Tag: Crisis Management

United Breaks Another Guitar and the Social Media Hype Cycle Comes Full Circle

It was one of the first stories any of us heard about the power of social media and how it was changing brands. In Spring 2008, Dave Carroll got off his United Airlines flight and found his Taylor guitar damaged. He spent nine months trying to get the airline to make it right, and in frustration he wrote a catchy tune and produced a funny YouTube video recounting his story.

The rest is history. Or is it?

Is “United Breaks Guitars” a lesson in how consumers are wresting control from brands, or just an entertaining tale?  Has Dave Carroll’s saga been repeated so often because it is a powerful omen of how brands must evolve or because that story proved to be a successful sales device, raising fears and encouraging the purchase of social media services?

I have been asking these questions for years, but I think I finally got my answer Friday night at a terrific Ellis Paul concert where he described how United broke his beloved Taylor guitar and is refusing to pay for repairs. Déjà vu! We have come full circle, from one identical event to another. This furnishes us an opportunity to reexamine the “United Breaks Guitars” tale and what it really means to United Airlines and your brand.

The United Breaks Guitars Fable

Before we get to Paul’s recent experience, let’s revisit why Carroll’s 2009 YouTube video became such a legendary social media fable. You already know the story, I’m sure; if not, search “United Breaks Guitars” for the 1.8 million(!) articles and blog posts on the topic. Each recaps how United refused to do right by Carroll until faced with an avalanche of bad PR in both social and mainstream media. It was only then that the airline was embarrassed into offering Carroll compensation.

Had the story ended there, the moral would have been concise and accurate: One individual, given enough talent and creativity (plus, let’s face it, a great deal of luck) can cause so much pain that a brand must take action.

But that is not where the tale stopped. To professionals in the nascent field of social media (including yours truly), Dave Carroll was not just a skilled and creative guy whose unique talents and situation permitted a special way to elevate his gripe. He became, instead, a powerful everyman, effortlessly wielding free social media tools in the same way every consumer can.

This single consumer’s actions were inflated into an apocryphal lesson: “United suffered grievous brand damage thanks to the new power of Word of Mouth (WOM), and your brand will face the same fate unless you change (and buy our listening/strategy/consulting services)!”

Did “United Breaks Guitars” Break United?

For years, I have sought evidence “United Breaks Guitars” represented something more than one guy’s creative solution to a customer service problem. Yes, United eventually acted to make the situation go away, but was the company really harmed and transformed due to social media WOM? If so, there is little proof.

For example, the Wikipedia page for “United Breaks Guitars” suggests that United’s stock dropped in the four days following the video’s release. Of course, it is ridiculous to correlate a few days’ stock variation to a single cause, and if you instead evaluate United’s stock over a longer period, you find that in the six months following the release of Carroll’s video, United’s stock outperformed competitors’ by more than 100%.

Another claim repeated time and again is that people who saw this video lost trust in United and chose competitors’ flights. That is the standard WOM assertion following any and every social PR “crisis,” but is it true? It turns out it is very easy to get people to watch funny videos or retweet brand-shaming tweets, but it is much more difficultto change buying behaviors. In presentations over the course of years, I have stood in front of thousands of people and asked a simple question:

As a result of seeing the “United Breaks Guitar” video (and not because of your own personal experiences), have you ever opted for a more expensive or less convenient itinerary to avoid flying United? 

Not one person has yet fessed up to altering their purchase behaviors as a result of seeing the video. You’re not surprised, are you? After all, you saw the video and did not change your airline purchasing habits, either. In the end, we all buy airfare the same way, choosing whichever carrier offers a route from Point A to Point B that is cheapest, easiest and provides the right loyalty miles. If we hate and avoid United, it is because of our own experiences and not because of a YouTube video.

There is no sign that “United Breaks Guitars” impacted consumer behaviors or hurt the airline’s business, but did that video affect changes within the company? That is the claim oft repeated: United learned its lesson and transformed itself! As conveyed in the book “Empowered” by Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler, “United has changed its policies. Baggage claim agents now have a little more discretion with customers whose special situations warrant the company looking into the claim more closely; United uses Dave Carroll’s video in it’s training.”

