We’re told (and tell our clients) that one of the key benefits of social media is that it’s allowing a channel to be opened between customers and business, and vice versa. But is this new openness simply leading to abuse of the system?
Are people now using this new voice they have to bypass proper channels and cause as much havoc as they can, purely because they have the ability to?
Take a look at Doug Meacham’s recent experience with Best Buy. Doug’s post covers everything in full, but the gist is that he was upset at the price difference between store and online and decided to take it up on Twitter with Best Buy’s Chief Marketing Officer, Barry Judge. The resulting exchange and Doug’s unhappiness with that is the basis of his blog post.
In the comments, there are two clear camps – one for Doug and his approach and one against. I’m swaying toward the latter.
It’s not that I don’t think customers shouldn’t have a voice and be able to air concerns. One of my old jobs was working with the Director of British Telecom in the U.K. and resolving high level complaints, and I’m a huge advocate of businesses listening to and conversing with their customers.
But there are ways to do that, and I don’t think Doug’s approach was the right one for a couple of reasons.
Problem Resolved
Looking at the story, Doug is unhappy that a Best Buy product is priced differently in-store from online. Yet Best Buy’s website has a disclaimer that reads:
“Online prices and selection generally match our retail stores, but may vary.”
So although there was quite a difference in the price (probably due to a simple error), they didn’t have to be the same. However, as Doug mentions, he brought this to the store salesperson’s attention and the price difference was overridden. So in that respect, his issue was dealt with.
Channel Surfing
However, Doug decides that he wants to bring this to Best Buy’s attention – fair enough, and it may just help other customers not have to pay the higher price of the product. Doug’s method was to tweet the CMO of Best Buy and that led to even more issues.
This is where I feel we need to question just how much people are “abusing” (for lack of a better word) social media and the conversations it allows.
Without knowing Best Buy’s procedure, the normal channels for a customer complaint/issue would be – Customer Service, Supervisor, escalated call, Manager and then some form of high level complaints team if none of the previous roads worked.
Why take it to the CMO? Because he or she is responsible for the marketing strategy of Best Buy’s products and offers? Does this warrant the question about a price difference? I don’t think it does.
I’m kind of surprised Doug took his issue to the CMO. Doug has an immense amount of experience in retailing customer service and I would have assumed he’d take his points to either @BestBuy or one of the many other Best Buy Twitter account(s) if he wanted to ask more questions.
It’s the questioning of the CMO (and the accusatory tone of Doug’s points) that has me wondering about social media’s role in customer service. Sure, Barry’s response could have been more helpful but should he have had to respond in the first place?
Chris Brogan writes a complementary piece to Doug’s post about how we’re “always on”. While this is true, there has to be some sense kept from the customer’s point of view. Just because social media allows you to tap into a higher level of employee doesn’t automatically mean you should.
Or does it? Does social media mean there’s no such thing as customer service procedure and everyone is open to any and every question? Or are people using that new power inappropriately? Where’s the common ground?
photo credit: Jennifer Pickens
If this is your first time here, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section and subscribe to danny brown to ensure you receive the latest updates.
RT @DannyBrown Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? | danny brown http://bit.ly/3XduoK
via uberVU
Interesting take on "cried wolf" effect on SM; escalate everything? @DannyBrown Are you abusing your social media voice? http://bit.ly/P0J7G
via uberVU
The guy does it again – another brilliant post from @dannybrown. Are we abusing our social media voice? http://bit.ly/Pqu9T
via uberVU
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.
via uberVU
RT @SocialSammy: Reading: Are you abusing your social media voice? by @DannyBrown http://bit.ly/Pqu9T
via uberVU
I am almost wondering if the influence of social media scares traditional retailers into giving into customer demands, I mean the public voice that surrounds a news story where a company doesn't do something right is getting more and more powerful by the day. It's possible that the abuse stems from the overriding power craze people go on with social media, but nevertheless all this negativity about the “abuse” does help to surface companies mistreating customers. And providing a realtime bulletin board for potential customers to tune into, making a decision on whether to use that company or not!
