September 19, 2012
Waitrose’s Tweet Draws Some Twits
A Twitter campaign by Waitrose, the U.K. supermarket chain, aimed at fans of the chain wound up attracting herds of detractors and jokesters.
Using the hashtag #WaitroseReasons, Waitrose on Monday asked people to retweet the words, "I shop at Waitrose because ________."
A few complimentary responses about the chain’s staff and selection were overwhelmed by largely negative responses that lampooned Waitrose’s position as an upscale grocer. Retweets in this vein included:
- "I shop at Waitrose because I think food must automatically be better if it costs three times as much."
- "I shop at Waitrose because darling, Harrods is just too much of a trek mid-week."
- "…So people know I’m filthy rich and therefore automatically better than they are."
A few were somewhat vulgar while sillier ones took advantage of the set-up with lines like, "because Tesco doesn’t stock Unicorn food." One sympathetic Twitter user posted: "Poor Waitrose. They’re so nice it never occurred to them people might take advantage."
In a following Tweet, Waitrose said it enjoyed reading "most" of the responses. It added in another, "Thanks for all the genuine and funny tweets. We always like to hear what you think and enjoyed most of them."
Speaking to Advertising Age, Jim Coleman, managing partner of We Are Social in London, said, "I think they genuinely wanted some insight from their customers, and opportunistic punters took the opportunity to play on the middle-class stereotype that Waitrose has. They didn’t react quick enough or with a clear plan. It shows why being prepared with a crisis plan is key to your social comms, whatever brand you are."
Although some saw Waitrose benefiting from the attention, the Twitter-backfire reminded some of a McDonald’s Twitter campaign launched in January. Entitled "MdDStories," the campaign was supposed to promote its work with farmers but instead led to tales of food poisoning, employee abuse and animal cruelty. The campaign was pulled within two hours but Twitter conversation continued for a week.
Writing on his blog, Mark Shaw, a consultant, said social media continues to offer such wake-up calls for companies used to the one-sided conversations of traditional advertising. Wrote Mr. Shaw, "They cannot control Twitter. They cannot control what people are going to say, how some people may hijack a #hashtag and turn it into something completely else."
- Botched Twitter campaign makes Waitrose a laughing stock online – The Sun
- Waitrose falls foul of the Twitter wags – The Grocer
- Brits Mock U.K. Supermarket in Tweets About Shopping at Waitrose – Advertising Age
- Posh Retailer Stirs Class Warfare Among Respondents, But Some Think Brand Handled It Well – Advertising Age
- McDonald’s Twitter campaign hijacked – Financial Times
- #McDStories: When A Hashtag Becomes A Bashtag – Forbes
- Waitrose Yet Another Twitter Car Crash – Mark Shaw
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Do social media campaigns naturally open up retailers or brands to awkward criticism? How should such risks be weighed against the benefits of constructive feedback and word-of-mouth activity? What advice would you give to a brand particularly exploring a Twitter campaign?
Poll
Let’s think about this. Regular heavy users of social media have, (a) an excess amount of free time on their hands, (b) are practiced in the art of the digital bon mot, and (c) are motivated by a desire to have their insights rise above those of the cybermob.
Or, put another way, when you hold up a huge bright target you shouldn’t be surprised when people start shooting at it.
Of course, social media campaigns open up anyone to criticism! It’s the nature of the beast. Social networking is a lot like rugby. If you want to play you better be prepared to bleed a bit in public. If you’re not interested in taking hits — especially public hits — don’t play.
Waitrose could have learned some lessons here and turned things around with a little tongue-in-cheek viral campaign of their own if they had opted to really get engaged around what the Twiteratti were telling them.
You need only look as far as another fine British institution — Marmite — for best practice lessons in how to deal with social media criticism. If you haven’t done so yet — look at Marmite’s Facebook page and its website. There’s a lot to be learned.
The first step in any new promotion or campaign should involve reviewing “worst case” scenarios. With new social media platforms, there is always a risk of detractors or malcontents of the brand seeing it as an opportunity to blast away. Prior to launch, a formal conversation should occur among the team to at least insure that the potential negative outcomes are identified and vetted.
In the case of Waltrose, they opted for a wide open statement to be made about their brand. The learning from this could simply be to refrain from soliciting such broad, open-ended tweets from shoppers, but rather limit their choices to a pre-determined selection of options. For example, “vote for your favorite type of sale”, “what day of the week do you like to shop” or other well defined elements of the brand.
Even with more defined selections, be prepared for detractors to chime in. When they do, acknowledge their presence without specifically mentioning them individually, as Waltrose apparently did. Of equal importance, don’t be too quick to dismiss negativity, but rather discern whether these criticisms are founded in reality, pervasive, and warrant attention.
If Waitrose was this naive about shoppers’ attitudes, it must have been a heck of a wake-up call. The moral of the story: Know Shoppers’ Mindsets.
Any retailer that doesn’t have its head in the sand should be aware of how they are perceived in the marketplace. Any brand that is universally known but not universally loved takes a risk when they invite commentary. The question is whether you have enough truly loyal fans to comment and drown out the snark. That said, if your fans aren’t using Twitter, maybe you shouldn’t be either. At that point you’re going after the wrong demographic.
Oh please, am I the one being naive here or what? Do you guys really think they didn’t consider the possibility that sticking their chins out to be hit might not attract some direct punches? Or that they weren’t willing to take those hits because there would be a lot of attention paid and publicity achieved (why hasn’t David chimed in with this theme yet?), including a few kind words? I’ve taken Ryan’s advice and looked at the Marmite website (full disclosure — I’m a hater) and can’t really see that people seriously think they are the only company out there that doesn’t mind taking the wotsit out of itself.
Whereas the McD’s situation sounds like it could have done harm, this was all for fun…I agree with Bernice, this is Livingston’s Law at its purest — any publicity is good publicity.
The reactions are a bit overblown, but of course there is potential for negative results from actively engaging in social media as a brand. And, there is plenty of risk in not actively engaging. A brand’s participation in the social media space should be designed against how consumers want to engage with the brand — yes, once again my push for alignment with a well-defined brand DNA upon which all decisions can be made with a degree of confidence.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Let’s think about this. Regular heavy users of social media have, (a) an excess amount of free time on their hands, (b) are practiced in the art of the digital bon mot, and (c) are motivated by a desire to have their insights rise above those of the cybermob.
Or, put another way, when you hold up a huge bright target you shouldn’t be surprised when people start shooting at it.
Of course, social media campaigns open up anyone to criticism! It’s the nature of the beast. Social networking is a lot like rugby. If you want to play you better be prepared to bleed a bit in public. If you’re not interested in taking hits — especially public hits — don’t play.
Waitrose could have learned some lessons here and turned things around with a little tongue-in-cheek viral campaign of their own if they had opted to really get engaged around what the Twiteratti were telling them.
You need only look as far as another fine British institution — Marmite — for best practice lessons in how to deal with social media criticism. If you haven’t done so yet — look at Marmite’s Facebook page and its website. There’s a lot to be learned.
The first step in any new promotion or campaign should involve reviewing “worst case” scenarios. With new social media platforms, there is always a risk of detractors or malcontents of the brand seeing it as an opportunity to blast away. Prior to launch, a formal conversation should occur among the team to at least insure that the potential negative outcomes are identified and vetted.
In the case of Waltrose, they opted for a wide open statement to be made about their brand. The learning from this could simply be to refrain from soliciting such broad, open-ended tweets from shoppers, but rather limit their choices to a pre-determined selection of options. For example, “vote for your favorite type of sale”, “what day of the week do you like to shop” or other well defined elements of the brand.
Even with more defined selections, be prepared for detractors to chime in. When they do, acknowledge their presence without specifically mentioning them individually, as Waltrose apparently did. Of equal importance, don’t be too quick to dismiss negativity, but rather discern whether these criticisms are founded in reality, pervasive, and warrant attention.
If Waitrose was this naive about shoppers’ attitudes, it must have been a heck of a wake-up call. The moral of the story: Know Shoppers’ Mindsets.
Any retailer that doesn’t have its head in the sand should be aware of how they are perceived in the marketplace. Any brand that is universally known but not universally loved takes a risk when they invite commentary. The question is whether you have enough truly loyal fans to comment and drown out the snark. That said, if your fans aren’t using Twitter, maybe you shouldn’t be either. At that point you’re going after the wrong demographic.
Oh please, am I the one being naive here or what? Do you guys really think they didn’t consider the possibility that sticking their chins out to be hit might not attract some direct punches? Or that they weren’t willing to take those hits because there would be a lot of attention paid and publicity achieved (why hasn’t David chimed in with this theme yet?), including a few kind words? I’ve taken Ryan’s advice and looked at the Marmite website (full disclosure — I’m a hater) and can’t really see that people seriously think they are the only company out there that doesn’t mind taking the wotsit out of itself.
Whereas the McD’s situation sounds like it could have done harm, this was all for fun…I agree with Bernice, this is Livingston’s Law at its purest — any publicity is good publicity.
The reactions are a bit overblown, but of course there is potential for negative results from actively engaging in social media as a brand. And, there is plenty of risk in not actively engaging. A brand’s participation in the social media space should be designed against how consumers want to engage with the brand — yes, once again my push for alignment with a well-defined brand DNA upon which all decisions can be made with a degree of confidence.