Greenpeace accused Nestlé of contributing to deforestation through its palm oil suppliers in Indonesia. Greenpeace launched a viral video and social media campaign criticizing Nestlé that received over 1 million views. Nestlé's initial responses of censorship and defensive comments on social media only made the situation worse. The document provides recommendations for Nestlé in the short and long term to better manage their social media and reputation in such crises. This includes monitoring social media, having a crisis response plan, and understanding how to properly engage on social media.

1. Business comunication GREENPEACE vs. NESTLÉ Social media lessons from Nestle's reputation crisis June 2010

2. 2 Aboutus Violeta González Bermúdez vgonzalez@camaracantabria.com Néstor González Fernández info@nestorgonzalez.es

3. INDEX Analysis: what happened? What was the response from Nestlé? Why is social media so important: some clarifying statistics What can we do? Some recommendations In the short term In the long term

4. 1 Analysis: what happened?

5. Analysis: whathappened? March, 17 2010 Greenpeace accuses Nestlé of contributing to deforestation as a result of its choice of palm-oil suppliers in Indonesia The environmental awareness group Greenpeace criticised Nestlé for obtaining palm oil from “companies that are trashing Indonesian rainforests, threatening the livelihoods of local people and pushing orangutans towards extinction.” 5

6. Analysis: whathappened? Greenpeace created a provocative website and a video (both there are still there). The campaign featured a disparaging version of the logo for Nestle’s Kit Kat candy bar with the word “Killer” on it. The slogan was ‘give the orangutan a break.’ The videos and the Killer logo and others equally offensive to the company started circulating in cyberspace. They went viral. 6 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/kitkat/

7. Analysis: whathappened? 68 related videos in Youtubethatattracted 1.2 million hits Collateral Greenpeace videos are taggedwithmessagesabout Nestlé palmoilpolicy: 1.1 million hits (up to 3/28/2010) Forexample: 7 March 28-17 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ExNmhDLsIk&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToGK3-2tZz8&feature=related

8. Analysis: whathappened? 8 Nestlé´s Facebook page is overwhelmed with negative comments: fueled by the momentum of the Greenpeace video, Anti-Nestle discussions move away from activist blogs and land on Nestle’sFacebook page. (Not an accident or an organic shift. This tactic is part of a deliberate and well lanned campaign.)

9. Analysis: whathappened? 9 March, 19 2010 Nestle response on Facebook Official statement on the website Nestlé respondswith a web statementthatsaysthecontractwiththe supplier has beenterminated http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/SpeechesAndStatements/AllSpeechesAndStatements/statement_Palm_oil.htm

10. Analysis: whathappened? March, 29 2010 Social Media community remains skeptical Negative Twitter comments related to Nestlé palm oil appear every 15 minutes Graph of 7 days of twitter usage of "nestle“ The Wall Street Journal picks up the story: the case jumps from the social media to the official media 10

11. Analysis: whathappened? 1,2 million negative Youtube videos 95.000 Nestlé Facebook fans seeing negative messages on its wall 11 Let´s recap Nestlé shares prices

12. Analysis: whathappened? Let´s recap Negative Twitter tsunami The Wall Street Journal is spreading the story 12

13. 2 What was the response from Nestlé?: some errors

14. What was the response from Nestlé: some errors Some errors Censor: the Streisland effect Get defensive Insult your customers Respond with the same weight 14

15. What was the response: some errors 15 Censor: the Streisland effect Nestlé lobbied to have the video removed from Youtube, citing a copyright complaint. Censoring the video in the first place is what exacerbated this war. People started making the Killer logo their profile picture, at which point Nestlé repeated the initial mistake by issuing the following update on Facebook:

16. What was the response: some errors 16 Censor: the Streisland effect The Streisland effect is used to describe the phenomenon when censorship causes something to become even more widespread. Don’t do it. And especially don’t do it twice. The net is such a place that whatever you delete is pretty retrievable – and even if it isn’t – the whole thing with mass protest is that it is based on perception far more than reality. Censoring fuels this emotion. Nestle received 190 complaints within 24 hours on Facebook, and thousands of tweets reaching hundreds of thousands of consumers. The surest way to tick off users of social media is to delete their comments. It is true that by the old standards of 20th century law, brands have a right to protect their intellectual property. But social media comprises fluid networks of users sharing and retweeting and

17. What was the response: some errors 17 Get defensive The biggest mistake Nestlé made was by the person running the Facebook page who appeared to take every criticism personally. Retaliation also invokes the Streisland effect. Nestlé should not have responded to anything. Nothing they could say would make it right anyway, so it’s better to say nothing.