Hmmmm. I'm inclined to agree with you. There's approaching a company's customer service department and then feeling entitled to take up an issue with a CMO. A chain of customer service is established for a reason, right? Start at the bottom and work your way up — if the issue is worth the CMO's attention, it'll make it to him. If it's not that big a deal, the chain of command, so to speak, will take care of it before it gets to his level.
I don't feel social media is a ticket to bypass the traditional customer service process. If you ARE going to take up an issue with a CMO, though, at least have the decency to take a less biting tone than Mr. Beacham's. Often, being polite goes a long way.
Great post, Danny.
Cant say I agree with you Mr. Brown… While I didnt care for Doug's tact in broaching the subject, the venue was created for him to do so. Barry Judges' account was not a personal, it was an account for the head of marketing of the company. Why bother going through hours worth low level managers when the company decided to give you access to the top. Had it been a personal account and he happened to be the CMO, I would completely agree with you, but Best Buy decided that for better or worse, they were going to give their customers access to the top.
Often times we have customer issues go all the way to the top here, but they go through a process. If you go to our website or our experiences on social networks, they have been designed to give our customers a voice, but send them through the proper channels.
In my mind, the common ground here would be to have a BestBuyMarketing account and a Barry Judge account. They could accomplish the same thing (perhaps even more with the liberties that a personal account allows) as well as controlling the flow through their customer service experience.
Great post Danny. I do think that we have become a bit demanding and rude as consumers because we can go online and voice our experiences. I also know that most large retailers have distinct lines drawn between brick and mortar and online stores. Unfortunately for them, I don't see this changing immediately. While I've experienced it, I'm accepting of it and I continue to shop online because that's where the deals are.
I can see what you're saying Michael, but I'm not sure that's what's happening here. Barry's account looks to be a mix of personal and business – much like most other business users of Twitter.
Just because someone has an account for a company doesn't automatically mean you go to that one. As Teresa mentions above (and you do here) there are processes. They're there for a reason – they can make sure that incidents like this get dealt with properly and processes put in place to try ensure they don't get repeated.
Otherwise why have a customer relations team at all in any company?
Reading: "Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? | danny brown" (http://twitthis.com/bvdtrw)
via uberVU
I think it's something that needs to be addressed, Josh. Seems majority of stories we hear are about people “scoring” over companies (Dave Carroll and UA spring to mind). The problem is, like you say, many companies are new to the arena and have seen all the negative stuff so are almost bullied into acquiescing. Does that reall help the problem? Probably not.
Twitter: timjahn
I see both sides of the story here, but I think I'm leaning towards Doug's side. Yes, annoying the CMO with your petty problems could be considered stupid and childish. But who wants to deal with the traditional “chain of command”? At most companies, it's clear the chain of command is in place to frustrate customers enough that the company doesn't actually have to deal with them. Why go through that when you can just have a conversation with the CMO (a conversation he allowed by making a business Twitter account in the first place as mentioned above)?
I agree that you can abuse these channels because of their easy accessibility. I'm guilty of it myself multiple times, calling out Fast Company and the Sun Times at various times over little things. But that's the point. These conversational tools give you the ability to express your voice in a more direct manner. If you don't want Joe Schome contacting you directly about whatever problems he's having, then don't make yourself available in channels designed for that exact purpose.
If you are using these channels to contact companies directly, it helps to be polite and not aggressive (as with any other means of contact).
At BT, we always had a chain that saw the problem, had the correct team take care of it, faults were noted, improvements suggested, new processes implemented and then monitored.
Customer complaints fell by over 140% in a three month period. The right avenues get the changes needed.
Another great post, Danny. This had been bothering my on some level all weekend, and I'm still not entirely sure where I stand.
I agree that Doug's tone left a lot to be desired and that he certainly didn't follow protocol. However, I also believe that there were ways available to the Best Buy CMO to show that he was listening and being respectful in the face of Doug's questionable approach without either giving in OR being defensive and negative.
The CMO missed a great opportunity, unfortunately, and now his responses (such as they were) are now out there for the world to see. There were a couple of issues that Doug raised that speak to the need for further in-store training (just one example).
