Have you ever seen a social media firestorm in action?
Just like any other storm system, it’s both an awesome and terrifying sight to behold.
This week, Amazon.com found itself in the middle of a big firestorm over a book for pedophiles which it had for sale on its site.
While I’m sure there will be many posts written in the coming weeks analyzing where Amazon went wrong during their firestorm (which is pretty much everywhere), I’m more interested in the other half of the equation.
As a student of communications and ethnography, during social media conversation firestorms, I like to watch the storm, not the ground upon which it ravages.
Social media conversation storms are swift, powerful and quickly growing, and studying them is a new science (which I, in no way, claim to have mastered). But I think it’s important to pay attention to them because they hold lessons on how we should respond to our own firestorms when they eventually arise.
While our firestorms may not pack the punch of Amazon’s, sooner or later all of us will feel a backlash for a mistake we’ve made (and we all make them, because we’re human). When that happens, how will we respond?
In watching Amazon’s community engage, some conversation patterns emerged that I have seen repeated before in social media firestorms — from small flame wars to all out reputation apocalypses.
Below, I’ve described seven conversationalist profiles that seem most common in these situations.
Each of these types of people play a very different role in a firestorm and thus, may require different layers of attention and responsiveness from a company. By learning who these people are and what motivates their participation in the conversation, maybe we can better formulate our company’s responses in return.
1. The catalysts
Catalysts are the people closest to the inciting incident (or the cause, recipient or beneficiary of whatever went wrong). These are the news breakers who bring an incident to life and give it shape and legs.
I’ve observed that catalysts are often bloggers, as that form lends itself well to storytelling. In a blog, a person has a platform to fully describe what happened, why it upset them, and what they intend to do about it. Often, (but not always) this is also the place where they include a call to action for their readers.
The catalysts are the many “faces” of a social firestorm. Some may not be directly related to the incident, but they’ve felt or formed a connection with the person who was. They originate the story within their networks and generally follow it through until some sort of conclusion is reached.
Posting a blanket apology on the company website is not an appropriate or effective way to communicate with a catalyst. Catalysts require (and deserve) personal contact from a company (on the phone, via email, etc.) where both the company representative and the catalyst can discuss the problem and next steps.
Conversations move extremely fast in social circles. Contacting catalysts as soon as possible is the most important thing you can do to manage your company’s online reputation in a firestorm.
Like a spark smoldering in the corner of an unoccupied building, ignoring your catalysts is just inviting a blaze to erupt.
2. The shepherds
Shepherds are the people who hear or read about a catalyst’s inciting incident and are so moved by what they’ve learned that they immediately drop what they are doing and begin to do some homework to help build upon the catalyst’s case.
In the Amazon situation, the shepherds were the people who began investigating the background of the author of the offending book, the content of Amazon’s communication channels, and prior cases that involved Amazon publishing controversial content.
After they’ve done their homework, shepherds usually report their findings back to the catalysts and out to their own networks as well (making them, in effect, second-generation catalysts.)
The shepherds can be powerful players in a social firestorm. They have chosen to turn their anger into strategic action and may not be as easily placated as a catalyst (who might be simply looking for a personal apology or specific acknowledgment from the company in question).
I believe that shepherds are the people public relations departments should focus their firestorm communication efforts on, since these are the people who are not just concerned that a company made a mistake, they’re concerned that this mistake is part of a larger trend or problem.
If you have dirty laundry, a shepherd will air it for you. And if they see a catalyst start a relevant, relatable and reasonable fire, they will start chopping wood to feed it.
3. The activists
Activists are moved to action by the catalyst’s story, but this action generally takes a very specific and predictable course.
In the Amazon situation, the activists were the people who canceled their existing Amazon orders or accounts, called Amazon on the phone to lodge a complaint or wrote blog posts of their own to share their feelings about the situation.
It’s often the front line communicators within a company who feel the wrath of angry activists. So, it’s probably wise to start thinking now about how to train and prepare those front line communicators to respond if/when a firestorm happens.
Most activists show their displeasure in a firestorm by taking one specific action (like calling customer service or boycotting a store) rather than launching a full on disgruntlement campaign.
In some cases, it may be possible to predict those behaviors (and the channels activists will use to express them) in advance. (For instance, if you’re a store, angry people may share their feelings with your cashiers rather than your managers).
My observation is that activists are not people who have an axe to grind. They’re also not looking for a company to make a huge policy change on the spot. Activists just want their displeasure acknowledged and an assurance that the company in question is open to discussing and resolving the situation.
4. The promoters
Promoters often fan the flames of a firestorm, but likely will not back up those words with action (for them, the retweet, the blog post, the mass email IS the action).
Promoters use the click of a button to express their displeasure, and then they usually move on.
Are promoters dangerous to a company in a firestorm?
You bet. Messages add up and word spreads fast.
So what can a company do to communicate with them?