18. What was the response: some errors 18 Insult your customers Nestlé violated a basic rule of public Relations,"Don't insult your customers". Even if you applaud the moderator for acting like a living, breathing human being, the combative tone resulted in continued rants on the Nestlé's Facebook page, even after the company announced It was ending its relationship with the palm oil supplier in question. Such an announcement should have been a Lauded shift to a sustainable practice, but it was lost amid the criticism. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/nestle-cargill-palmoil

19. What was the response: some errors 19 Respond with the same weight A pressreleasedoesnotcombatscreaminghatredagainst a brand. Youmust match firewithfire. Theonlyway Nestlé can turnthisaroundistocarryoutsomethingthat has thesameweight as the criticisms and viral naturethatattackedit. Youcannotrespondwith traditional methods. Youmust match viral protestwith viral solutions.

20. 3 Why is social media so important: some clarifying statistics

21. Why is social media so important: refreshing some ideas

22. Why is social media so important: refreshing some ideas 22 Markets are conversations. Are you participating? The conversation is going on whether you care to be involved or not. If you choose not to be involved, you lose control of the conversation about your product, your business. You become irrelevant! Trust can take years to build but be eroded away in just a few days. To avoid disaster, you have to keep one finger on the pulse of the social web.

23. 4 What can we do? Some recommendations

24. In the long term Step 1. Secureyourbrand Step 2. Monitor social media sites 24x7 Step 3. Create rules of engagement Step 4. Establishyour crisis strategy Step 5. Define your social media response strategy Step 6. Makesureyouunderstandtheways social media work

25. 25 Some recommendations. In the long term Step 1. Secure your brand Grab your brand everywhere you can, regardless of whether or not you plan to use it Have control of your identity all over the web Have a unified social media username to establish trust with other members (and potential press contacts) who may belong to multiple communities with you.

26. 26 Some recommendations. In the long term Step 2. Monitor social media sites 24x7

27. 27 Some recommendations. In the long term Step 3. Create rules of engagement Train theemployeesontheproper use of social media tools Define rules foremployeesengagingin social media (social media policy). Basic social media guidelineslike: disclosingthecompanyyouworkfor Notdiscussingconfidentialinformation refrainingfromdisparagingthecompany notengaging in impolite dialogue

28. 28 Some recommendations. In the long term Step 4: Establish your crisis strategy Set up a teamwhowouldbeabletomanage crisis situationand are willingtoworkaroundtheclock Assessthesituation online byharnessingthetoolsthat are available Trackthesources of negativepublicityconstantlyto monitor change Followthevolume of responses and thetype of consumerreaction (neutral, positive, negative) Define your response and ensureconsistency in communication – do notsendoutmultiple, mixedmessages

29. 29 Some recommendations. In the long term Step 5: Define your Social Media Response Strategy Ifconsumers are silentonthesituation– continueto monitor butdon’trespondpublically (Yet) If a response isdemanded , waitfortheinitialhype and outrageto die out, thenrespondtothosewho are genuinelyseekingananswer Listen and determine thetype of response theconsumerswant – apology/ acknowledgement/ demandforchange Do notrespondtooquickly Do notrespond in a “corporatetone” i.e.. a pressreleaseonthewebsite as thesole response mechanism

30. 30 Some recommendations. In the long term Step 6. Make sure you understand the ways of social media before you engage in this space. There are lots of do’s and don’ts. Makesurethepersonyouassigntohandle social media tasksknowshowtoproperlyinteractwiththepublic. Goodmanners and knowledge of howtoappropriatelyrespondtocomments of allkindsisimperative. Be preparedfornegativefeedback. No matterhowwonderfulyou are, someonesomewhere can have a boneto pick. Realizeitmaywind up in your social space. Engagewithnegativefeedbacklikeyou do positive. Don’tdelete, editorhidefromnegativecomments (unlessabusive) Be part of theconversation and don’t try and ‘control’ thespace. Listen tothecrowd. They are probablyyourcustomer.