To almost any of the issues Doug raised the CMO could have politely thanked him for his feedback or referred him to the appropriate channels. Had he done this (even if Doug had continued his tirade), I think more people would have seen him in a more positive light. It only adds insult to injury that the responses came from the Chief MARKETING Officer (and I do agree with Michael, this account was specifically tied to Barry Judge's position of Best Buy CMO), who should probably rethink his company's social media strategy. Let's be honest, even ignoring Doug's comments would probably have been better than engaging on the level he chose.
Exactly the reason why putting the head honcho on Twitter isn't always the best thing. @Michael has a good point – the CMO shouldn't be on there if he doesn't want to be contacted. Iif you're going to go to the trouble of putting yourself out there and saying, “Give me a shout with any problems,” you should be prepared to reply to any problems (not just the “important” ones). If that's not what you want – if you want customers to have to go up the chain of command to get to you (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, as @Teresa notes), don't put yourself out there as an accessible source of help. Because people WILL bug you.
On the other hand, I see your point and don't dispute it – folks like Doug could be more discerning with the things they choose to bother the big bosses with. And maybe that system of etiquette will be a given down the road. For now, we'll do the best we can.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go ask Barry Judge what he thinks I should have for dinner tonight.
Cheers,
Nathan
Doug certainly didn't need to take this directly to Best Buy's CMO…but, well – he did. It's what happens next that primarily interests me.
I'd say that such routing issues should almost be expected within these channels. And whenever a wrongly-targeted inquiry lands, it either needs to be politely re-routed to the appropriate person or responded to in a manner that is in sync with the company's greater interests. I'd actually suggest implementing a protocol for addressing such circumstances, especially for a company as big as Best Buy. This protocol would NOT include things like being rude, arrogant, or dismissive.
The bottom line here is that we're all 100% accountable for our words here, without exception. Simply being in the wrong department does not exempt you from acting impeccably towards your customers, right?
If Best Buy (or similar) never had other avenues on the same medium to go to, I'd probably agree Tim. The point is, there are Best Buy Twitter accounts; there are also numerous ways on their website to interact. You can even click on a button and Best Buy will call you.
It's not so much the chain of command that's at fault; it's companies that don't make the most of them and abuse the chain themselves, pissing the customer off. The fact that Best Buy makes it pretty easy to get in touch and deal with kinda negated Doug's approach a little.
Interesting post. I think the Best Buy CMO should have taken the discussion offline with the customer, in lieu of adding more oxygen to the fire by engaging in a public online dispute. There will always be people who ring talkback radio, write to the ed of their local paper, and use as many social media channels as poss to voice their displeasure more loudly than others. Organisations need to be careful that their responses are not increasing the volume of those angry voices.
But, in part as I concluded at the end of the last comment I made, companies are actively more self aware of their action *because* of social media, I would much rather see more instances of companies such as JetBlue emerge on the internet, acting in the interests of customer and company!
There has been a LOT of conversation lately on this subject (United anyone?). Should consumers just be able to 'attack' whoever and however they want, even if perhaps they're in the wrong? Social Media makes it incredibly easy for everyone to sound off. As @Josh said, it is probably that factor which scares traditional retailers into either A) not engaging SM or B) succumbing to customer demands.
Yes, I think consumers should be able to express legitimate concerns, if they're legitimate. Yes, I think companies should be in the social space to foster that conversation. Yes, I think the social tools should be utilized for those purposes. BUT–for both consumer and company, PICK YOUR BATTLES. Ultimately Doug paid the online price (why did he still have to complain? abuse of power); ultimately Barry came across as reactionary to a minor complaint (but wasn't bullied by customer demand.) Neither side wins IMHO.
Can't we all just get along?
Sara @ iGoMogul
I'd agree that Bary wasn't completely on the ball with his response (or the way he finished the conversation). I can kind of understand why, though – Sunday, downtime, may have had a bad day / night before, the tone Doug set seemed confrontational. We're all human. And he could have diverted Doug to @BestBuy.
I'm not sure if Best Buy's strategy needs rethinking – they've got a great online presence and SM interaction. Perhaps Barry's bio could read – “Please check @BestBuy for customer queries”. Or have a @BestBuyCares type of deal.
