CorpComms Magazine

Jon Silk, senior digital consultant, Waggener Edstrom

Managing crises is different nowadays. That's a given. But the fine line that a brand needs to tread between its social presence and the reality of its internal processes is becoming increasingly difficult to tread.

The Paperchase plagiarism crisis was a perfect example of how bad news not only travels fast in a wired world, but bakes in public mistrust extremely quickly. The bare bones of the story are not particularly exciting. A retailer buys a copied design from an agency. The original designer spots the error. Apologies are made. And that should be the end of the story.

But Twitter amplifies crises in a way few brands are prepared for. In this instance, the cheated artist was able to create a groundswell of support that accelerated so quickly - boosted by celebrity endorsement along the way - to which Paperchase (without the networks in place to even join the conversation) was unable to respond.

In an environment where you're judged on how quickly and honestly you answer back, Paperchase's hastily built Twitter account and unsatisfactory statement just turned the followers into an angry mob. Nobody cared that it wasn't Paperchase's fault, having trusted (rightly) that a supplier wasn't selling them ripped-off goods. 'Paperchase' had become synonymous - for a few hours - with 'plagiarism'. And in the Twitterverse, an hour means more than two million tweets.

It is, of course, no good saying that Paperchase should have already been conversing with the public through a regularly updated and well respected Twitter stream. (Already being trusted by the community is the best crisis management strategy. Not only do people jump to more realistic conclusions, they even jump to your defence.)

Having seen a rapid surge in Twitter mentions, Paperchase should have traced the chatter back to the disgruntled artist, contacted her directly, and paid her for her artwork. This would have diffused the situation at the source. But was it monitoring the buzz at all?

Ricky Vazquez, business partner, head of digital and broadcast, Ogilvy PR

In the same way that military forces have had to adopt new tactics to deal with what they term asymmetric warfare, Paperchase's experience is a salutary lesson to all organisations that we need to adapt to the new asymmetry that the Internet, and particularly social media, has introduced to communications.

Where previously only brands had ready access to mass communication, now a single well-connected consumer can wield an equivalent if not stronger voice than an unprepared organisation. When that consumer voice attacks from the perceived moral high ground, having the corporate side of the story heard can become very difficult indeed. The furore around Paperchase has its roots in communication. It was a perceived lack of an appropriate response that caused Hidden Eloise, the designer, to write the blog post which triggered the Twitter storm.

This gives us our first lesson to be learned. Organisations must consider how communications (or the lack of them) they have with customers and suppliers, would be perceived if subsequently exposed to public scrutiny. The transparency culture of social media is likely to push ever deeper into businesses in the future. Facts and company approaches between markets can be checked online in moments and inconsistencies rapidly revealed. So communication needs to be consistent, open and honest to minimise the risk to reputation.

In the Paperchase case, the real reputation problem started once the complaint and the lack of action became public as the store clearly did not even see the issue arising. This stems from not understanding the nature of the medium of social media, specifically its growing pervasiveness and the speed with which the community expects communication to occur. In pure PR terms it is clear that all businesses should have tools and systems in place checking for conversations about organisation in the social media space. Whether this is a sophisticated listening post, covering multiple forms of social media, or something simple like Google alerts and TweetDeck searches. Had Paperchase had such an early warning system in place, they would have been able to respond appropriately.

Alex Bates, marketing manager, Durrants

Social media activity made the story of Paperchase one of the top trending topics in both the UK and globally during February, and it was also reported through traditional media on a regional and national scale. This experience has cost Paperchase dearly in respect to their brand image as well as the cost of the items that were withdrawn. So what can be learnt from this?

This story shows the significance of the changing media landscape and the importance of social media on influencing traditional press. It is now critical for organisations to implement effective integrated media programmes, combining social media with traditional media. However, the challenge is understanding the influential conversations - who is having them, what is being said, and what key messages are being used?

Many organisations have been slow to embrace social media as a channel and the vastness of this medium can make the process extremely daunting. To manage this channel it is clear that communication professionals need to focus on the relevant and most influential posts, analyse key messages and receive insights that can be used to take action. Starting this process with a comprehensive audit and benchmarking against their competitors will allow them to understand where to focus.

There are an increasing number of examples where organisations have seen their brands damaged by not engaging with social media. Yet the benefits of embracing this channel can see companies build a better understanding of their brand reputation, manage their messages more effectively and increase customer loyalty which ultimately will drive revenue growth.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet