rather than the irreverent; nonetheless perhaps an unusual tone on such an odd globally acknowledged day.
It wasn’t that I was going to stop posting on my personal accounts, it was more the risk of involving a brand in conversation that could either be perceived negatively for being continuing on happily as though nothing was happening.
A brand whose foundation isn’t at all American, would seem bizarre to align itself with a very American event. But I couldn’t help but question (perhaps over-cautiously) that maybe it was better for a brand to be silent altogether. Other brands – American and otherwise have continued to try and fail tirelessly in their attempts to use a grave event to their social media advantage.
If in doubt, leave it out
September 11th is an obvious place where a multitude of sins have been made at the hands of brands (#brandhands) such as AT&T or even, perhaps more shockingly, FleshLight (yes, really). The fury on Twitter followed a few paths of conversation:
a). Why did brand x think it was their place to brand a global tragedy to further their social media
and
b). If you’re going to pay your respects – where’s the relevance?
Sure AT&T apologised for their massive oversight, but instead of acknowledging that they had no place communicating on this point in the first place, their gripe was in not having been sincere enough. My response? Know your place, and stay there.
The fact is, a lot brands seem to think it’s their duty to piggy back social conversations as their own. Somehow, it seems the only way that these brands can show any depth of humanity and social understanding – whereas the sad truth of it is, in doing this they risk showcasing just what a callous, unnatural force they are.
I would argue that the rise of social media as a means for communicating with one another has tarnished the human way in which we used to interact. Suddenly, we think it’s ok to behave in a way online that we would never do IRL (in real life guys). Imagine an AT&T brand boss holding a press conference to talk about the importance of remembering a tragedy like 9/11 – there would be an even bigger media uproar. Social media is no different – it’s becoming the first port of call for reactive brand communication and I would argue that not only is it a misjudged sense of identity on a very sociological level, but it’s also completely unnatural from a brand strategy perspective.
No brand during their strategic planning says to themselves – right – there’s a content pillar that we definitely need to consider, where a piece of content on a tragedy can fit; then let’s call it, ‘Care & Share’!
Brands aren’t humans – no matter how hard we try to give them a voice
Not many brands, in my opinion have the depth of sincerity to carry a heartfelt message like ‘Pray for Boston’, whether you’re a brand that clothes runners, like adidas, or indeed a brand (huhem EpiCurious) with no relation to the event at hand.
But, what about celebrities? Couldn’t they be considered the most human of brands? Sure they have a strategy for communicating in public spheres, they’re media trained (hopefully) and yet we’re fine with them stepping out of their on screen, music industry and chat show personas to be sincere and band together. After all, isn’t that what we’re all trying to do? Feel connected on a deeper level, brand or otherwise.
Perhaps if a social brand was to present their condolences, it wouldn’t be such a far cry from their legitimate field of conscience. If every single bit of the organisation was also purpose orientated in pursuit of giving the message credibility, then perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad.
Grief cannot and should not be emulated, so trial your branded humanity some other way.
My foundation for this opinion? There is no such thing as an unselfish act. Or if you prefer – every action has a reaction. Some you’re ready for and plan for, some (if you get the action wrong) can be unwarranted.
Call me a cynic, but a brand without legitimacy, that is showing its support to those in need, is doing so in a public way so as to portray their humanity, to be seen as a brand that understands people. In doing so, public perception of said brand can change for the better – and when the event is said and done and Twitter goes back to its mundane content streams – who benefits? Certainly not the consumer who was at the receiving end of the words. No, it’s the brand and it always will be.
Brands need to ensure that everything they do provides a service, and satisfies their strategy beyond social. The negative backlash and distrust of brands comes from the way in which social has given a reactive voice to anyone who wants to use it. The fact is, anyone can say ‘RIP’ or ‘#NeverForget’ but if you make it a brand communication then you have to give it depth. Memorial discounts are cheap and make a mockery of remembrance, but what about if a brand positioned flowers at the site of the Twin Towers? Would we start to trust that their social words had depth and that the thoughts were genuine.
This isn’t an argument of whether we are all too sensitive, this is an important lesson in a brand knowing itself and its strategic role through and through. It’s about staying true to the brand voice and territories and not being led astray or deviating on the basis that there is a culturally relevant date calling for attention.
“While social platforms can be powerful in uniting people, it wasn’t (and still isn’t) a replacement for the real-life connection in times of grief.” – Social Times
You have to ask yourself – if – before social media you wouldn’t have communicated about a certain event, then why now?
And, what if social media had been present during the actual attacks on the twin towers? How would brands have reacted then? It seems hard to believe that if that had been the case, it would have been even present in the minds’ of brands to even allude to having an opinion of the tragedy. Personal social accounts would have been rife with an out-pouring of grief for sure, but brand channels? I’m not so sure.
What do you think? Are brands trying too hard to find a voice in the wrong place? Is social media destroying the sincerity of remembrance? Or has the age of social media changed the way we communicate emotively beyond recognition?