There does need to be more of a consideration from customers as well, though. Throwing rocks at the first person you see doesn't always encourage the best results, even if that should always be the aim.
I thought his blog post was perfect, but the way he reacted on Twitter was juvenile. His point is valid and I agree that Best Buy has major issues, but resorting to being childish isn't going to win him any praise.
Hey there Nathan,
This is definitely a valid point that you and Michael both make – the thing is, I'm not sure he's actually putting himself out there to be that. If you look at Barry's bio, it mentions:
“Best Buy CMO, blog at barryjudge.com; Avid traveler, reader, restaranteur and sports enthusiast”.
Apart from the tag and the first three words, it comes over as the personal account of the Best Buy CMO. I agree that it's probably not the best idea to have the username if it's to be used more as a personal account, mind you! Still, are we now to have all bosses, management, etc, not have what they do in their online profiles for fear of someone skipping steps and coming straight to them? That's the concerning bit.
Hey, let me know how your dinner question goes…!
You raise valid points, and I can see both sides of the issue here. I'm almost wondering, however, if part of it isn't “our” fault (and when I say “our”, I mean social media evangelists and those in traditional media) by being so quick to point out all the companies that have their top dogs on Twitter (e.g. Frank Eliason) that maybe folks see that as a license to go to the top dogs whenever they have ANY kind of issue, because well, they're there, after all, and people make such a big deal out of it.
But you're right — it all comes down to common sense. If there are other avenues to take, by all means, one should take them first before complaining to the Big Cheese. Sure, it's nice to be acknowledged by somebody “important” once in a while, but if it's just for attention, then it looks bad on that person's part.
Hi Dan,
I agree, being rude to customers doesn't help any of the situation. But look at it this way – it's Sunday, you're at home, and the phone goes. It's a customer who has your contact details and wants to berate you for something that was solved in-store by one of your employees. Should that happen, and would that maybe make most people a little resigned?
That's kind of the way that social media is letting things happen – it's being Directory Enquiry's for anyone with a complaint to use. Openness is great but sometimes maybe there can be just a little too much?
Twitter: timjahn
Yes, Doug's problem was solved successfully in the end by Best Buy. But that doesn't mean Doug can't express his opinion over Best Buy's practice of having different prices on their site vs. their store. The CMO basically ignored Doug and suggested that their competitors are no different (which is a whole other topic). Regardless, Doug has the right to express his opinion about Best Buy to a member of the Best Buy team. That team doesn't necessarily have to listen but I don't think Doug is in the wrong for expressing.
The CMO is a representative of the company making himself available on Twitter. The playing field is leveled in these channels. It doesn't matter if he's talking to the intern or the CMO, the Best Buy presence should be the same.
I agree, Julie, it should definitely have gone to a more private medium. Could have solved a lot of the discussion currently happening, on both sides. Part of me wonders, though, how public it would have become had Doug gone the normal route? It may be that his voice would have been heard and a solution arrived at. That's not to dismiss the fact that Barry could have handled his end better; just that he may not have had to handle it in the first place?
oh definitely. i wish jetblue was on twitter. and let me just say, i have had some horrible jetblue experiences. and going through the regular channels of customer service yielded nothing. in that instance, being able to tweet a higher up about the issue would have been helpful.
I hear what you're saying, Danny, and I think that you have some great suggestions for them moving forward. I like the @BestBuyCares idea as well as adding protocols (this is what I meant by “strategy” – word choice fail on my part lol) such as the additional language on Barry's account.
I 100% agree that Doug's tone was aggressive (to put it politely), but I keep coming back to the fact that Barry had many options available for responding and (for whatever reason) he chose one that essentially made this interaction into an issue. I realize that he is human, but he could have walked away to cool down or simply ignored it. And to Tim's and Michael's points above, the account is tied directly into his brand and his position, which essentially invites access.
Another great conversation, Danny! Cheers!
All good points, for sure. With Twitter being something that started out as a friendly, “here's what I'm up to!” service and then evolved into a business tool, I think there's going to be that confusing crossover for awhile (until the next evolution). I tweet with multiple accounts, but maybe Barry doesn't have time for that. Hell, I don't have time for that.
