Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice?

PR could certainly have jumped in and made a big difference here. Something for their team to look at and what tools they're using to monitor discussions - especially those happening with and around key personnel.

Best. Analysis. Ever.Well played sir!

Doug didn't need to go to the CMO smells like an attention thing. Barry didn't do himself any favors with his response especially now that everyone's talking about it. I don't know if I'd love or hate being a CMO for a big brand on Twitter these days. Probably both.

Regarding the general issue, it really comes down to this: people can say whatever they want. It's an exec's responsibility to gauge the importance of the questions / criticism and decide what's worth responding to (and how). It's never inappropriate to air a legitimate complaint. So what if he did it on Twitter? So what if he directed it to the CMO? If he had something valid to say, and he felt that it would have been a waste of time to follow traditional channels, then he did the right thing (even if I don't agree with his approach as a whole). Look, I've had company presidents and top marketing execs contact me over tweets and blog posts in the past, even when they weren't directed to those people. More often than not, it's led to positive changes. So obviously high level execs are listening to people and seeking out feedback, and they're reaching out to consumers just as consumers are reaching out to them. If that exec chooses to engage in social media directly (as opposed to something like a general company account), and they choose to interact with consumers directly, then they've officially invited that customer feedback. If they don't like it, they have other options (whereas sometimes consumers feel they genuinely don't).

Thanks Danny, great post. Even better because it's got so many folks commenting. This kind of conversation is what the social media community needs... It's not just about taking companies to task; we need to hold each other accountable for what we do and say. Each of us needs to be a part of making the community what we want it to be.

Nice post! Social Media has evolved dramatically, I'm sometimes embarrassed reading people's comments, like they don't know its being published to potentially thousands of people. Check out this blog post about social media etiquette - http://www.libertyinteractivemarketing.com/blog...

Agreed, Olivier - I think the key thing now is how both Doug and Barry move forward on this.It's interesting to note over at Doug's blog that many of the comments are now going against his approach following his admission that he was being deliberately confrontational to question Barry about a two year-old court case. Next step should be interesting.As far as Best Buy, they can definitely learn a lot from this and so that has to be a positive.

Agreed. Doug could have approached the topic with a bit more tact. :DThat said, Barry could have responded with more tact as well. If anything, he could have pointed Doug towards a more appropriate Best Buy resource who might look into his question. If he wanted to take the time to use the exchange as a fine example of engagement, he might have asked about the store where the price discrepancy occurred, made a few phone calls, and had someone get in touch with Doug with an explanation and an update. (Maybe even a resolution.)So... I agree with you: A corporate CMO shouldn't have to double as a customer service rep. or a sounding board for every complaint. That said, a corporate exec with a Twitter presence should be able to handle simple situations like this one without giving himself and his brand a black eye. (Even if only a few hundred Twitter addicts happen to see it.) It's the principle of the thing.And to allow the online ire to fester the way it did all weekend probably wasn't great for Best Buy either.While Doug's tone wasn't great to begin with, BestBuy as a whole could have handled Doug, his question/insinuation and the ensuing fallout very differently. ;)Great post, man. I like that you shifted the conversation in that direction.

I am starting to wonder if all of these tools are bringing the worlds of Cust. Service and Cust. Experience and closer together. As for the "normal" comment... none, but that is why the CMO should have been on his guard. By the way, do you think we can get this down to one word per row?

Now that I actually work in a corporation, there is always a process. I might know the answer, but I might not be the correct person to GIVE the answer. Ie., as marketing coordinator, should I really be going on the public record about our testing? If media asks, sure - that is the proper channel. But if it is open on Twitter and it's my personal account, I should refer them to a # or email for the testing manager, or at the very least, the corporate account.Here's the thing - there is customer service for a reason. There are corporate social media accounts for a reason. Execs should be allowed to state where they work, but not have to be completely open and accessible at all times. That's not really true transparency in the business sense. The higher ups are pretty busy - hence customer service and corporate accounts. If everyone should deal with any question they got, then the customer service line should go straight to the CEO - he is the head of the company, after all. :) I think the tone was very attacking and accusatory, and that he could be viewed as a "man on a mission."

Agree with you on the direction point, Rebecca, and I think everyone else does as well, and that's certainly where Barry should have responded better.I think the point you make about the accessibility is valid, although still needs tempered with common sense from a customer (and as a business owner and a customer, I know that's not always the case) ;-)It does seem increasingly likely that Doug had a more personal agenda than at first perceived, and that's a shame. Being an unhappy customer is one thing; trying to start a fight deliberately is another.

