So Chrysler dumped their social media agency today, after the latter tweeted the adjacent on behalf of the former. Ouch.
It’s a colossally boneheaded move on the part of the agency, New Media Strategies. But it’s also inevitable. Based on what people are willing to pay for “ghost tweeting,” you need to cut some corners. That means nice-to-haves like “process controls” and “candidate qualification” or in this case “knucklehead prevention” can slip.
But you know who I blame for this debacle? I blame Chrysler.
That’s right. I said it.
Chrysler’s decision to outsource a critically important customer and prospect communication channel is at the root of this clusterfrack. This idea has never made sense to us, and while our clients can attest that it’s sometimes hard to get up to speed on and then consistently engage through twitter et al, doing so is part of what it takes to be an authentic brand. It’s also a means of connecting directly with the external reality – day in and day out – in ways that can and should shape business strategies, management priorities, and product roadmaps.
Marketing used to be about managing external perception in ways that drove external reality. Today it’s also about connecting to external perception in ways that drive internal reality. And if you don’t get that, you better hope this whole customer empowerment thing is a fad that blows over soon. Good luck with that.
So shame on you, Chrysler. Instead of just firing your spokesmodel, why don’t you commit to having your own people engage with the rest of us in the outside world, and take responsibility for what they say on behalf of the brand?
That’s our take… what’s yours?
Related articles
- F-Bomb in Chrysler’s Twitter Feed – How Marketing Communication can go wrong? (bubblecube.wordpress.com)
- Chrysler ditches media agency over obscene tweet (thestar.com)
- F-Bomb Costs Chrysler Social Media Agency Its Job (appscout.com)
- Chrysler gets out ax after profane Detroit tweet (msnbc.msn.com)
- Chrysler drops its social media agency, after they drop an F-bomb tweet (daveibsen.typepad.com)
- New Media Strategies F Bomb Tweet KO’d Chrysler Account (cindyronzoni.com)
- Worker FIRED For F-Bomb Tweet On Chrysler Twitter Account (huffingtonpost.com)
- Chrysler dumps agency linked to F-Bomb tweet (windsorstar.com)
- Employee canned after sending out F-Bomb on Chrysler’s Twitter account (windsorstar.com)
- FIR Cut – That Chrysler tweet (holtz.com)
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Communicating with your customers is the most important thing you can do. Companies that treat customer support and other forms of communication with customers as cost centers are destroying a lot of business value.
Or at least leaving money on the table. Exactly right, Stefan.
It’s the “intern managing your social media while you’re paying the agency guy to shoot the SuperBowl ad” problem. At the risk of dating myself, it was the same problem with the web in the mid-90s — major brands were using junior webmasters from IT to develop their online presence while investing heavily in print brand pieces. The stakes are exponentially higher today because the pace of change has accelerated so dramatically; everyone “got social” in a reasonable short timeframe.
Exactly. This stuff matters. It’s worth investing more than whatever happens to be left over after you budget for conventional media.
agreed, agreed, agreed.
I don’t agree that you have to pay a fortune for content generation, depending on what it is. However, it’s highly unlikely that anyone involved in this made sure that the Tweeter was properly trained in anything other than how to sign into Twitter and how to type.
Over the last 2 years I’ve talked to and interviewed with over a dozen major brands and agencies. It was shocking to find that they considered social media to be a small thing and that the idea of a social media director, especially someone paid the same as their PR director or Marketing director.
As for the blame, it’s hard to ascertain. Was Chrysler led to believe that the agency handling their SoMe had qualified people on board? Was the agency qualified? Certainly if Chrysler cut corners and didn’t vet their agency it’s their fault. If they did, it’s the agency’s fault.
I do agree with Michael to a degree that Chrysler should have this inhouse. But then again, how many brands are smart enough to hire someone to put them through a social media bootcamp. How many agencies offer a social media certification? How many brands are willing to have the guy making 6 figures tweeting rather than a 30k/yr junior person who is also in charge of getting coffee?
agreed, agreed, agreed.
I don’t agree that you have to pay a fortune for content generation, depending on what it is. However, it’s highly unlikely that anyone involved in this made sure that the Tweeter was properly trained in anything other than how to sign into Twitter and how to type.
