Social media resilience training for businesses/institutions

[TheMadShip]

Or: Backbone Implants for Otherwise Lily-livered Organizations, God Yes!

Hi all,

I'm a longtime lurker, but I've gotten a lot from reading all the posts on FWR over the last few years, so thanks a lot!

On the heels of the Booker Prize debacle with Baroness Nicholson, which is the latest in a list of sorry examples of institutions, companies, and organizations folding like the proverbial deck chair at the merest hint of social opprobrium for having ties with us witches or witch affiliates, I've been wondering:

Would there be a way to teach organizations how to avoid taking these kneejerk panicked reactions to a simple Twitter pile-on? I know that Wokeness is the order of the day for many organizations, but I don't think institutional capture has gone that far (or has it?) and I think there must be institutions who cave to the mob purely in blind panic, without actually even trying to weather the storm.

Could there be a way of training organizations to be more "resilient" in the face of online storms-in-a-teacup?

I have no experience in social media management or anything like that, so maybe such a thing already exists, but if it does it doesn't seem to have been put to good use thus far.

This doesn't just apply to the trans debate, of course – I think it could be hugely beneficial to public discourse at large if institutions were encouraged to take stock and actually get some perspective on how much weight to give to a few screeching avatars on Twitter?

Cheers!

Could there be a way of training organizations to be more "resilient" in the face of online storms-in-a-teacup?

That reminds me of Yorkshire Tea's lauded example. They need to do workshops.

Many twitter accounts read as if management could not get their heads around it and gave the twitter account over to a teenager.

Yes, it doesn't need to be very long, either:

1. Ignore it.

Job done!

Add into that course:

• Due diligence. This is a really good thing! Do it. Check your facts, check what you have been told is the actual truth, check out backgrounds, check current affairs before you sign your company up to whatever.

• Safeguarding basics: ask yourself the difficult questions. Think the unthinkable. Whose interests are primarily being met? Are there any bloody great gaping chasms of breaches here being excused or explained away?

• An introduction to managing Highly Difficult People: the behaviours and games they play.

And yes: how to stay professional and cope when someone is having a tantrum being cross with you and behaving inappropriately.

Oh and forgot:

• Grooming 101: is it happening to you? How to recognise and deal with it.

All of the above.

Yes, these roles need a LOT more professionalisation. This is a corporate communications responsibility, and it is dangerous to give it to someone who could spark a boycott based on a kneejerk reaction to someone who is not a client, and not even a potential client - located in a completely different country, for example.

Actually, come to think of it, sometimes, I look at a timeline, and I either can't tell where someone is located, or else the location says "Scotland" or "Devon" or something, and the content is all American. So the "civil engagement" is all with a jurisdiction which has nothing to do with them, and which they can't influence. (By all means, be a "citizen of the world", but leave a bit of democracy for the actual citizens of the jurisdictions you're shouting about! I was annoyed that the Scottish government consultation about changes to gender in law was thrown open to the entire world, which doesn't have to live with the consequences.)

Back to your question, I've been weighing up Twitter and Facebook recently, and for all Facebook's faults (we need go no further than what Cambridge Analytica got from them), it is less open to the four winds than Twitter. That little bird is a weathercock!

Sounds like it's something businesses could do with.

Thanks for the responses, you've made some really good points.

I had forgotten about the Yorkshire Tea episode (the outrages come and go so quickly) – maybe we should try to find out if there's something in the tea?

There was a previous thread I read a while ago, I think the OP was speaking from a social services perspective, but the gist was that in any public facing service you will always have a tiny number of people taking up the vast majority of your time/energy, and that being aware of these people and how to respond is hugely important. I will try to track that thread down and link it here.

Yes, the geographical issue is a big part of it, that "astroturfing" backlashes is the norm rather than the exception. That really bothered me when I saw TRAs on Twitter laughing at Julie Bindel for calling herself a "left-wing republican" – because they interpreted that from a US perspective (and why not, it's not like we live in different countries) and saw that as a hilarious contradiction.