Personally I think it is the responsibility of the person representing the company to direct customers to the right lines of communication. The customer is just looking for answers and will get them wherever they can. I think it is an exaggeration to call it an abuse of the system.We all know that getting to the decision makers expedites a lot of things.If the person at BEST BUY set up the marketing plan he should know more than anyone where to direct people fro customer related questions.Being on twitter does make you (the Company) accessible to all so fielding complaints and questions may need some more thought on strategy for responses.As far as Doug is concerned it seems odd that he took it to twitter seeing that his needs were promptly and adequately addressed in store with the sales rep.Glitches happen.Giving a lesson in the power of the media or on his marketing expertise seems more his personal trip than anything.

No, I'm in the same boat as you. I think there's a difference between Cust. Service and Cust. Experience, and the latter is highly influenced by the former. And yes, every employee needs to offer a positive customer experience.But how many "normal" customers would think to go to a company's CMO on a platform like Twitter. So I'm not completely sure this would fall into a normal customer service query.

Out of curiosity, do you only perceive Customer Service as handling issues such as pricing or product issues. I cast a bit of a wider net and include any interaction between customer/potential customer and a company. Perhaps Customer Experience is more what I mean...

I agree 100% mate, they do need to be prepared and companies need to realize this. Here's a thing, though - maybe Barry realized what Doug's intention was (and one that Doug has now made very clear), and decided it was best to withdraw? He wasn't going to win when Doug clearly had the bit between his teeth, so why continue the discussion?He still should have diverted Doug to the right channel, yes, and customer service always needs to come first. Problem is, customer service didn't fail Doug so not really sure what he continued to be upset about.At least, I wasn't until Doug's own update...

Do I think it is right, absolutely not! Do I think it is to be expected, absolutely. Your point about Doug's tact and intention are spot on, but it doesn't rationalize the other side of the argument. I think we keep getting caught up in Doug and Barry and we are losing focus on Upset (or acting upset) customer and company representative. I don't think Barry is the bad guy here, but I think there is a lot to be learned and improved upon after this situation. Doug will not be the last person to take this tact and Barry will not be the last CMO... I just think companies need to be prepared, because at the end of the day this cannot be what Best Buy wants us to be talking about right now.

It's a valid point about training and every company should ensure it's part of a social media strategy (it's part of my own approach with clients). And directing the situation to the right account would be better than ignoring it.Yet customers need to play their part too and realize that taking a minor problem to a high level employee isn't the best approach either. We can only move on if both sides work together.

Hi Danny, Great post, as usual - and really enjoying the ensuing conversations. Isn't it a pity that the two people involved couldn't have used Twitter as a springboard to a more meaningful discussion, as we've all been doing here?I don't care for the fact that some people think that social media gives them the opportunity to grandstand and throw their weight around. But I also think that Best Buy would have done themselves more good by stepping back, assessing the situation and taking the confrontation offline.Where were Best Buy's PR people in this? These situations call for experienced PR counsel, no matter how many social media community managers a company might have, For me, this begs a larger question: are companies overlooking or devaluing its PR people in favor of social media staff/consultants? I hope not. Both groups are essential to the smooth operation of a social media/corporate communications program and need to work in tandem.

After following along with all these comments I have to add to mine. :)So, I get what everyone is saying that Doug had a right to speak to Barry and that Barry's response wasn't the most kosher, either. Unfortunately, you, Danny, and I seem to be concerned with the attacking tone Doug took and the moral implications of a lack of process or bypassing process to attack someone.I guess the bottom line is that despite how we feel about Doug's approach to Barry, Barry has put himself out in the space and will definitely have to deal with this type of customer whether or not it's right (his Twitter handle does identify his job position, making it seem as if he's there to be represent his company more than himself).Should C-level execs go through training or something of the sort so they learn how to handle direct attacks in a better way? Is that a question worth asking? Because it seems as if people really do know where to go to voice their customer service issues and where to go to attack the methods of the organization, and they'll go to the top to if they've got a bone to pick.

Does that mean the bait was right? Or the original post being about customer service and what a CMO can learn about it, only to then come out and say that wasn't the point of the tweet at all?Sorry, Michael, just because you can bait someone doesn't mean it's right to do so.

The post wasnt a question it was a comment. It was bait on a hook and Barry bit.Barry was given all the time in the world to respond or pass it along to someone else, he just chose to respond immediately and negatively. Would anyone be talking about a post called "I asked the CMO of Best Buy a question on Twitter and he ignored me".