Over the last 2 years I’ve talked to and interviewed with over a dozen major brands and agencies. It was shocking to find that they considered social media to be a small thing and that the idea of a social media director, especially someone paid the same as their PR director or Marketing director.
As for the blame, it’s hard to ascertain. Was Chrysler led to believe that the agency handling their SoMe had qualified people on board? Was the agency qualified? Certainly if Chrysler cut corners and didn’t vet their agency it’s their fault. If they did, it’s the agency’s fault.
I do agree with Michael to a degree that Chrysler should have this inhouse. But then again, how many brands are smart enough to hire someone to put them through a social media bootcamp. How many agencies offer a social media certification? How many brands are willing to have the guy making 6 figures tweeting rather than a 30k/yr junior person who is also in charge of getting coffee?
Important questions, Michael. But for me it boils down to this: The days when a brand can hide behind a false representation – whether it’s an intern ghost-tweeter at their “social media agency,” or a veneer of casual cool overlayed by their general agency parter – are over.
People want the truth. And sooner or later, they are going to get it.
Mike,
Shame on you. You and I have been in the professional services business long enough to stop drawing the line between the agency arm of Chrysler(New Media Services) and the Marketing Department.
Ther has never been a services firm that didn’t sell itself s being an extension of your company and department, or a good one where that wasn’t true. Nor ha sthere ever been a professional services firm that didn’t know that it would get the blam ewhen things went wrong.
Two things happened here.
First, a human being did something wrong. If they had worked directly for Chrysler they would have been fired. Whether that would have been announced is unclear, but then new procedures would have been put in place and the world would have moved on.
Second, a services was involved, so someone at Chrysler got to save their job by blaming a services company company. Not because they had shirked their responsibility to talk to the public. Not because they hadn’t been having an honest interaction between the brand and the social media universe, I am sure New Media made sure all that happened.
Because Chrysler could say it was someone elses fault. So shame on them for not just chastising the person that blew it, reviewing controls and working with New Media to shore up the program.
But, really, when did hiring a consulting company to be your partner become shirking your responsibility for what you say or do?
This is different, Marty.
Now that it’s possible to establish and maintain a direct connection with your customers and prospects, I’m saying that doing so has become a core competency for every company.
Paying other people to do that on your behalf is a mistake. This data point supports that thesis, even if it doesn’t prove it.
I understand your point of view. Although I suspect you meant:
“I’m saying that doing so has become a *desired* or *required* core competency for every company. ”
Mine is that even a high quality firm like New Media Strategies, with a portfolio of satisfied clients and a clear core competency, can get this wrong. To expect every company to become adept at this as a core competency is unrealistic.
A strong consulting partner can help build this competency and, over time, perhaps help develop the skills and process to bring it inhouse. However, in what I consider a competency that is barely out of early adopter phase (if it is), it simply makes more sense for companies to leverage the professional services companies to implement these programs with them.
You might, however, imagine that would be my view.
I believe core competencies are, by definition, required.
And while I don’t expect every company to be adept in this medium, I expect brands with a following like Chrysler’s to make the effort. You’ll say they’re doing that by hiring NMS, I just don’t see it that way.
If Chrysler wants to make products people love, or just sell those products in the way people want to buy them, they should be engaged with said people themselves. I know I can be a black-and-white guy, but that’s how I see it.
Mike,
Shame on you. You and I have been in the professional services business long enough to stop drawing the line between the agency arm of Chrysler(New Media Services) and the Marketing Department.
Ther has never been a services firm that didn’t sell itself s being an extension of your company and department, or a good one where that wasn’t true. Nor ha sthere ever been a professional services firm that didn’t know that it would get the blam ewhen things went wrong.
Two things happened here.
First, a human being did something wrong. If they had worked directly for Chrysler they would have been fired. Whether that would have been announced is unclear, but then new procedures would have been put in place and the world would have moved on.
Second, a services was involved, so someone at Chrysler got to save their job by blaming a services company company. Not because they had shirked their responsibility to talk to the public. Not because they hadn’t been having an honest interaction between the brand and the social media universe, I am sure New Media made sure all that happened.
Because Chrysler could say it was someone elses fault. So shame on them for not just chastising the person that blew it, reviewing controls and working with New Media to shore up the program.
But, really, when did hiring a consulting company to be your partner become shirking your responsibility for what you say or do?