These actions, which were criticized by human rights campaigners as being targeted at Egyptians who are critical of their government, followed in the wake of action taken earlier in September by Twitter, which resulted in the closing of 271 ‘manipulative’ accounts across the region. It also prompted debate online about the need for Twitter to move its office to what’s described as the only country in the Middle East which is a democracy, namely Tunisia.
The reasoning behind this idea is simple. Online activists argue that Twitter is being influenced by those countries it has offices in to take action that is politically-motivated. They go on to argue that in Tunisia, a country whose constitution guarantees freedom of opinion, thought, expression, information, and publication (subject to some restrictions according to Freedom house), Twitter will be under less governmental pressure to silence online critics (Twitter’s impact on civil society can be clearly seen in Iraq and Lebanon, where anti-government protests are ongoing).
Twitter’s challenge is that most of its MENA revenue comes from the Gulf, with Saudi and the UAE being its two largest markets for business. By moving away from Dubai, where it’s currently based alongside many of its agency partners and brands, Twitter will be losing out to other digital platforms who are based in Dubai.
Twitter MENA announced via a series of Tweets that it was restoring many of the Egyptian accounts which were suspended. But the question remains for Twitter. How do you balance politics with business on a platform which many view as the only means by which they can express themselves freely?
Now, I love my creativity when it comes to marketing and communications. Especially when it involves bridging the online and offline worlds. McDonalds should have come up with a cracker of an idea.
For one night only, the fast food chain was giving out freebies including “Night In” apparel and accessories, including McDonalds-branded loungewear, socks, slippers, games, and more. All consumer had to do was order their food on the 19th of this month between 7:00PM until 3:00AM, online, via the call center or an app. All the surprise items were to be distributed randomly on a first come, first serve basis while supplies last.
Sounds good so far. They’d also gone out and promoted the campaign through influencer marketing, as well as via their own social channels.
So, what’s the problem I hear you say? Let’s go back to what I first spoke about, namely execution. If you don’t fulfill your promise, then consumers will get annoyed. And they’ll vent on social media. And there was ALOT of venting at McDonalds.
“Thousands of customers received a surprise in their McDelivery orders last night, however we know how popular the limited edition merchandise has been and are sorry that some customers were disappointed not to receive any. This was the most amount of merchandise we’ve ever distributed in the UK and Ireland so we are delighted to see so many customers sharing their McDelivery socks and more on social media.”
How to Prep for Executions
Getting campaigns right takes a great deal of planning and experience. But there are a couple of basic pointers to bear in mind.
Ensure that you have enough materials/gifts to go round. Look at previous campaigns, tally up the anticipated numbers of people who will take part, and order extra so you have a buffer. It’s better to have items left over at the end and your customers happy, than leave customers feeling as if they’ve been cheated (and the same applies to people – if you need more people for a campaign, then bring them in and train them up pronto).
Clearly communicate with your consumers and partners. With this campaign, there were multiple partners involved, including call centers and delivery drivers from different companies. It’s clear that some of these drivers didn’t know about the campaign.
Update these people too with new information. If there’s an issue with delivery and execution, let your call center staff and social media people know so they can proactively share information/share the correct information, rather than sharing incorrect information and making a situation worse.
Treat every consumer as a person. Consumers aren’t stupid – they’ll see how social media accounts are basically copying and pasting responses to every single complaint. Don’t do that – respond like a person, not a bot. Consumers will appreciate it.
If something goes wrong, do your best to fix it. There’s many consumers out there who didn’t get any free gift on Thursday night, and they’re still writing to McDonalds. Get them a gift, and do it asap. A brand can fix any issue, as long as they act quickly, sincerely, and proactively engage the consumer. If they don’t, that consumer will be lost.
That’s it from me for today. If you have any of your own tips to share on executions, please do send them across!
I’ve been closely following what’s been happening in Hong Kong. What interests me is how all sides are communicating, how they’re using social media, and also where the industry stands on a big issue such as democracy and transparency.
I reached out to Arun Sudhaman, the CEO of the Holmes Report. Arun is both based in Hong Kong and is one of the leading journalists for the public relations industry worldwide. Here’s our talk on what’s happening in Hong Kong, the impact of social media today, how communicators are struggling with their values and what’s being asked of them, and why purpose is such a hard issue to get right.