By repeating the story of how United had learned and transformed, were people like Josh, Ted and I (and many others) redefining the way companies must operate in the social era? Or were we merely cogs in the United Airlines PR machine, helping to turn an embarrassing brand situation into a positive corporate message? Ellis Paul’s recent United experience makes it clear which is the truth.

United Breaks Guitars, Part II

Ellis Paul is one of my favorite music artists. I regularly listen to his folk-pop music while working and commuting. Paul is a terrific storyteller, an amazing songwriter, and he performs with a passion and wild abandon that I find breathtaking. His songs, such as Maria’s Beautiful Mess, have appeared in more than 50 compilations and movie soundtracks such as “Me, Myself, and Irene” and “Shallow Hal.”

Last month, Ellis was flying to a show in Portland. He got off his United flight and found that his expensive and beloved Taylor guitar, nicknamed Guinness, had been cracked in transit. Paul did what any of us would do in the same situation; he posted on Facebook, filed a claim and wrote the president of United. In response, Paul received a call from someone in charge of baggage handling in Portland, but all he offered was an apology. United will not pay for the repair, which Paul estimates will run around $1,500.

This is not a mere possession to Paul. He didn’t find Guinness; the guitar found him. Paul borrowed it while performing at the legendary El Reno Vintage Guitar Shop, and you can see his first performance with the magic guitar on YouTube. As he tells the story, he had no choice whether to buy the expensive, beautiful instrument. Even though it is now damaged, Ellis continues to perform with Guinness, duct tape covering the crack caused by United’s baggage handling. That will do for a while, but it must eventually be repaired.

Where’s United’s Social Transformation?

Paul’s 2014 situation could not be more identical to Carroll’s 2008 United issues, and the airline is dealing with it in exactly the same way. If United learned a lesson, changed its policies and revised its training, there is absolutely no evidence. Given the chance to prove how it transformed, United has failed. Just as it did five years ago, the company is “handling” the situation, not resolving it.

With Ellis Paul’s United Airlines disappointment, we have come full circle in the social media hype cycle–two duplicate events separated by six years–only this time we do not have to buy the hype. We may have believed that Carroll’s experience transformed United, but Paul’s experience demonstrates otherwise.

The most provocative question is not whether United was transformed by social media, since it clearly was not, but why not? As social media pros hype the transformative powers of WOM, one of the things they conveniently omit is that offering better service to customers costs something. In many cases, investments in better service and improved WOM will provide a return, but that opportunity is far from universal for every brand in every category.

United could immediately pay every damage claim (or offer more legroom or give every flyer a free alcoholic beverage) and generate a lot of positive sentiment in social media, but that would also increase costs and prices. It really comes down to financial calculations: By treating customers better, will positive social media attract more customers despite higher prices? By treating customers badly, does negative WOM result in lost customers despite lower prices?

United doesn’t need to wonder the answer to these question; it got its answer back in 2009 when you, I and everyone else watched “United Breaks Guitars” and changed absolutely nothing about the way we purchase travel. The fact United has not changed its practices is not because it does not care but because we do not. Social media changes nothing by itself; if consumers are not willing or able to change their spending habits, then social media crises like “United Breaks Guitars” will always be more smoke than fire.

This is not to say that WOM is never powerful, but that its power is not uniform. How often have you searched for customer ratings of airlines in the past year? And how often have you sought customer ratings for hotels? Your very different answers to these questions are why hotels thrive or struggle based on WOM and airlines do not. Because consumers probe online reviews when making lodging decisions, WOM matters; one study found that if a hotel increases its rating by one point in Travelocity’s five-point rating system, the probabilities of being booked increase by 14% and price can be increased by up to 11% without affecting demand. There is the power of WOM for you!

For too long, we have used “United Breaks Guitars” as a blunt weapon to put the fear of WOM God into brands, but looking back with clarity and hindsight, we can see the real morals of this story are:

  • Social media professionals need to stop believing every story told by brands and bring greater critical thinking to our field. “United Breaks Guitars” was not a social transformation success but a PR success: Dave Carroll became an author and public speaker, and United’s PR team turned a painful PR problem into a wonderful–and fictional–story of transformation and customer commitment. The fact “United Breaks Guitars” was inflated into an endlessly repeated cautionary tale for every brand says more about the social media industry than it does about WOM.
      
