birddog

Underestimating social media; a recipe for disaster

Hell, it seems, hath no fury like a woman plagiarised. That is, a woman plagiarised, with the majority of the internet on her side. Here is a long and evolving story as short as I can possibly make it:

On Wednesday last week (3rd November), Monica Gaudio, a food/crafts writer in the United States, blogged on her personal LiveJournal site that an article on apple pie recipes, which she’d written in 2005 and copyrighted as such on a web domain that she owns, had been reproduced in the October 2010 issue of the advertiser-funded, for-profit Cooks Source Magazine, without her permission.

Monica emailed the Cooks Source editor Judith Griggs asking for an apology to be posted on the magazine’s Facebook page, and a donation of $130 made to the Columbian School of Journalism. Said editor replied in the negative, saying that Monica should have been grateful for the exposure, and that since she’d had to edit the piece before publishing it (unlawfully), Monica should actually pay her. The editor then proceeded to trumpet her three decades’ experience as an editor that had given her sound knowledge of copyright law, before stating triumphantly (and quite wrongly) that the ‘web is a public domain’ and therefore the magazine had done nothing wrong.

It had, of course. And how: by Friday morning, the story had gone viral and global. Hundreds of people commented and continue to comment on Monica’s blog; thousands more have linked to it. Twitter went into overdrive; influential bloggers drummed up their support. The obligatory ‘Hitler Reacts’ YouTube video was made. The magazine’s Facebook page (which has now been deleted) became swamped with several thousand comments, each one increasingly vitriolic. Someone even wrote a song. Overwhelmed by the response, the Cooks Source website was taken down for several days.

All this gives you a very bad rep if you’re a brand. But reputations can be managed if you act quickly. Cooks Source and more specifically Judith Griggs failed to do so, and as a result, it is more than their reputation that has taken a hit since this story went around the world: several advertisers have removed their business from the magazine.

To summarise all that, since it is quite extraordinary: one hopelessly misjudged email (and rather foolish rudeness on the individual’s part) has cost a magazine – a business like any other – a chunk of its revenue. And as the magazine is distributed for free, that revenue stream is especially important.

Is it only a matter of time before big business slips up too? After all, this is a saga with potentially scary implications. Social media publicity nightmares are well documented (GAP last month a case in point), but here now is an instance of tangible financial loss directly attributable to social media vilification. Granted, Cooks Source has nowhere near the PR muscle or corporate size to simply absorb such a mass online condemnation, but as what has happened makes clear, this modern form of virtual justice often bears little relation to the magnitude of the crime, regardless of who committed it.

It appears that the magazine was simply not au fait with how the increasingly social internet has brought a “fundamental shift in power between publisher and reader”. When Ms Griggs sent that snide email to a seasoned blogger, it is unlikely that she would even have considered the consequences. Her magazine was left like a sitting duck, unable to defend itself from an internet on a righteous rampage.

The Cooks Source website now carries a lengthy statement that, among other things (including a bewildering indictment of Facebook and an attempt to absolve themselves from full blame), does at least offer an apology to the wronged blogger. But it is now too late – the damage, to their business and their brand, has been done. If lessons such as these aren’t learned from, this won’t be the last time the social internet claims a victim.

Tim Miller
Content Editor

What’s in a name?

Readers of a certain age will know George Foreman for what he was: a world-class boxer and winner of 76 fights. Others –students, say – will more likely be familiar with the name for its association with the food grill Foreman launched in 1994. His famous tagline – “It’s so good, I put my name on it!” – has permeated into popular catchphrase culture. Business Week reckons ‘Big George’ has earned in excess of $200m as a direct result of the deal, while the grill itself has shifted more than 100m units. It’s a success story of personal product endorsement the like of which is now very rare. Or at least medium-rare.

To be fair, the 21st century power of celebrity is such that figures like the Beckhams or Cheryl Tweedy have no need (financial or otherwise) to lend their actual names to other products, and, likewise, brands only really require a glimpse of a famous face or a few words from their mouths for a celeb endorsement to work its magic. It’s one thing to flick a head of styled hair and quip “You’re worth it!” in a 20 second ad, though, and quite another to take the step of signing over your given name to the fate of a single product.

It is probably fair to say then that ‘putting your name on it’, as George Foreman confidently stated, and building it up as a brand is no easy matter. The potential risks struck me as (continuing the food theme) I sat down with my better half to eat in Tom Aikens’s restaurant in South Kensington. It was the first restaurant the semi-celebrity chef opened, in 2003, and is simply called Tom Aikens. In large lettering outside the building. It’s a permanent tying of name to brand and assumes responsibility for pretty much anything that happens to diners here on in. Now, I’m no restaurant critic, but as it turned out the experience was so good, it’s worth giving it a go.

The first thing was the décor: comfortable furniture, soft low lighting, a warm unelaborate interior design. It had an inviting air, encouraging the relaxed chatter murmuring in the background. Not one element hinted at pretension, which, for a well-known chef-owned restaurant in South Ken on a Saturday evening, could have been forgiven.

The front of house staff, meanwhile, were immaculate, appearing from nowhere to fill up empty wine glasses, bringing out each course with exquisite timing (we were eating from the eight-course Tasting Menu, so this was doubly appreciated), tactfully replacing cutlery and napkins, explaining information about certain dishes, and never short of a ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’. But despite all this, they couldn’t have been more unobtrusive, and any prior notions that this high level of service might seem overbearing, or worse still, aloof, were long gone.