Nice to discover your blog! Good stuff; keep it up…
i see what you are saying, and i have to say, i dont think there was any need to tweet. the issue was fixed in the store. that should have been the end of the story. if doug wanted to tweet about the price differential as a courtesy, he could have done that with a best buy hashtag and not direct it to anybody in particular. in any event, since doug felt the need to tweet to best buym dont you think doug should have tweeted to another one of the best buy accounts?
Hello Danny,
I totally understand your where you're coming from, and yes – it certainly can be a bit much at times. Doing business in these parts is, well – relentless.
However, there's one important difference between what we're looking at and your phone analogy. A phone call would not be heard and reviewed by the entire community, and therefore wouldn't be a public spectacle for everyone to scrutinize. If you're a CMO that decides to play ball on Twitter, you need to know this and live by it – regardless of who you're talking to and how bad your day may have been. Otherwise, well – things like this can happen.
well yes, judge did not handle the situation correctly. then again, i think its very easy to fall into casual “everyone is friends” twitter mode. many people forget that they are representing themselves to the world when using social media. one should always be mindful of what they say and what they put on the internet. especially if one is representing a company.
Interesting point, but it's never the customer's job to find the correct person to talk to — rather, it's up to the company to steer the customer in the proper direction. Hency why there's an internal directory next to every phone in every company — someone will ring you that's looking for satisfaction elsewhere.
If it isn't Barry's job to respond to customer inquiries (regardless what his Twitter handle is), but some other Best Buy account on Twitter, they need to set up proper protocols and listening procedures to respond in a timely manner.
In his first tweet to @BestBuyCMO, Doug mentioned Best Buy. An on-duty Community Manager (they always seem to be on, don't they?) with even only Twitter Search open — let alone some of the more advanced listening services available — could have jumped in and saved Barry the aggravation (and potential embarrassment).
Hi Judith,
@JetBlue is on Twitter and has been praised for the Customer Service team running the account:
http://twitter.com/jetblue
Oh, for sure. Thing is, did Barry deserve it? Probably not, considering it had been resolved to satisfaction in-store.
via uberVU
good to know! they were not on twitter when my issues occurred. but its good to know for the future.
Sorry Mickey, my bad for misunderstanding
The more I look at Doug's stream, the more I wonder if Barry actually had a chance to respond. It looks like he was trying to explain Best Buy's pricing policy for online and in-store (which is adhered to on flyers and Best Buy's website), yet Doug kept pinging him basically saying his company were tricksters that don't learn from their mistakes.
I agree Barry should have had the sense to say, “Let's take this offline where we can properly look at your grievance, yet I don't think Doug really gave him that option. I could be wrong, of course!
I agree completely Dan – and that's where I'm concerned that we're heading down a road that companies will be scared to travel with us. The customer is not always right, but social media and the resultant wide-scale backlash that can happen (right or wrong) would have us think otherwise, and that can hinder rather than help customer relations.
i feel like doug completely ambushed him. sending tweet after tweet without waiting for a response. its almost as if he wanted to just rant to judge instead of having a conversation about the issue.
that said, judge definitely could have had a conversation with doug offline.
i have to agree with @dannybrown. i can definitely see a company deciding not to interact with social media for fear of a pr scandal.
then again, perhaps more companies should hire people to tweet. and deal with these things.
Interesting…
Doug notices pricing error
Doug points out error to BestBuy store guy
Store guy checks price and agrees with Doug
Doug pays correct price
I don't see what the problem is here. Be pretty sad if everyone throws a wobbler every time they see a mistake in some point of sale system.
Maybe a better title would have been “Does Social Media give people grossly inflated self importance?”
What if my flight is 5 minutes late? – Grrrrr I'll give @RichardBranson hell.
I forgot to charge my phone and the battery is dead? Jobs get your arse over here for a bollocking!!!
Windows crashed? Ballmer!!!! !@#$%!!!
Where does it end?
That's a valid point, Gradon, and I agree completely. Yet isn't there a difference between finding the right person and finding the right team?
If you have an issue as a customer, you take it to customer service. If you have a warranty fault, you call repairs. If it's technical, you call Tech support, and so on. Doug himself has said he has a huge interest in how retailers use social media and so follows Best Buy – so I'm pretty sure he's knows about the @BestBuy account. it just makes me wonder why he took it to the CMO?