  • The way brands treat customers in the real world has far more impact on WOM than what they do in social media. United’s problem was not that it failed to reply appropriately in social media but that it did not treat Dave Carroll right from the start. Once he launched that video and it began to accumulate hundreds of thousands of views, it was too late for United–no social media strategy or program could save the company at that point.
      
  • Listening and responding to customer needs in social media isn’t transformative but business as usual. Any brand of sufficient scale will see hundreds of tweeted complaints; that is business as usual, and those tweets need a business-as-usual response, the same as you would manage the same inquiry via email or on the phone. Social media can prove transformative for companies, but only if it changes the way they operate. Merely responding to consumers on Twitter is not a transformation; it’s just good, smart business.
      
  • There is an exception to every rule, and that exception sometimes demands special treatment. Every now and then, a single customer can rise above the noise and generate enough attention to force a company to take special action. The reasons may have less to do with WOM damaging business and more with the fact these rare situations increase customer service costs, consume time from PR executives and interfere with the company’s ability to deliver its intended PR and marketing messages.

    This is no different than in the past–businesses have always treated important or influential customers differently–but today someone can gain influence through the right combination of skill, talent, creativity, luck and perseverance. YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are littered with millions of customer gripes, and not all demand the attention that Dave Carroll got. He was not a famous musician before “United Breaks Guitars,” but United made him a star, and that’s why he eventually got more attention from United than many others who have since attempted the same thing.

Help Make Ellis Paul One Of Those Exceptional Situations

If you are so inclined, please tweet @United and ask them to do right by @ellispaulsongs. With your help, we can get United to do right by one musician and get one guitar repaired.

I have no illusions that spurring United to action will mean anything more than an appropriate resolution to one customer situation. If they respond, it will not represent a new paradigm, nor will it mean United has become a new and better company. All it will mean is that one worthy musician got what he deserved from a large corporation.

And if you will not do it for me or Ellis Paul, then do it for United. Ellis knows Dave Carroll and is preparing his own YouTube song with the hopes it becomes “United Breaks Guitars, Round 2.” Perhaps a few tweets of pain now will prevent United from a great deal more pain later. Better United hears from you on Twitter today than read about it on CNN or HuffPost a few months from now!

. @united @ellispaulsongs went thru normal channel; got apology but no offer to pay for repairs. Do you really want United Breaks Guiters 2?
— Augie Ray (@augieray) May 31, 2014

Déjà vu? @united broke but won’t repair @ellispaulsongs’ beloved guitar. If you think they should, please RT.
— Augie Ray (@augieray) May 31, 2014

Please RT to let @united know they should repair @ellispaulsongs’ guitar. Why is doing the right thing so hard for some brands?
— Augie Ray (@augieray) May 31, 2014

How Powerful Is Social Media Sentiment Really?

In the church of social media, there is no concept more sacrosanct than that of public consumer sentiment. In the social era, the gold of the realm is no longer the number of impressions made by your ads but the number of impressions created peer to peer. With brand praise and gripes broadcast to hundreds of friends and followers, public opinion has never been more public, so brands must bow before alter of social media sentiment.

That is the party line among social media professionals, but does it stand up to scrutiny? While it may seem heretical to say, I believe there is ample evidence social media sentiment does not matter equally in every industry to every company in every situation. By focusing attention and altering corporate behaviors where it matters, we might better change sentiment in ways that protect and enhance the bottom line.

Before you sharpen your knives, let’s define what social media sentiment is and is not. In our highly networked world, we are exposed to more people saying more about brands than ever in the past, but do all those exposures influence purchase decisions as much as we seem to believe? Clearly individual sentiment matters–what you think about a brand affects your own decisions–but how much do the opinions of crowds impact your buying behaviors?