So, what can we do to protect our organizations from digital manipulation? Here’s a simple playbook as to what you can do to both prepare and fight back against the fakery.
Give Your Brand a Social Voice
It may seem obvious, but it needs to be said. Communicators need to ensure their organizations are online, they’re on social platforms, and that they’re not just active, but actively engaging with the public. Build up an audience of followers who know your brand, what your brand stands for, and who believe in your brand. When there’s a crisis, it’s these people who will support your brand and defend it against any claim.
Look to Owned Media
Too many organizations have bypassed owned media for social sites, where we lose control. We’ve got to roll this back, and create a portfolio of owned assets online, be they websites, blogs or podcasts, which we control and where the conversation is easier to curate. In other words, switch our focus away from just the big social media sites and to owned mediums where we have the ability to build a narrative that isn’t drowned out by fake accounts, trolls, bots or others who want to drown out our voice.
Take the Crisis Offline
The third element to fighting the fakes is taking the issue offline. If there’s a potential crisis, we have to develop ways to validate what’s going on. That means responding as quickly as possible to an issue online, and getting someone to physically respond, to check if the issue is true or false. This could be for a product defect, a reputational issue, or any other problem that we may face online. Ensure that your traditional complaint channels are integrated with your social media, so you know what’s going on at every touchpoint, and you know what’s real from what could be digital manipulation.
Monitor and Be Informed
The final step is to monitor as well as we can what is being said about the brand. If something is incorrect, step in and address the facts. Listen to what is being said about the brand, learn to spot trends, and look into issues/content which seems out of place. Understand your communities, both your advocates and your detractors, both online and offline. Digital manipulation is easier to spot if you know your online community’s routines and behavior. In addition, ensure you and your team are keeping pace with technology, and experiment where you can with rolling out new tech (one simple way to do this is to work with academia; they’ll be able to help you understand technological developments, and what tools you can use to protect yourself).
If you have any experience of fighting digital manipulation, please do share it. I’d love to hear, and share, your experiences.
If there’s one article you should read today, it’s this piece in the Washington Post by Shibani Mahtani and Regine Cabato. Titled “Why crafty Internet trolls in the Philippines may be coming to a website near you”, the article explains what has happened over the past couple of years in the Philippines in relation to the business of social media troll farms.
If you’re not familiar with the idea, I’ll explain. A troll farm is described as an organization whose employees or members attempt to create conflict and disruption in an online community by posting deliberately inflammatory or provocative comments. Traditionally, troll farms were state-led/sponsored (think Russia in the 2016 US elections). This has also happened in other countries. In the article by Mahtani and Cabato, they describe the rise of social media manipulation as an extension of Filipino politics (another great article to read is here, from Buzzfeed’s Davey Alba).
As I’ve mentioned, the concept of social media manipulation isn’t new. We’ve had countless reports into what state actors such as Russia, Iran and others have tried to do online, through mass social media manipulation. What’s fascinating about the Washington Post article is how the Philippines is redefining this concept and turning it into an industry (there’s now both negative and positive trolling), how those who provide the troll farm services are now looking not just to politics but to business as well, and, most worryingly for everyone who works in our industry, is how PR firms are quietly offering the service to their clientele.
It doesn’t surprise me that the Philippines is leading the way in the area of troll farming. The country has a young, English-speaking population, a large service industry, and a tough economy. And Facebook is everywhere, controlling what people read and think when it comes to news, politics and business. To quote from Buzzfeed’s Davey Alba:
If you want to know what happens to a country that has opened itself entirely to Facebook, look to the Philippines. What happened there — what continues to happen there — is both an origin story for the weaponization of social media and a peek at its dystopian future. It’s a society where, increasingly, the truth no longer matters, propaganda is ubiquitous, and lives are wrecked and people die as a result — half a world away from the Silicon Valley engineers who’d promised to connect their world.