Protocols definitely need to be in place for any company, and have a way of letting customers know them. Emails, perhaps, or in-store announcements, flyers, etc. There's definitely the opportunity for Best Buy to use this now and make their online customer experience something that is hard to pick fault with.
With regards the first tweet, Doug used the BBY moniker as opposed to Best Buy – it may be that filters missed this. Not saying it's what happened or right, but may be a reason no-one jumped into the conversation on their own accord?
Twitter: raincoaster
I have to disagree. If you don't want to deal with grassroots-level discussions, do not enter the Twitter arena. The premise of Twitter (uniquely) is that everyone there is accessible and listening. We know it's not always true, but it is the PREMISE of the platform and thus engagement is not an inappropriate expectation.
If a C-level executive is not willing to engage in this kind of discussion, s/he should not be active on that particular platform.
Danny,
I really agree with this entire post. I find the most abuse happens on behalf of social media mavens that are intoxicated with their new found power. I think it can often be a grab at fame or recognition. Guy Kawasaki started a new account to reply to really negative tweeters for that very reason, some criticize just to get tweets back or recognition on other people's blogs that have a lot of influence.
With that said creative unique responses like the “United Breaks Guitars” video are great field leveling tools, especially because it was done after they had the customer service “door slammed in their face.”
I'm not sure if Barry's intention was to ignore Doug, Tim. His first response (maybe could have been worded better) looked like it was going to explain why web and in-store prices can be different. Mistake to highlight other businesses? Maybe. The point is, it looked like he was about to try and explain and then Doug (going by his Twitter stream) basically took over the conversation.
You can level the playing field but if you're not given a chance to play, no-one gets to see what your game could have been.
I think a lot of it can be “aimed” back at social media evangelists, Stacy. Not all – like anything, the “good ones” will ensure that openness is tempered with reality (or should). The problem happens when people are told “Social media gives you power – go use it!” without actually helping to understand where and how that “power” can be used most effectively.
Back in the day, if you complained to an authority figure you were always asked: “Did you bring this up with ….whoever you had the problem with? If not, do so and get back to me if you can't work things out. I will listen to both sides of the story and see if we can work it out together.”
You could not go behind someone's back (including parents). Today parents and teachers go on the warpath before kids have a chance to work things out, or both sides of the story are heard.
I'm with you on the benefits of grass roots discussions, but just because someone is accessible does that mean they should be accessed freely? Put it in reverse slightly – we hate getting called by direct marketers but our information is available, so we should take the calls all the time? It's a similar point here – yes, Barry is available but should that be for all things Best Buy? I'm not so sure, especially when there are other channels that Doug could have gone.
As others have said both here and on Doug's own post, was there actually any reason for Doug to follow-up something that had already been resolved?
The premise is spot on, for sure – but often it's the execution of that premise that either fails or needs working on.
Perhaps I'm optimistic, but I really believe that managing customer relationships here is a viable pursuit. It just comes down to being really particular about who's holding the microphone(s), defining your methods meticulously, and getting everyone to live by them religiously.
Since customer handling problems get amplified immediately (and very loudly) within this context, you need to be almost bulletproof and maintain your composure at all times. This is not a simple task by any means, but it's definitely doable – and that's why we see certain companies doing it right.
…of course, if your products are marginal and your customer service is terrible, that's a totally different story. In that case you should probably just stay a few layers below the surface and perish of natural causes. =]
I think that can be the danger, Shane (as Stacy mentioned above in agreement with you). There was a discussion the other day on Twitter about “social media fame” and how it's possibly skewing expectations or entitlements. Maybe this is what needs to be addressed more, as opposed to companies that have resolved issues but are still put under the cosh?
“Stay a few layers below the surface” – you won't find any complaints from me on that account, Dan
We can but hope that customer relationships evolve on both sides and that everybody wins.
An off-line experience, Danny.
We had a power outage at 10 p.m. I called the automated
complaint center and registered my ticket. Nothing.
I escalated the issue to customer support after an hour,
and then made two more calls upto 2 a.m. – but no response.