And so to the food. Whether or not the man himself was behind the scenes was irrelevant: the chefs and kitchen staff at Tom Aikens succeeded in delivering a stunning, tell-all-your-friends-about-it tour de force in contemporary cuisine. From the cured Foie Gras to the passion fruit jelly, via John Dorey fillet and loin of ewe’s cheese-marinated lamb, the sumptuous tastes and rich textures instilled in each course made for an unforgettable and supreme dining experience.

Because the experience at Tom Aikens’s restaurant was, from start to finish, of the highest order. A not-insignificant investment in the personnel and countless hours training, sourcing the best ingredients and ensuring the finest preparation and presentation, pitching the aesthetics of the restaurant just right – it all had to combine exactly to positively affect the end experience and achieve a continual rise in stock for the Tom Aikens brand. If there had been even one weak link in the chain, the negative perception would have been firmly associated with the name – and in the eyes of the customer, followed it around wherever else it appeared.

Instead, it was an illustration of how hard work, preparation and care for the entirety of a brand will deliver a rich and full experience of it. It was also an illustration of just how necessary that effort is, to ensure your brand is being enhanced by everything that’s connected to it. It’s not what’s in a name, after all, but what’s behind it. Tom Aikens has certainly got it right.

Tim Miller
Content Editor

UPDATE: 4 October 2010

Things got a little bit exciting at the Birddog office last week. Even more exciting than that time a beach football got delivered by an anonymous sender.

Following the above blog post spotlighting George Foreman’s mid-nineties rebirth as the lean, mean grilling machine, then waxing lyrically about the experience at the Tom Aikens restaurant in South Kensington, both aforementioned foodsters were soon contacting us in response.

It was Mr Foreman’s Twitter people dropping by for a chat first of all, but Tom Aikens took the next step of engagement by seeking out Birddog’s contact details from our website, and leaving a personally addressed note of thanks in our eagerly-accepting inbox.

The blog itself had, by this point, been live on the site for three days. On the first day, having tweeted through the Birddog feed about the latest blog update, @GeorgeGrillsUK were on our tail. Two days later, Tom Aikens was in touch via email, taking a moment to offer thanks for our positively charged blog.

James Ainsworth, social media marketing specialist at Alterian, was suitably impressed by the speed in which George Foreman’s team got in touch to blog about it.

Having already sung the praises about brand experience originally, it also appears that these brands have a commendable approach to social media monitoring too.

Tim

Location, Location, Location

Location-based social media is all the rage in 2010, but has its potential for businesses been dashed before they’ve even moved in?

A lot of new media buzz is generated when a new ‘breakout’ company arrives on the scene. Twitter was 2009’s indisputable success story, and for a long time, it looked like Foursquare might check-in at number one for 2010. It’s trendy, fun, and it comes readymade with a simple business model that companies and brands could quickly benefit from.

But its rocketing popularity has been stymied during a period of increasing focus on privacy online.

Foursquare, for those unacquainted, is the feted darling of location-based social media tools. As opposed to being asked ‘What’s happening?’ by Twitter, Foursquare in essence asks its users – around 3 million, up from 500,000 in March this year – the question ‘Where are you?’

To answer, Foursquare users ‘check-in’ to their favourite places, racking up visitor points and unlocking badges when visiting new places and their top locations. The user who checks-in to a location most often becomes its ‘Mayor’ (the service works using GPS-tracking to confirm a person’s whereabouts, so there’s no cheating).

Harmless enough, and given the pervasiveness of smartphones, laptops, netbooks et al, it’s pretty useful. And the epitome of social, too: using your techno gadgets to tell people exactly where to find you in real-time can only encourage and accelerate face-to-face communication.

But there’s a very stark privacy issue. Like Twitter, the chances are most of your Foursquare followers are people you’ve never met, and don’t really know anything about. And yet the service provides complete strangers with your precise location.

The Guardian highlighted this best with this article (check out the sinister opening line, “Louise has straight, auburn hair…” http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/23/foursquare) but such concerns have been bubbling under since Foursquare launched. Worries vary from the naïve, where users detail the location of their homes (and then detail when they’re out), to the conspiratorial: fears that governments or security agencies can monitor an individual’s whereabouts through their social network activity.

The truth is, despite its relative success in the US, adoption in the UK has been slow. For the right brand, the benefits are clear enough: using Foursquare to engage with audiences and reward consumer loyalty adds a competitive edge to customers’ interactions with a brand, and incentivises ‘another’ visit to a favourite coffee shop, bar, cinema, park, tourist attraction, etc.

Now, fresh from its own privacy problems earlier this year, Facebook has entered the ‘geosocial’ space with their launch of Facebook Places. While it’s put location-based social networks on the map (sorry), those privacy concerns have suddenly become a mainstream hot topic, thanks to the small matter of its half-a-billion strong user base.

As a result, much of the wider audience will so far only have been exposed to Foursquare and the ‘geosocial’ buzz through its negative publicity.

Social media in 2010 is undoubtedly all about location, but its full impact may have already been damaged, at least short-term, by concerns over privacy. And until these are fully understood, brands thinking about location-based social networking might be served best by waiting to see whether ‘geosocial’ literally does go global – or disappears off the face of the Earth.

Tim Miller

Content Editor