I agree that having the BB logo doesn't help his cause. I'm still not sure that any employee can be approached about something, especially when the issue had been resolved. You wouldn't ask a hi-fi salesman in a store to advise you on the differences between a Dyson and Miele vacuum cleaner. Yes, Barry should have directed Doug to the relevant account, that was his failing - but it looks like it was more than a customer service issue.The more I look at Doug's blog and his update about it not being a customer service issue but a loaded question to challenge BB's legal issues from a couple of years back, the more I think Barry was set up. Which makes me sway more to the BB side in this instance.

Shouldn't it have been made clear from the start? The post comes over as a question about Best Buy's customer service so the comments and reaction (both for and against) are levied toward that.To then say, "Hey guys, it's not really a customer service issue, I wanted to bait Barry about his legal problems" make it more a deliberate set-up. Okay, maybe that's exaggerating a tad but it's how it now looks. I don't think the question is whether Barry should have offered a better solution than ending the conversation - that's clear. It does make me question now whether Barry was given a fair chance to respond, and that's a different subject altogether.

You mention that you don't think Barry should be the go-to guy for Best Buy. I think the fact that Barry has a Best Buy logo as his Twitter avatar, says in his bio that he works for Best Buy, and talks about/helps Best Buy customers in his stream pretty much says he's there for Best Buy reasons (partially at least). Which in my eyes gives any customer the right to strike up a Best Buy related conversation with him. If he doesn't like that, he show pull back the signals that he's there representing Best Buy.

I dont know... I read the exchange and kind of felt that what Doug just "enlightened" us to with his update was obvious. He clearly wanted to make a loud and somewhat inappropriate point. Truth be told, I honestly believe Doug was out for some of this attention when he made contact with Barry. Heck, he might have even been fishing for a blog post. I know I've been in Doug's camp, but that is not because I agree with him. It was only because at the end of the day he is the customer and should have been handled as such regardless of tact, tone or venue. People are going to go fishing for stories like this. People are going to abuse the space and cut in line. There are no ways to avoid this when you level the playing field. All brands can do is be prepared for this and steer people into the right direction.

Hi Danny,Some people will use social media in a respectful, thoughtful and constructive manner and there will be some that will abuse it. Bottom line; there are good people and there are idiots. There are some people that do things for the right reasons and some that, well, are just idiots... and unfortunately, before and after social media - there will be idiots...

Agreed, I don't think Barry's ending of the exchange did him any favours.Here's the interesting thing, though. Doug updated his post last night via the comments and has basically said that it wasn't a customer service issue. He deliberately set out with a challenging tone since he wanted to bring up a case that Best Buy went through a couple of years back for competing prices online and offline.So it turns into more an attack on Best Buy's pricing policy as opposed to a customer service issue. Yet this wasn't mentioned previously. Doesn't this then make it more like a hijack and less transparent than Doug made it sound on the blog?

Hi Kevin,There's no doubt that direct lines are far easier to achieve with social media rather than a telephone or website multi-line approach. And for that, customers and businesses should both benefit.The main gist (and difference here) is that I'm wondering whether Barry actually got a chance to answer properly, since it looks like Doug was constantly pushing his opinion without really allowing a response. I could be wrong; I'm just going by how the Twitter feed looks.Being prepared to deal with complaint or queries is one thing; not having the chance to do so properly is another. Although, yes, Barry should have ended the conversation more positively. :)

How can something fall by 140%? Wouldn't that put it into the negative area?Could you provide an example?

It's a learning curve for both customers and companies. Twitter isn't even on the radar of most companies in India unless it's a startup like ClearTrip. For those who already are on Twitter, they don't know what to do with the account. There are no clearly defined roles/rules. While I'm ok with customers talking to accounts like @BestBuy I think it's abusing the system when you're talking to the CMO. That's crossing the line a bit. But whoever's handing @BestBuy or such an account should be trained to handle customer care.

It's a learning curve for both customers and companies. Twitter isn't even on the radar of most companies in India unless it's a startup like ClearTrip. For those who already are on Twitter, they don't know what to do with the account. There are no clearly defined roles/rules. While I'm ok with customers talking to accounts like @BestBuy I think it's abusing the system when you're talking to the CMO. That's crossing the line a bit. But whoever's handing @BestBuy or such an account should be trained to handle customer care.