Facebook launched “Free Facebook” in the Philippines in 2013. The idea was to partner with a local carrier to offer a portal of free, basic internet services (Free Basics) that would fuel Facebook’s aggressive global expansion. To Zuckerberg, at least, the experiment was successful. “What we’ve seen in the Philippines is … a home run,” he said in a speech at a 2014 conference in Barcelona. Last November, Facebook partnered with the Duterte government to build an undersea cable system that would connect Philippine internet systems to the rest of Asia and the US.
In 2012, 29 million Filipinos used Facebook. Today, 69 million people — two-thirds of the population — are on Facebook. The remaining one-third does not have access to the internet. In other words, virtually every Filipino citizen with an internet connection has a Facebook account. For many in one of the most persistently poor nations in the world, Facebook is the only way to access the internet.
Social media trolling took off in the Philippines during the 2016 Presidential campaign. And many saw the business opportunity. Washington Post spoke to one PR executive who claims his agency is paid anywhere from about $38,000 to $57,000 — “depending on their needs” — on a month-long retainer for up to eight months.
Others are seeing the possibilities too. The authors of the Washington Post article claimed that “several paid troll farm operations and one self-described influencer say they have been approached and contracted by international clients, including from Britain, to do political work. Others are planning to expand overseas, hoping to start regionally”. One opinion quoted in the story claims that social media trolling in the country is a billion dollar business.
There’s no doubt in my mind that social media trolling will have an impact not just on politics in every democracy around the world (if it hasn’t already), but that these services will be turned towards business, especially the notion of positive trolling, of using fake accounts to talk up a business and their activities. I am also in no doubt that Facebook and the other internet giants will do nothing to stop this (Facebook’s efforts to stop what’s going on in the Philippines have been derisory at best).
So, what can we do as PR practitioners? There’s not that many options on the table. The most obvious one is to both act ethically, and speak up publicly about why ethics matters. We’re not vocal enough about this issue, and we need to change that. Another way to push back is to be more vocal about what we want the tech firms to do. We’ve got to stop treating the likes of Facebook and Google as champions of public relations, and rather as companies who are not doing enough to fight for and on behalf of our publics online.
If you have any ideas on the above, please do share them. This is an issue that’ll affect us all. And we have to take collective action to fight back. The real me is signing out for now…
I love the idea of impartiality, that notion of fairness above all, of equal treatment of all rivals or disputants. The notion of impartiality is difficult to define in practice; we all have our biases. And then there’s the politics of any given situation. It’s fair to say that, given global events, impartiality is becoming increasingly hard to come by. This is especially the case in the Middle East, where the number of conflicts and disputes is sadly increasing between neighbors and nations. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to be perceived as impartial.
Of course, social media hasn’t helped. Social media is the metaphorical can of kerosene that makes disputes explode across cyberspace. But now, the social media companies want to start cracking down on content that fuels hatred and extremism. What is Facebook’s idea? To introduce “an independent oversight board of experts to review its content decisions.”
The company is embracing a wider set of approaches for how it operates. Our CEO Mark [Zuckerberg] had a comment on the earnings call recently where he talked about how, for when we launch products now that touch societal issues, we are going to go out and consult on them and think in advance about how to build them.
We had discussions pretty much every week internally, and one of the ideas that was proposed was that we should create some board to do a review of really difficult content decisions. I think there was an emerging consensus that it was something worth trying and worth building.
There was a growing sense that the [content] decisions we were taking are ones that we shouldn’t make alone and I don’t think that speaks to any single issue. It is about a growing belief that we don’t believe the decisions should sit solely inside Facebook.
A lot of the matters that will go before the board are the hard questions of trade-offs between those principles and trying to figure out for a specific piece of content, where do you set that line? That line is a hard one at times to figure out.
There has also been fairly consistent set of feedback that the people who should serve [on the board] should be folks who are deeply deliberative and who are impartial.
While I usually applaud any social media firm for opening up and engaging with more transparency, this suggestion of an “impartial board” is also dangerous. Who decides who and what is impartial? Given what is happening in many regions, including my own, how will Facebook ensure that politics doesn’t seep into discussions? Many state actors have manipulated social media for their own ends, and Facebook itself has a terrible track record of sustaining partners with external stakeholders (mainly because it doesn’t seem to listen, just ask Snopes). And, how do you define impartiality in a region which has never been so afflicted by political and sectarian differences?