31. In the short term Step 1. Create a forum Step 2. Hire a team of professionalCommunity Managers Step 3. Startdialog, begin a process of collaboration Step 4. Introduce yourself Step 5. Make a pointtowelcomethecomments Step 6. Createanareafordiscussions Step 7. Ask youraudienceforadvice and suggestions Step 8. Buildthecommunity as a community Step 9. Reviewprocess

32. 32 Some recommendations. In the short term Step 1. Create a forum Create a forum (otherthanFacebook) thatallowsyouto set strongerprivacy and moderationsetting. A nicheNingnetwork, forexample, and a measured digital reachoutcampaignmighthelpcultivate a corecohort of digital Nestle fans.

33. 33 Some recommendations. In the short term Step 2. Hire a team of professional Community Managers; do not delegate to PR intern WhathappenedtoNestlehappenedbecausetheteamchargedwithmanagingitsFacebook page waseithernotqualifiedornotempoweredto do theirjob. Properlyhandled, theattackonNestle’sfacebook page couldhavebeenmanageddifferently and theoutcomecouldhavebeenradically more positive forthebrand. IfNestle’s Social Media teamhadbeenexperienced in crisis management and properlytrained, Greenpeace’sattackontheNestleFacebook page couldhavebeenmadetofizzleout in underanhour. In otherwords, Greenpeace’sattackcouldhavebeenmadetobackfireifithadbeenmanagedbyprofessionalsinstead of amateurs. Corporatecommsisn’taboutcreativecopy and pushingitoutthrough a breadth of channels. It’sprofessionalchess. Thisisn’t amateur hour. Social Media managementrequiresrigorous training and razor-sharpfocus: Having a Social Media presenceforyourcompany and brand(s) isseriousbusiness. Itisn’tanafterthought. Itisn’tsomethingyou can affordtoassigntointerns. Itisn’tsomethingyou can affordtocompletelyhireoutto a digital shop, a “social media” firmoran ad agency. Youhavetotakethespaceseriously. Thisrequiresplanning, preparation, training and focus. Ifactivistgroups (even at thegrass-rootslevel) set their targets onyou, you CANNOT affordtoleaveany of yourcommunications(digital ornot) virtuallyunmanned. Youneed Marines, Navy SEALS and Rangersonthatwall, notgreen, untestedrecruits. Hireprofessionals. The real time web isn’t a joke. Takeitseriously and you’llprobablybeokay. Hire amateurs, and suffertheconsequences. It’sthat simple.

34. 34 Some recommendations. In the short term Step 3. Start dialog, begin a process of collaboration There comes a pointwhencomms are justcomms, and thedialog has tomovebeyondwellcraftedwords and communityappeasement. Listening and talking are justthebeginning. Fact 1: Greenpeace has a validargumentwhenit comes toenvironmentalprotection. Fact 2: Nestleis a complexbusinesswithenormoussupplyrequirements, relativelyinelasticprice-points, and tremendouspressure in themiddle of a global economic crisis toperformwellforitsshareholders. Instead of wasting so muchenergyfightingcommscouldbeusedto open a dialog, findsomecommonground, and begin a process of collaboration: Nestleknowsfoodproduction. Greenpeace knowsenvironmentallysoundpractices. Itseemsthattheycouldbothlearn a lotfromeachother. Startusingtheir digital commsteamto open thedoortoconstructivedialogontheseissues. Moderatingtheensuingdiscussions – no matterhowdifficultthefirstfewhours and daysmaybe – wouldbe a solidnextstep.

36. 37 Some recommendations. In the short term Step 7. Ask your audience for Recruityourdetractors’ help in fixingtheissuesthey are angryabout. Don’tjustgiveyourangrycommenterslipservice. “Thanksforyourcomments. Wewillreviewyoursuggestions and share themwithmanagement”doesn’tcutitanymore. Instead, askyouraudienceforadvice and suggestions.Rightthere and then. Don’twait. Theywanttoexpressthemselves? Great! Redirecttheirenergy: Shiftthemfromangertodeliberateempowerment. They’reangry at yourcompany? There are specificthingstheywantyouto stop doing? Perfect. Takethediscussion a stepfurther and askthemtogiveyoubetteralternativestowhatyou’redoingnow. No, really. Do it. Keepprobing. Keepasking. Makethemthinkaboutpracticalsolutionstogether. In the case of Nestle, thiswould mean inviting Greenpeace and keyenvironmentalactionthinktankstoworkwithseniorNestlesupplychainexecsonfindingrealisticalternativestocurrentmethods of production.

38. Thank you for your attention plas,plas,plas,…