The "bloggers/consultants looking after clients" view is probably over the top, but until now all the posts I've seen on social media ettiquette has been to help brands (personal and org) and individuals (mostly new users) make the most of the service. Lately, I've been seeing more about how to not scare away businesses / be responsible with your social media voice (esp. if it's loud).My hope is that the community won't tolerate Twitterers that use their platform to bully companies for special treatment or trite issues. In that light I think it's useful to talk about examples of Twitter misuse, but I'm not sure the crux of your point "Sure, Barry’s response could have been more helpful but should he have had to respond in the first place?" is the right one here.Consumers have always wanted a direct line, manager, or some other access to getting questions answered / issues resolved rather than sit on hold for an 800 number. If a company/employees are on Social Media, it should be for a reason (esp if branded like Barry's account), and they should be prepared to deal with customer questions/complaints. If it was a simple mistake like you suggested, Barry could have found out and apologized for the error. Or maybe a post that openly discusses their pricing and that of their competitors would have helped. Or maybe reinforcing that the issue was resolved in the store. Or inviting an off-line conversation. Etc.I would only want to address an issue with a business by asking for a manager, by calling my local TV network, or over Twitter if I think it's a legitimate one and if there's an achievable positive outcome (unless it's a campaign around corporate accountability, etc.). If it's not legit or it's futile, I don't see getting anywhere through any of those platforms. Either way, I'd hope the business would have a process for addressing concerns via any of those channels.Sorry these have run so long, but I'll look forward to your thoughts in the next post if you don't want to keep this thread going.

But the user ID and avatar are all that show up in the stream. If you want to be Barry Judge, put up a picture and use your name. If you want to be your position, then you are going to have to anticipate this. Quite frankly, had it been the same conversation with @barryjudge and a photo of a human, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Doug had any right going there (regardless if his position at the company was in his bio).

I think you'll see some of the enamor with Twitter wear off on the early adopters of large corporate Twitter users. They will slow down and eventually stop the freebies and eventually some lacky will be assigned to Twitter detail where full-on apathy will take hold. Customer Service will be the same no matter what medium it takes for most large corporations. Right now they are still in the giddy, "Look at us on the bleeding edge" mode.Late Corporate adopters will likely have earned from the early adopter's blunders and have rules for managing all of their social media. The same rules for the dry, boring corporate blog will be extended to Twitter and Facebook. They won't be shunned for their poor effort as it will simply be an extension of their existing lacklustre service.Bleak outlook? Yeah. But there will be shining stars. I'm sure there will be hundreds (thousands) of brands that grow and shine because they see what social media can do for them. They won't manipulate or try to make people shut up. They will converse and learn and integrate feedback and make better widgets because of it. These are the companies I look forward to supporting.Alright, it's getting late. BTW Danny, I haven't connected my Twitter account to your comment system yet. This is @mackb1991 from @Semanti. (Ps the mackb twitter is where I'll berate people, I'm nice on the Semanti feed).

While his account may seem that eat, his user name is not. While what you are saying makes sense and I enjoy the fact that Social Media allows you to humanize corporations, but at the end of the day you are still a representative of a company and your actions and words reflect on that organization. Especially when you use the company name in your user ID and your avatar is the company logo. I can rip Doug apart for the way he handled it, but frustrated customers are part of customer service. It was a poor tact and a poor venue, but Best Buy created an enviornment where this could happen. If Barry Judge was not the right mindset, he should have ignored the comment or better yet, directed Doug to the proper channel. I am not saying this is easy, I am not saying Doug is right, but I do feel that this was a miss for Best Buy. They did service the customer, they did honor the price, what they didn't do was reinforce those points and take Doug's frustration into account. Judge chose to engage the customer and cerimoniously dismiss him. I can see why he made that choice, I can see where his reactions are coming from, but the way that this was handled in a public venue is way below a C level position... Especially one in marketing...

I would agree with that. Certainly Doug could have taken a different approach here. But there is a certain value to the public transparency concept. Holding executives feet to the fire once in a while isn't a bad thing.

That's the problem with open platforms, Mack - much of the time a grievance won't be solved, it takes the offline approach of real personal interaction to resolve.Could Barry have responded differently? Perhaps. Could Doug have opened the conversation better? For sure.The problem now lies with what you discussed - are customers seeing a new avenue for profit and acting on it? Not saying this was Doug's reason, but there are folks that would try this. So, the question is - how do businesses react?

Great post Danny and great discussion around this. Back in my restaurant days, I had a regional manager who often talked of "Emotional Victories". Doug's problem had already been solved in store and I'm not clear on what his real intent was for contacting Barry on Twitter was. I'm guessing that Doug wanted to air his beef and possibly prevent the same situation from happening to others who may not notice a large price difference while shopping at BB. It's tough to tell from the time stamps, but I'm guessing that Barry didn't respond immediately (lloks to be earlier messages that are not shown), so Doug was frustrated or angry with being ignored, triggering the emotional and somewhat rude tone.After receiving a bunch of messages with an accusatory and disrespectful tone ("focus on YOUR customer exp"), Barry seems to have decided that Doug was an annoyance that was not worth his time and made an emotion-based decision to end the conversation. I don't think this conversation was ever going to go a different way based on the lack of communication available in the medium (<140 characters) and the skills (or lack thereof) in communicating in this medium.I have heard lots of very positive stories about brand management on Twitter. Customer issues resolved, free product, special access, etc (I even got free beer when I made a comment about a large brand). As companies are learning to listen, they may be overcompensating because of the medium, leading to more and more people trying to milk the system. If I walked into the office of a large Canadian brewery and said I don't like brand X beer, they'd would tell me to get lost. I say it on Twitter and a VP of Marketing dispatches a minion to drop a sixer off at the office. I can't know for sure, but maybe Doug decided he was owed something more for almost being slighted and thought he'd try his hand at getting a freebie.

Look forward to your post, Arik - always interested in your take on things.I agree, sometimes you have to go past the proper channels - but even then there are "proper channels". Did Doug have to take his beef to the Best Buy CMO? No. There were other avenues to go.So, sure, go for the public face of a company, but at least make sure it's the right one, no?

Your comment convo with Sonny is interesting. I'm somewhat in that camp, too. However, I'm a big advocate of going to the top when you have a problem. So many organizations simply have too many hoops for us to jump through. Often, I will not get my issue resolved until I elevate it to the proper decision maker. Sadly, this often ends up being someone in senior leadership (like a CMO). Platforms like Twitter provide easier access to those upper-most layers (sometimes). And by and large, I think that's a good thing.That said, I think folks can handle these situations a little differently. In this case, why not approach Barry on the back channels? DM him. Send him an email. Why make it public? I'm just not sure how some of this stuff benefits the parties involved. In the case of Dave Carroll v United Airlines, I also think we get a little too happy with the "fame" that comes along with our conflict and we capitalize on it. But, I think this is all just a part of the evolution of the social space. We'll move past this. We'll learn (and so will orgs). We'll evolve. By the way, my post tomorrow touches on this subject. I don't necessarily throw the org under the bus, but I do question some of their policies publicy. The difference? I'm not malicious and I'm really just using the example as a conversation starter--it's not the focus of the story and I'm not trying to gain anything by it.@arikhanson

Couldn't agree more, Sonny. It almost feels like we've created Frankenstein's monster as far as social media and connection goes - now we don't know how to control it (or if we even should).

Great points all round, Kevin, and ones that warrant a follow-up post for sure! :)I agree with pretty much a lot of what you say, especially on the "strategy equals process" view. However, I would disagree with the "bloggers/consultants looking after clients" view. I think anyone with their clients best interests in mind would encourage them to come online and engage. It's when you don't get a chance to engage that becomes a problem.I'll go into this in more depth on the follow-up post, but I feel Barry was on to a no-win situation here. That then knocks your strategies for six and affects the response - which is what I feel we saw here.Would clarity have solved this particular issue? Maybe, maybe not. It would more than likely have changed the whole approach though, so that has to be good. But that needs to be on both sides.

Again, sound point Al. I think that could be the case (or has the potential to be). There have been so many negative reactions on social media - Motrin, United Airlines, Best Buy - and so many people agreeing that "this service sucked" that it could put people or companies off.This could be from entering the social media space at all, or something as simple as disagreeing with a blog post. Is "social media capital" so important that you give away your opinion? If so, maybe this isn't the space for you (particularly on the transparency front you mention).