Look at Hostess Brands. The news of the impending death of  Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Ho Hos has been greeted with the sort of wailing and rending of garments usually reserved for the passing of a beloved public figure. But if we all love Hostess so much, how did it come to such an ignoble end? The positive sentiment the public has for Hostess is based on golden-hued memories of childhood, but in an age of “buy local,” organic, health consciousness, these positive feelings drove insufficient sales in the harsh, fluorescent reality of the grocery store aisle. (Of course, while the public sentiment for Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Ho Hos will not save Hostess, it may drive the acquisition of the iconic brands.)

In 2010, Harris Interactive released a list of most and least respected companies. Given how networked we were in the intervening two years, it stands to reason that all the buzz shared about the most respected companies would be lifting those stocks while the anger and frustration directed at the least respected firms would be evident in depressed share prices. Of the ten most respected companies, seven are, in fact, on the list of the United States’ 50 most profitable corporations, but so are five of the least respected. Moreover, in the last twelve months, the seven publicly traded companies on the 2010 “least respected” list have outperformed the DJIA by more than 200%. The fact so many people dislike these companies and share those feelings online does not seem to dent the financial success of these firms.

Scan the list of the most hated companies in America according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index and you will see that certain industry segments seem immune to the power of consumer sentiment.  Corporations in cable and internet service, banking, power and airlines, many of which are among the most profitable companies in the U.S., dominate that list. How can these industries be continuing to thrive in the social era despite the negative public sentiment? They share some commonalities that help to inoculate them from the dangers of negative sentiment–they are capital intensive, highly regulated industries with limited competition and have both great barriers to entry for new competitors and high switching costs for consumers.

Other factors may also be at play. For example, banks often make the lion share of their money off a small minority of their customers. Bank of America suffered what should have been a damaging blow to its business results due to the wave of negative sentiment associated with Bank Transfer Day, but BoA seemed to emerge not just unscathed but stronger for it. At least part of the reason the bank did so well is that the lowest-profit, highest-cost customers likely were the ones who abandoned BoA for credit unions. In other words, not all sentiment is equal in a vertical where customer contribution to the bottom line is wildly unequal.

Even within some industries, it can be impossible to see the impact of sentiment on business results. Look at the retail vertical, where the ACSI tells us Nordstrom, J.C. Penney and Kohl’s enjoy customer satisfaction rates well above average while Walmart not only anchors the bottom of the list by a substantial margin but actually saw a decrease in satisfaction in the prior twelve months. Now look at the stock performance of these retailers in the past year–J.C. Penney is the worst performing stock of the bunch,  Kohl’s is one of the few with a stock price down in the past year and Nordstrom’s stock performance is in the middle of the pack. Despised Walmart? Its stock is up more in the past year than the three retailers with the strongest customer satisfaction ratings. Many hate shopping at Walmart, but apparently low prices trump sentiment, reputation and customer satisfaction.

Obviously, a year or two of stock performance and social media sentiment data is not a lengthy enough period to evaluate the interrelationship. Strong negative sentiment is not an explosion that tears apart the financial foundation of a company but is more like a river that wears it away over long periods. Nevertheless, some of the most hated companies have been hated for many years and remain solidly in the black–the consistent revenue and profitability of AT&T, Comcast, Walmart and others seem to mock our current obsession with public sentiment.

It is easy to understand why the adoption of social media caused us to worry more about the public sentiment around our brands, but step back and ask yourself what has really changed. People’s perceptions of companies such as McDonald’s, Walmart or Comcast did not change simply because Facebook was adopted by a billion people on the planet, nor were the attitudes of these brands shrouded in secrecy until Twitter ripped the blinders from our eyes. Did anyone really get on Twitter, see what people are saying and think, “Holy cow–I had no idea people find shopping at Walmart a bit unpleasant, that cable companies offer poor customer service or that McDonald’s serves food of dubious health value”?

Let’s move this out of the realm of the theoretical and into the real and personal:

  • Did you see the video that surfaced last holiday season of a delivery person throwing a computer monitor box over a customer’s fence? Which delivery service was it, and did you purposely stop using them after seeing the clip?  Answers: FedEx and no.
     
  • How many times have you seen United Breaks Guitars? Because you saw  Dave Carroll’s United experience have you chosen a more expensive or less convenient itinerary to avoid flying on United? Answer: No.
     
  • And on the positive side of sentiment, how many of you heard Peter Shankman’s story of Morton’s Steakhouse delivering a steak dinner to him at the Newark airport in response to a tweet? It is a delightful story that has been retold via social media many times. I am sure it cemented Peter’s loyalty for life, but did you run out to a Morton’s Steakhouse because of Peter’s experience? Do you think if you tweeted out a request, the restaurant would chase you with free meat? No and no.

Another way to explore this is to look at the companies who earned headlines in the early days of social media for leading the charge to listen and respond to social media sentiment. If public sentiment is as vital as we have been led to believe, it stands to reason the leaders in listening and managing consumer sentiment must be soaring, but instead many are struggling:

  • In December 2010, Dell created waves with a social media command center that would make NORAD blush–and since then the stock is down 33% and the company is now facing layoffs.
      
  • The first brand I recall launching its own command center to listen and respond to social media sentiment was Gatorade, but while the brand’s marketing lifted sales for a while, it has continued to lose market share to Powerade.
      
  • Remember Twelpforce, Best Buy‘s all-hands-on-deck push to respond to public comments and questions on Twitter? It launched in mid 2009 to much praise and is still going strong on Twitter, yet since Twelpforce was deployed, Best Buy’s stock is down two-thirds while the DJIA has climbed nearly 50%.

Social media sentiment has been elevated to God-like status when really it is more of a minor deity. In most situations, what others are saying does not trump our own personal experiences. Nor does it trump our laziness and the costs of switching (or even our own well-worn habits) in the vast majority of cases. In addition, while public sentiment may be a factor in our purchase decisions, we weigh it against many other important factors such as price, convenience, perception of quality, etc.

Let’s face it, we all expect brands to disappoint us some of the time, so individual complaints we see on Twitter or Facebook become part of the fog of social media sentiment–none of us have the brain cells to receive, store, recall and evaluate every gripe we see on social media. Hell, I can barely recall my own gripes! I know I have tweeted complaints about airlines, but I couldn’t tell you if I have shared more criticism about United, US Airways or Delta. Like most consumers, I continue to fly the same airlines (and gripe about them) because they have the routes and prices I need.

Even if public sentiment has been overvalued, there are situations where it matters a great deal. Moreover, the way we deal with these situations cannot be to conduct business as usual, wait passively for bad sentiment to bubble to the surface and then try to appease people with responsive tweets and comments. We need to recognize when social media sentiment matters most and alter not just our communications and service strategies but our business practices. For example:

  • Carefully Considered, Non-Recurring Purchases:  Few people seek out ratings and reviews for toothpaste, toilet paper and other low-consideration purchases, but does anyone take a vacation, buy a TV or purchase a car without reading and considering customer reviews, any longer? Electronics manufacturers, hotels, automakers and even restaurants (most notably in travel destinations) need to be concerned with their social media sentiment; for example, one 2011 study demonstrated that a one-star increase on Yelp leads to a 5 to 9 percent increase in revenue for restaurants. According to another study, 87 percent say that hotel reviews help them feel more confident that they are making the right decisions. One way to improve ratings is merely to be responsive to customers’ ratings and reviews–one travel destination that began monitoring and responding to reviews saw traffic triple and direct revenue double from TripAdvisor in a one-year period. Companies in these industries are also being more proactive, focusing on improving the customer experience, actively seeking consumer input to enhance service and listening for and resolving problems. One bank customer experience team noted a high number of requests for reset PIN numbers on new debit cards and proactively made a change to the timing of PIN mailings, instantly decreasing these requests by 54 percent.
      