If they’re going to be transparent about this issue, then Facebook needs to go all in and clearly state who they’re meeting and why (particularly in regions where there’s little to no independent civil society). Otherwise, it just strikes me as another public relations exercise rather than a workable plan which will produce the intended results (and given trust in Facebook is probably at an all-time low, this is not what they need).
And, speaking as a person who cares deeply about the notion of impartiality and fairness on social media, the last thing we need is more news columns on bad ideas which won’t deliver in practice. Facebook, prove me wrong.
We’re a couple of weeks in, and the whole swell of media attention has gradually faded out. The mammoth US$3.1 billion deal by Uber to purchase Careem made headlines globally – it was the largest in the Middle East for a tech startup, and it focused the world’s media on a regional success story. The deal also comes before an IPO that will catapult Uber into the big leagues of the multi-billion dollar tech firms who have gone public. It’s unsurprising that so much attention was paid to the deal between the two dominant ride-hailing apps in the Middle East.
For those of us in the region, what’s also unsurprising is the feeling that many have for both brands. Uber and Careem are Marmite brands, with Middle Eastern consumers either loving or hating them. Some will swear by Careem, and refuse to take an Uber. Given the strength of brand loyalty, it was especially important that the two companies, communications functions and executive teams get the messaging right.
Lessons from Uber – Speed Matters, Keep It Simple and Engage Everyone
I’ve lost count of the number of times that a deal between Uber and Careem has been talked about. I’ve even joked with journalists who seem to get constantly misinformed by the comms teams at the firms. There were leaks, but many of us took the latest piece about any deal with a pinch of salt. When news of the deal was broken on the 24th March by Bloomberg, it seemed different. There were specifics in terms of numbers, on how the Careem brand would disappear into the Uber operation, and on how all shareholders needed to be informed.
Two days later, the deal was confirmed. Uber announced the deal. The format was strange for many of us here, where social media dominates. Instead of a tweet, Uber sent out an email. The copy was short but succinct, with the option of clicking through to Uber’s website. The emailer can be seen in full below.
The email’s message was repeated throughout social media. Uber’s CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has spent ample time here in Dubai, both giving media interviews to regional press as well as the global newswires, as well as meeting with government bodies to reinforce media interviews to reinforce the message, and government engagement as part of an engagement tour.
On a side note, Uber’s CEO is a dream executive for communicators. He’s composed on camera, he sticks to the message, and he leans in, showing respect for those he’s engaging with. It’s a stark contrast to how things used to be at Uber.
Lessons for Careem – The Messenger Matters
While Uber was straight out of the blocks with a coordinated message, Careem amplified that message through its own social media channels. However, the response was mainly negative, with many users fearing that Careem would become Uber. The Careem comms team understood this, and their messaging was focused on Careem remaining independent post merger.
While this approach makes sense, what they failed to do was personalize the message. They should have used their CEO Mudassir Sheikha to record a video message about the acquisition, focusing on why it made sense for Careem and how the company would be staying independent (they could have also turned to their Saudi co-founder Abdullah Elyas to record the same message in Arabic).
Personal messaging matters to the public – they need to see and hear a person they know, rather than a brand. Given the importance to Careem customers of independence from Uber, I ‘m not surprised that an email from Careem’s CEO to employees ‘was leaked’ to the media last week, which re-emphasized that the company will operate as a stand-alone entity (nothing leaks, unless you’re Julian Assange or the White House). The fact that Careem’s comms missed the mark on the independence message on the first day of the deal means that they’re going to have to repeat this message. The lesson here is get the message right the first time around.
What’s also fascinating is to see how Careem’s own users shared messaging the company put out in 2016, focusing directly on how it was better than Uber. The advertising wasn’t so subtle, as you can see from the video below which is still up on Careem’s Youtube site.
Consumers remember what a brand does, especially when it involves direct attacks on competitors. That’s why such activities are pretty rare. Now that Careem is part of Uber, I’m a little surprised these ads are still up on Careem’s social media. Maybe it’s time the team remember that they shouldn’t only look ahead in their messaging, but they should also look behind to what was done previously to see if it doesn’t impact their current messaging.
That’s it from me. If you have any insights you’d like to share, please do get in touch!