I've gotta agree with you, Danny. Not just for this situation, but for the Motrin Moms and other mini-online-fiascoes that have occurred in the past 12 months. There is a heightened *sense* of entitlement given because we actually have the power to connect with such executives at big-name companies.Sure, they're there to the point of transparency and as Chris stated, have to 'always be on', but I feel these issues get blown up even more because we live in a hyper-connected world. I've had the same issue happen to me before at a Best Buy store, but had the price adjusted in-store. Should I *expect* some form of restitution because I 'know' the CEO or CMO on Twitter? I think it becomes subjective on the matter and feel this was one of those issues that have been blown up. Sure it could've been handled better by both parties, but did it have to get this far? Probably not.Twitter brouhaha vs. X brand > Issue gains strength on Twitter > Blog post created > Bandwagon against said company ensues. When is this not-so-merry-go-round going to stop?

I think with @BestBuyCMO as a username, it's safe to say Barry's primary role on Twitter is business reasons. And if the presence is truly for b2b communication, personal branding, internal communications, keeping up with friends, or any other non-customer interaction purposes, that should be clear - perhaps something less branded with BestBuy or a private account would be in order.I'm not sure his exact reason to be there, but I'd assume he's there to be a representative of the company, if not, I'd wonder what the strategy is behind having him there. Or what there acceptable processes are. I don't see any disclaimers or explanations in the background, description, or link like the one in @MassGovernor's profile (http://twitter.com/massgovernor).Regardless, I'm not sure the real lesson here is how customers should behave with social media. I imagine if it were someone with a following of 38, the exchange might not have warranted a post to begin with. But, businesses can't control who their dissatisfied customer is going to be. Whether with social media, sit-ins, boycots, angry flyers, letters to the owners, demonstrations, badmouthing, or any of many things that unhappy customers can do to express disatisfaction, the idea is not a new concept. And businesses always found ways to address the bad press, whether by making changes, resolving issues, or otherwise.The difference with social media is that the business has a way to hear the feedback firsthand and reach resolutions much more quickly. If BestBuy is going to have a Twitter presence, then there should be a strategy for resolving and responding to customer complaints from each account. The social media strategy should be rolled in with the process. Maybe the responses should come from a different account, perhaps the conversation should have been invited offline, a link to their social media and customer service policy website, or in some more creative way crafted by social media pros. Either way, nothing about Barry's replies seem to help resolve the situation or portray the company in a positive light to anyone who did click through to see the reply from Doug's tweets.There seems to be a rising amount of blog-chatter about the need for consumers to use social media correctly (perhaps bloggers/consultants are doing their part to keep us from scaring off their clients) - Seth Simond's Digital Cow Tipping post http://sethsimonds.com/digital-cow-tipping/ comes to mind. While I think it's always important to think about proper etiquette for using social media, I think the more valuable lessons are in how organizations can respond.Were Doug's posts laden with "a tone" - arguably, inappropriately directed - not really convinced, in poor form - probably. But I don't see why that is the lesson here - organizations can control their strategies, but not customer behavior. Why not write about how BestBuy could better respond, or the lack of clarity in the CMO's role on Twitter?

This scenario has reminded me of a blog topic I've been meaning to write. It's about social media capital and if people are afraid to risk using/damaging their social media capital by a) loudly and publicly disagreeing with someone b) rightfully calling someone onto the carpet for being lame. I wonder if people hesitate or not and if so, is that mindset truly fueling the social media conversation if everyone always agrees? Maybe that's why we see anonymous negative comments so much?

Sound advice, Al. The issue was dealt with, and in a more than acceptable manner. Was there any need to take it further? If you have a crappy customer experience, yes, probably. But Doug didn't (or it would appear that way) so it could (should) have been end of story.As you say, is a price discrepancy something a CMO should be called out on?

Danny, you do a great job starting a conversation on your blog. I'm always impressed. I dig the topic and I feel that while we are all free to use social media however we feel, we still need to be cool. It sounds like the pricing issue was addressed at the store. Why would he need to take something so inconsequential so high up the chain? Barry has been on our radio show in the past and from our conversation it seems as though this kind of an issue isn't even on his radar screen. Beyond this, no matter how hard a joint like Best Buy tries and due to the many thousands of products, there's bound to be a pricing issue from time to time. But, seriously, this seems to be an abuse of the social web if you ask me. Let's be cool shall we?

I've being seeing this more and more frequently - people who are aware that publicly communicating about an issue will earn a rapid, eager to please response. I'm beginning to think it's getting out of hand - people taking advantage of the public nature of social media. I'm a little shocked by the Best Buy CMO's response - he could have been more diplomatic - but I think businesses are tired of being cornered.

Cheers Keith, always a pleasure having you around fella :)I think you make a great point - if approached properly, a complaint can turn into a discussion can turn into a process improvement can turn into a case study. Everybody wins.