I think that if companies reach out to catalysts quickly (which clearly, Amazon did not), and are effective in working things out with them, those catalysts can play an instrumental role in reaching out to promoters and changing the tone of the conversations which are being promoted.
Companies can also make use of the fact that promoters promote. They’ll quickly spread the news that a company messed up. But, they just as quickly can spread the word when its been fixed. too.
5. The crowd
The crowd is the majority of people on social media. These are the people who read information updates, and may take a moment to share a comment on it, and then they move on.
Does that mean they don’t care?
Not by a long shot.
The crowd is the “public” in “public relations.” Even if they aren’t talking about a particular company or incident, (or saying much when they do), the crowd can see a firestorm and they’re likely going to have an ambient awareness of it until it dies.
Formal acknowledgments and updates during a firestorm — like issuing a statement or apology or stepping up to publicly share the other side of the story — make an impression on the crowd.
Even it if a company’s response is perfunctory, it’s usually appreciated…though that sentiment will rarely be voiced.
6. The contrarians
Contrarians seem to pop up in every firestorm to remind the masses that there are two sides to every story.
In some cases, contrarians can be an asset for a company, reminding people that they may be overreacting, moving to judgment too soon, or being unreasonable with their demands of the offending company.
Do companies need to reach out to contrarians personally during a firestorm like they would with a catalyst?
Probably not. A contrarian’s beef is usually with the situation and how it is playing out, rather than with the inciting incident at the core of it.
However, since contrarians are members of “the crowd” too, they still need to see, and will appreciate, formal acknowledgments and updates during a firestorm.
7. The trolls
I didn’t capture any troll screen grabs during the Amazon storm, mostly because those people are not worthy of the effort.
Although there were probably a handful of troll comments that I saw this week, the ones that popped up were so ridiculously offensive (for example, “I don’t know what the big deal is, pedophiles are people too.”) that most people just ignored them.
Trolls feed off of storms and are attracted to fire like moths. So they invariably surface during any public debate hoping to bait people into argument, stir up emotions and just piss people off in general.
The old adage of “don’t feed the trolls” is true. And few do during a genuine firestorm, especially (and appropriately) representatives from the company being called out.
This post can also be accessed via syndication from BlogHer.com.
Great analysis, Jen. I wonder if these roles remain consistent amongst all firestorms, or if people migrate from one to another based on their passions?
Great point. I guess, from my vantage point, I’d say yes.
For instance in this firestorm I was an activist and joined others in calling Amazon to complain. During others, I know I’ve been more apt to just promote and retweet the information if it doesn’t really connect with me on a gut level.
Although I’d venture to guess that taking an action (either really active or more passive, like a retweet) is probably a character trait that maybe holds steady. A lot of people don’t like to make waves, and I think it’d take them having a real personal connection to the incident (i.e. they themselves are the catalyst) for them to go out on a limb and make a statement of their own.
Jen,
I love your “monster” post! What a great job you did of assessing the situation and determining the various roles people played. This particular firestorm was well deserved and I am so glad you alerted me to the situation so that I could participate… as an activist. :o)
Some people initially took sides against the masses, but when you make it clear the difference between free speech and promoting criminal activity they back down. We all have it within us to play any one of these roles… it just depends on the day.
You ROCK Jen!
Thanks for reading the post Charity. And glad that I was able to bring it to your attention so you could do some activism too. So glad to have met you and have you as a part of my network. Looking forward to many more conversations.
Everyone or Anyone that is a Community Manager, PR, Digital Specialist, Social Media Strategists, CEO, CMO better read this! Print it out! Hang in cube wall! Develop Plan to follow these types of communication paths during a social media storm.
Jennifer you nailed it! I am going to print this out and potentially develop the process model that goes with this….it is just what us Social Business Analysts do. Most companies new to this online world start finding those Shepards and Activists NOW! If you have an already established relationship before this happens, much easier to activate the back channels to talk with them.
Sorry companies your Logo’d accounts are not going to cut it in these situations. You need real people, with real voices, and real professional experiences (not just social media experience either).
Typically the Shepards and Activists are with you already promoting your business, reach out to them today with your people just to thank them and tell them to have a good weekend. It is a start to a really good conversation and engagement!
Jennifer, thank you for analyzing this. I sure hope this gets around because businesses need to see this.
Keith, you are absolutely correct:
“Typically the Shepards and Activists are with you already promoting your business, reach out to them today with your people just to thank them and tell them to have a good weekend. It is a start to a really good conversation and engagement!”
This is true in my case, I LOVE(D) Amazon and have been a loyal customer for over ten years. I live in Seattle and have friends who work for the company, which is currently relocating to my neighborhood (South Lake Union). I break bread with the people of this company on a weekly basis. I’ve built up my wishlist, consistently have items in my basket and, since having a baby recently, have depended upon them even more for their convenience and reliability. Get it? I’m a huge fan! (In fact, I have Christmas presents ordered which have been arriving all week and even tried to use that as leverage when on the phone.)
I called, I emailed, I tweeted, and posted to my Facebook profile (noticing that FB isn’t as effective as Twitter for passing info around, but great for getting groups organized quickly!). The very first time I called Amazon I was hung up on as soon as I uttered the words “I’m calling about the pedophile’s guide you’re selling.” After several more attempts, I was finally able to get through. Even though I had an opportunity to speak, I still didn’t feel heard, which enraged me even more – I went back to FB and Twitter and kept pressing.
As a customer, I would have appreciated a simple “we’re investigating this and will suspend sale of the book until we’ve reviewed the book and our policies.” Then at the end of the day, when they finally did pull the book we should have heard, “We *apologize* and are reviewing our current policies.”
I would have been ok with them. But no, they have dug in and are holding firm again by ignoring their customers. I don’t actively boycott any major company except Nestle, but Amazon won’t be receiving my business any longer. They’ve broken my trust and it’s going to take major repair-attempts just to get me back to neutral.
I totally hear you Greta. I’ve been a loyal customer/evangelist of theirs for years. While I recognized that the debate was a complicated one (though deciding what position I was going to take was not) I really cannot excuse Amazon for their customer service and PR malfunctions during the process.
Like you, I was hung up on. And I don’t think that has ever happened to me before with any company. That move right there is what moved me from “disturbed” to “downright angry.” And their silence post-firestorm is just downright baffling.
Obviously, like you, I have lots of personal opinions about the issue so I really tried to put on my “social media professional” hat for this post and take an analytical view. But the reality is that the woman who wears the “mom & customer” hat on is still pretty P.O.’d and that damage may last quite awhile.
I love you Keith. Thanks for your enthusiasm and insights. That last part about the Shepards and Activisits is spot on. Never really though of that before (um…mostly since I made up these profiles yesterday 🙂
I do hope that corporations were able to observe the Amazon situation and learn something from it (from the look of my feed, no corp. peeps seemed to be talking about it, but hopefully they were still listening.)
Thanks for helping promote the post. I doubt anyone in corporate America would see it otherwise. (KaneCo isn’t exactly “big fish” in the world of blogging 🙂
Hntyqc I’m out of lgeaue here. Too much brain power on display!
Nice review of the different roles people played in this storm, Jen. I’m certainly a catalyst here, and recognize you pulled one of my tweets as an example. I wanted to believe that amazon would handle the situation well and engaged with them as such. Surprisingly they did respond to my e-mails, although why they chose to respond to some customers and not others is beyond me. And giving a statement to a parenting blogger v. CNN? Baffling.
Yep. I did you pull you as an example. Once I switched from “mad mom” to “social media researcher” it really was fascinating to sit back and really dig in and try to identify who the catalysts were.
Catalysts seemed to me to be leaders in the conversation among their networks (which was certainly true of your role here in the Twin Cities). There didn’t appear to be any one person who jumped out as THE catalyst — ground zero for the firestorm (in a very nerdly fashion, I spent a great deal of time trying to find that person).
Instead, people (all moms, that I was able to see) picked up the mantle of catalyst from market to market with each of them wearing it a little differently. The whole thing was very organic, and – as with any human networks – unpredictable.
In the future, if I had a client with an “Amazon moment,” would I be able to precisely identify the right catalysts to reach out to as part of their damage control?
Not sure.
But I do know that after this exercise I’d have a much better sense of where to start looking. And I suppose that’s a good of a starting place as any.
This is great Jen. I read many posts yesterday about the #amazonfail situation. Yours is the first to go beyond “here’s what Amazon should have done in this situation” and broaden it into a full crisis communications lesson focusing on the types of players you need to be communicating with (or not).
Thanks for the comment, retweet and Facebook mention about this blog post, Wendy. Both Kary and I really value your support of the work we do and your help in enabling us to reach out to more people.
Yeah, I basically invented a research project for myself that no one asked me to do and that I wasn’t paid for. And, chances are highly, highly likely I’ll see some of this analysis show up as part of someone else’s “thought leadership” down the road. But I thought it was worth capturing and sharing. And it tickles me to see that people both read and appreciated it.
So again, many thanks!
This was a fun one to watch for me too. I was thinking of putting together a similar analysis, but this one covers it so well I’m just going to refer people here.
Simply, awesome. 🙂
Amazing insight and analysis. Nice work.
Thanks for the compliment and for reading the post. I appreciate it.
Just wanted to praise this fine piece of analysis and detective work – a fascinating insight into a social media firestorm’s anatomy!
Cheers,
Jesper
Denmark
Thank you! Glad you liked the detective work. The whole thing was too fascinating to me to not do a little more investigating behind the scenes. Thanks for reading it and commenting.
[…] with relish — sharing, retweeting, LOLing and analyzing each mistake, ad nauseam (I am guilty of it […]