  • Product and Service Changes: Social media sentiment drives a great deal of timely attention around newsworthy events. That is what Bank of America learned when it tried to increase fees on debit cards; as noted earlier, the bank may not have suffered financial ramifications from its painful social PR event, but the raging public sentiment did force the bank to rescind its decision in embarrassingly public fashion. BoA is hardly alone–other brands (such as Gap, Tropicana and Netflix) have suffered uprisings when they surprised customers with unwelcome changes to products and service. Brands cannot conduct business the same old way, making unilateral decisions and preparing to respond to complainers. More and more, companies are recognizing the need to involve customers in decisions and enlisting their aid to deliver the message. Barclays offers a wonderful example of this new approach–the company recently issued a new credit card, but instead of dictating fees and policies, it is crowdsourcing them.  The result was a 25 percent drop in the card’s servicing cost compared to other Barclays cards.
  • Corporate Practices:  While others’ gripes about the quality of a product or service may get negligible attention, little gets people so easily worked up as a heartless corporation destroying our planet, taking advantage of employees or doing the wrong thing for customers. An insurance company made your friend wait on hold for fifteen minutes? Yawn. But an insurance company that legally supports the person who killed a family member who paid the insurance premiums? Outrage! We all can excuse the occasional product or service disappointment, but when Mattel is accused of deforestation or Walmart sues a brain-damaged employee, thousands of angry customers will take action and make their voices heard. Little a company does is private and opaque any longer, so increasingly companies are making decisions not only based on financial and legal criteria but also on how consumers may react. “In the court of public opinion, no one cares that it’s legal or if the regulator approved it,” says Robert Hunter, the director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America. Rather than focus on collecting fans with another sweepstakes, brands that want to make a real change and decrease their risks in the social era must identify their most risky corporate practices and change them (or proactively communicate better about them) before they are outed in agonizingly publish fashion.
     
  • Time-Sensitive Products: Social media sentiment becomes more important in key moments of time for certain sorts of brands. A movie opening or new album from a music artist lives and dies on what consumers have to say online in mere days. The same is true of new products–the social media sentiment in the weeks following a product launch can help to make or break its chances. Once again, the solution is not to prepare for consumer reaction and hope for the best but to engage people along the route. Movie studios have found social media campaigns can be a mixed bag–“Snakes on a Plane” used crowdsourcing to get a whole lot of people talking but very few showed up at theaters, while the social media campaign for the documentary “Bully” helped the producers earn a favorable rating from the MPAA and boosted ticket sales. Meanwhile, many consumer brands are crowdsourcing product development to produce better products and give consumers a sense of ownership in their success–Lego is a leader in this, involving customers in new product decisions.
      
  • Local business:  Finally, social media sentiment can particularly help to make or break a small, locally owned business. One recent study found that Facebook and Twitter drive more than half of all referred visits for small business sites, three times the percentage of larger sites. It may be hard for tweets and posts to move revenue and profit significantly for a company the size of Bank of America or Comcast at a national level, but for the small boutique or restaurant on the corner, it can make all the difference in the world. There are plenty of places to find examples of small business social media success stories, including TechCrunch, Hubspot and Social Media Examiner. One craft brewer combined national advertising with 250 launch parties across the country to introduce local consumers to its new IPA, and in six weeks the brand achieved its three-month sales goal. Even big companies can get on the local train. 

If brands come to realize social media sentiment is not as strong a factor for success as we first thought, how should they react? First, they should not pull away from social, because it is becoming a channel of choice for many consumers. Whether or not public sentiment is as powerful as predicted, individual sentiment still matters, and you can no more ignore consumers tweeting your company as you can ignore their phone calls.

Secondly, as I have shared on this blog many times, social business and peer-to-peer models are changing products and services themselves. Today we are much too focused on how to tweet and post while ignoring how the social era demands changes in the way we conduct business. Brands that ignore the changing nature of the consumer/brand relationship in the social era may find themselves facing the same fate as those companies who ignored it in the web era. Ask Borders, Kodak, Blockbuster and others how that worked out for them.

I had difficulty writing this blog post, because it was hard for me as a social media professional to wrap my head around the idea that social media sentiment may be overvalued. In addition, I knew (and hoped) that this blog post would be subject to criticism among my peers. What do you think?  Am I missing key data points and concepts that tie social media sentiment to business results? Or are there additional instances when social media sentiment becomes more vital to brands?  Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Powered by Blogger.