Finally, in frustration, I called the chief engineer, whose
phone number is listed for problems – and the power was
restored in TWO MINUTES!
Seems that effectiveness in having a problem resolved WILL
always bypass 'channel' or 'proper procedure' in a consumer
situation. Now, I'd be sorely tempted to call the chief engineer
FIRST whenever the situation recurs.
Should the chief engineer be the one to take a service call
at 2 a.m. in the morning? Probably not. But whether he is
forced to or not will depend on how streamlined his organization's
process is in redressing customer grievances, and how well
things will be handled at lower levels of the chain.
Just an anecdote which may explain the mindset behind such
behavior. Social media gives us all access to the highest
echelons of companies and organizations. But ultimately,
the question is:
“Should Barry have responded at all in the 1st place?”
Twitter is PERMISSION-based. You must permit someone to
ask you the question. He could have directed it to someone
else in the company. If he chose to address is, he had no
choice but to present himself as the company's public face.
Such is the transparency paradigm of social media online,
today!
Just my 2 cents
All success
Dr.Mani
@drmani on Twitter
This was going to be a future post of mine – thanks for taking it and making it better than mine was going to be! Anyhow, I am not sure if we're abusing SM, but rather we are openly looking for ways to complain.
I think it comes back to the sense of entitlement. We all think we're the most important customer. Isn't there a saying that goes “the most important customer is the one standing in front of you” or something along those lines? I think we are all looking for bad service, instead of praising good service. It's much easier to complain than to compliment. We all want to find the next Dominos or United. We all want the attention and spotlight.
Before, we handled complaints the way you mentioned – customer service, supervisor, etc. But now, we're out to prove a point. “I'm going to show them” is the attitude and thought we have now.
At what point will we become tired of this trend?
Marius shares: Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice?: We’re told (and tell our clients) that on.. http://bit.ly/13rH9s
via uberVU
Great perspective of the processes that should be used in these open channels of communications. I think we all the rules unwritten they may be. his approach could have been to engage the channels best buy has set up for this and allow for a conversation to happen about the problem. i think more people would have benefitted from hearing why and how can we potentially fix the discrepancies in price. There are so many factors that go into retail pricing, but there could have be a group experience to be learned here and not just complain right to the CMO. If there was a discussion (kinda like what is happening on this post) more people could have engaged and maybe an innovative solution is had by 80% of people…I say that because 10% will never be satisfied and the other 10% complain to be heard.
Way to make it a discussion Danny Brown!
Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice?: We’re told (and tell our clients) that one of the key benefits of soci.. http://bit.ly/13rH9s
via uberVU
That sounds like my power company – where do you live?!
I think this is one of the issues at question here. Customer service failed, so the engineer stepped in – but because his number is listed for problems, so customers know he's the “go-to guy” if all else fails.
Was Barry be the go-to guy for Best Buy? Maybe (my gut instinct says No, it should be a customer service manager). Did customer service fail? No – Doug's issue was handled (and handled well, by the looks of it) in-store.
Twitter is definitely a permission-based platform, and you ultimately decide if you open up that permission. The thing is, from what I can gather from Doug's Twitter stream, Barry wasn't given the chance to say much. He may have gone on to direct Doug to Best Buy's customer relations team, but wasn't given the opportunity.
Unfortunately it's something we'll never know because of the abrupt end to the conversation. Yes, Barry should have ended with a tweet saying, “Sorry for the issues, please check with User X and they can hopefully look after you.” But would that have been enough for Doug? Maybe, maybe not.
Interesting times, indeed, and you're two cents are always more than welcome over here!
I'm wondering if it's a result of years of phone tree crappy customer service, and now that there's an outlet and medium to bypass this, people are jumping on it?
It does seem that we hear more of the negative stories over the positive ones. It's a shame, because companies are using social media really well in numerous cases (Best Buy being just one).
And I'm sure your post would be well worth the read, Kasey – I read your blog and I'm never disappointed.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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).
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.
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).
Twitter: arikhanson
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
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?
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.
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?
Twitter: arikhanson
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.
Oh, for sure. Thing is, did Barry deserve it? Probably not, considering it had been resolved to satisfaction in-store.
