Dabbling in social media spells disaster

In social media, brands can't afford to do things by halves. Rather than reducing the risk, merely dabbling in social media spells disaster, as Kraft's "Name Me" campaign illustrates.

Kraft fell short on two fronts:

1. They were only semi-transparent
2. They were only semi-responsive.

The campaign lacked transparency in that, although the company invited Australians to name the new Vegemite cheesy spread (via an on-pack "Name Me" invitation) this was not subject to an open vote. Rather, the name "iSnack2.0" was chosen by the company behind closed doors, then announced. This meant that consumers didn't feel they'd collectively chosen a name, and there wasn't mass buy-in. 48,000 Australians voted, the SMH reported, yet a good proportion of them felt jaded. What a waste.

This is in contrast to Greenpeace's 2007 name the whale campaign. Greenpeace narrowed down the 11,000 entries to 30 and then instigated a public debate and vote. "Mister Splashy Pants" got over 78% of the vote, Greenpeace reported. No one could deny that fans had spoken and the "best" name won. Fans felt genuinely involved and continued to look after the interests of the endangered humpback whale.

Kraft also fell short in their response times. As negative word of mouth spread online, the company was slow to respond. In social media, a delay of even a few days is tantamount to ignoring consumers.

The old adage goes that "all publicity is good publicity". I'd say that's true only if bad publicity is handled well and mistakes acknowledged. Dell turned Dell Hell into a positive, and is now one of the foremost players in social media, even harvesting consumers' ideas and passions through Ideastorm.

Perhaps it takes a major cock up to convince brands that if you're going to be a success in social media, you have to go the whole hog. Most of the best players in this space, from Dell to Starbucks to Coke, have also been the worst culprits in the past. So perhaps there's hope for Kraft.