I've been mulling over ideas about "bottlenecks" and "friction points", which I think are usually seen as a bad thing in business, but it seems like we need to create some "friction points" on social media to stop this snowball effect. Even something like a company putting out a statement saying: "We have noticed a lot of heated discussions on X tweet of ours, and we value your opinion, so please write to us at [postal address]". I doubt that would go down well, but just something to say "Hold on, we're listening, but you have to do more than just paste a meme on Twitter if you want to convince us."

Or maybe even suggesting moving the discussion off Twitter to some other platform that actually encourages dialogue. If that extra inconvenient step gets added, a lot of bandwagon-jumpers won't follow through, and those that do might be forced to engage as individuals, with fewer "clapback" gotcha sniping.

in any public facing service you will always have a tiny number of people taking up the vast majority of your time/energy, and that being aware of these people and how to respond is hugely important.

This is a thing. It's come up here in discussion a few times, and on the relationships board. If you read some of the Issendai psychology articles www.issendai.com/ Lundy Bancroft, Toxic Inlaws etc you start to put together the impact of some personality disorders and that you can't solve a problem or make someone happy when the reason they're bombarding you with contact, questions, emails, abuse, isn't necessarily because there's an answer they can get to, (although they may genuinely believe there is), but because the process of anger and demand and interaction and engagement is in itself meeting their needs.

create some "friction points" on social media to stop this snowball effect. Even something like a company putting out a statement saying: "We have noticed a lot of heated discussions on X tweet of ours, and we value your opinion, so please write to us at [postal address]". I doubt that would go down well, but just something to say "Hold on, we're listening, but you have to do more than just paste a meme on Twitter if you want to convince us."

Friction. I really like this!

in any public facing service you will always have a tiny number of people taking up the vast majority of your time/energy, and that being aware of these people and how to respond is hugely important

Yes. We had a Special Folder for this type of person in one job I had. While we made massive efforts to provide exemplary service, there were always a certain amount of 'professional complainers' that would never be satisfied, and would only drain resources endlessly.

In another job, we had (discreet) markers for the folders of clients who were only to be dealt with by male staff, because they were misogynists and potentially dangerous.

Very useful to know about this, and set limits accordingly. Twitter, it seems, has got some companies responding incredibly quickly to the Special Folder type of person, with no thought for how that actually affects their standing in the eyes of the majority of their clients/customers/audience.

Hey all,

Just saw this post online that seems to be exactly what we were discussing here:

legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/09/cancel-culture-how-should-an-organisation-respond-to-a-baying-mob/

In Ye Olden Days of paper notes, when I worked in A+E we had a small number of patients labelled 'the X files'. It was only about 10 for a massive hospital but they were frequent attenders and all had specific management plans aimed at stopping them having the same investigations over and over and over again.

I suspect they were the same phenomenon as the small number of people generating rage on a social media account, or never resolving a complaint at customer services.

TheMadShip

Thanks. I’ll put the link on the legal feminist thread.

I’ll try and post all their articles onto the thread.

I think Legal Feminist going to be a great and ongoing resource

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3961169-LegalFeminist-Twitter

Another example!

twitter.com/coopuk/status/1301481417583534080?s=20

"Hi Lisa, this advert was placed as part of a package by our media buyers. We are taking up the issue with them with a view to them not using this publication again in the future. Thanks[...]"

... and a later tweeter commented: " This is the Co-Op (total revenue £10.9billion) completely changing its advertising strategy due to one tweet by a person with 200 followers. Truly, we live with mysteries too marvelous to be understood. "

Why will companies not rein in their social media staff before jumping to make policy on the hoof?! It's one thing for someone in a shop to make a decision on the spot to placate one angry customer. However, demonstrating to the whole of twitter that you will back down to any demand, without reflection would seem to be a bad idea....

I'm always surprised to see these woke twenty-somethings running the public face of giant corporations.

A friend of mine in his forties was hired through his ad agency to manage the social media of a worldwide brand. He makes six figures and adheres to strict guidelines established in cooperation with the brand. He knows how to handle difficult situations and if he needs further guidance, he checks with the client first. Their social media is fun and engaged, but very, very professional. You get what you pay for.

Yes, that's the way to do it, but I fear many companies just think it's "cheap" marketing, or some "new" type of marketing (as though grownups can't see it, so whatever they say on SM doesn't count, or whatever it is that they think...)

My organisation has a very extensive social media policy and no-one's allowed near the corporate Twitter feed without a lot of training. Like others on this thread I'm amazed big commercial outfits like the Coop don't take similar levels of care.

Like the response quoted upthread - who the hell let's a junior member of staff unilaterally change company advertising policy on the basis of one tweet from someone with less than 200 followers.

To be fair to the Co-op, ‘with a view to’ may mean ‘we see this happening in the distant future, as the earth spirals into the arms of a dying sun’.

Co-op have replied now, backtracking, which I suppose serves me right for commenting on an evolving situation... although I'm not a corporate mouthpiece, so it's not my responsibility to keep mum on a company's behalf.

It's just stunning to see this sort of thing happen again and again. It's bad for companies, bad for the employees who get caught up in these situations (even if they were involved in precipitating/ escalating the situation), bad for customers and even bad for the activists who will eventually themselves be eaten.

Sigh.

that's great news Medusa - I've just seen that over on tttr and am a bit relieved. On the strength of the situation as it blew up last night I have sent a strongly worded message to Co op and also subscribed to The Spectator but it is such a relief to see that some sane (ish) grown ups have stepped in to the situation. Maybe an interesting conversation between Andrew Neill and the CEO of Co op?

I hope companies will consider being a little more cautious with their ill thought out knee jerk reactions to the bullying tactics and taking the media training as you mention and my blood pressure will not suffer so much (although I always tend to be on the low side so maybe I need the stress :¬)

The Co Op may have backtracked after Andrew O'Neill banned them from advertising and tweeted;

''“No need to bother, Co-op. As of today you are henceforth banned from advertising in The Spectator, in perpetuity. We will not have companies like yours use their financial might to try to influence our editorial content, which is entirely a matter for the editor.”''

sg.news.yahoo.com/co-op-transphobia-spectator-magazine-123746488.html

Network Rail Scotland acting on complaints voiced through Twitter ... but not on complaints channelled (correctly) through its own complaints process... www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4020517-remember-the-i-heart-jkr-poster-edinburgh-that-got-loads-of-complaints

Wish companies would grow up, already... They'll find it's actually easier and less embarrassing to be a grownup!

The Spectator's editor, Fraser Nelson, has published something on the bust-up with the Co-op! www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-spectator-the-co-op-and-cancel-culture-a-cautionary-tale

A taster:
1. Cancel culture is now rebounding on corporates who engage with it.
2. There is a risk in asking a junior social media person to speak for the whole company.
3. Publications ought to get together, and stand firm on advertisers who engage in cancel culture.

From FN's account, the parties involved appear to have modelled civilised and grown-up interaction. It appears a genuine rapprochement, rather than the sort of bad-grace apology which has become too familiar (or if it isn't, it's an excellent PR save).

You can have three free articles a month without a (paid) subscription (this is a log-in), and I think this article is definitely worthy of being one of them.

A case study to watch: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4064901-Harry-Potter-and-the-Killer-Pyjamas (also seen somewhere on Twitter as "Harry Potter and the Flaming Gusset").

Currently (at least), MeUndies is holding a line of being trans-inclusive (various tweets, but try this one twitter.com/MeUndies/status/1321570246801719297?s=20), yet NOT refusing to sell Harry Potter merchandise, which is grown-up and very confusing for some!