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 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).
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).
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.
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.
RT @tweetmeme Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? | danny brown http://bit.ly/3XduoK
via uberVU
How can something fall by 140%? Wouldn't that put it into the negative area?
Could you provide an example?
Perhaps a better phrase would have been “Customer satisfaction increased by 140%”.
via uberVU
@dannybrown argues that some of us are abusing our SM voice http://tinyurl.com/lczk8a Just because we can, should we?
via uberVU
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…
via uberVU
"Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice?" http://bit.ly/kl2Rh
via uberVU
RT @tweetmeme Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? | danny brown http://bit.ly/3XduoK
via uberVU
Are you abusing your social media voice? @dannybrown has a great conversation going on his post here: http://is.gd/1GqJ9
via uberVU
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”.
via uberVU
Interesting discussion, esp. for those in cust serv RT @DannyBrown Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? danny brown http://bit.ly/3XduoK
via uberVU
RT @DannyBrown Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? | danny brown http://bit.ly/3XduoK – an interesting debate.
via uberVU
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…
via uberVU
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.
via uberVU
Perhaps a better phrase would have been “Customer satisfaction increased by 140%”.
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.
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?
@dannybrown with a great post on consumers vs. brands in social media. Killer comments. http://bit.ly/4eGp6y
via uberVU
RT @jaybaer: @dannybrown with a great post on consumers vs. brands in social media. Killer comments. http://bit.ly/4eGp6y
via uberVU
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?
via uberVU
Twitter: gacconsultants
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…
RT @thebrandbuilder: RT @jaybaer: @dannybrown with a great post on consumers vs. brands in social media. http://bit.ly/4eGp6y
via uberVU
RT @mukund: RT @thebrandbuilder: RT @jaybaer: @dannybrown with a great post on consumers vs. brands in social media. http://bit.ly/4eGp6y
via uberVU
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.
Does social media mean there’s no customer service procedure & everyone is open to any question? http://tr.im/tnuj (via @DannyBrown)
via uberVU
Interesting take on using SM to bypass customer processes RT @DannyBrown Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? http://bit.ly/3XduoK
via uberVU
Twitter: timjahn
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…
Wow… Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? I think this guy did. http://bit.ly/3XduoK (via @dannybrown)
via uberVU
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.
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.
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.
Twitter: cubanalaf
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.”
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?
Agreed. Doug could have approached the topic with a bit more tact.
That 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.
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.
Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? from @dannybrown http://bit.ly/3xklYC
via uberVU
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...
and @csleight I think – from observation alone – that disqus integrates tweets/ comments.An example – tweets at end http://twurl.nl/0rnzlt
via uberVU
Great discussion: Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? http://bit.ly/3xklYC (via @gkoelling)
via uberVU
Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S
via uberVU
Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S (via @DannyBrown)
via uberVU
RT @GrantGriffiths Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S (via @DannyBrown)
via uberVU
RT @GrantGriffiths: Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S (via @DannyBrown)- Interesting read.
via uberVU
Well said. RT @DannyBrown Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S
via uberVU
Been a lot of comments on this! RT @DannyBrown: Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S
via uberVU
RT @booksbelow: Been a lot of comments on this! RT @DannyBrown: Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S
via uberVU
hat tip to @davidspinks for sharing great topic RT @DannyBrown: Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S
via uberVU
Reading: @DannyBrown Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S Maybe I did that here http://sn.im/n3a0q Yikes!
via uberVU
DannyBrown: Are you abusing your social media voice? http://dannybrown.me/Bf1S http://bit.ly/1jc08I
via uberVU
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.
RT @DannyBrown Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? | danny brown http://bit.ly/3XduoK
via uberVU
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).
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.
Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? by Danny Brown – http://sn.im/o19mj
via uberVU
Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? by Danny Brown – http://sn.im/o19mj http://ff.im/5LnR3
via uberVU
Best. Analysis. Ever.
Well played sir!
via uberVU
Best. Analysis. Ever.
Well played sir!
Are You Abusing Your Social Media Voice? http://ff.im/-65iG5
via uberVU
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.
consumers vs. brands in social media. http://bit.ly/4eGp6y
via uberVU