Don't be antisocial: Come on in!

By Deron Snyder

How does a 50-year old man go from the obscurity of managing casual restaurants in Richmond, Virginia. to become a media celebrity in a Top 10 market like Washington, DC? How does he break into journalism at such an advanced age, with no training, no experience and no connections? How does he develop a cult-like fan base that grows to include the likes of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr.?

The answer is easy to guess: He does it by being social.

Rich Tandler was 63 when he died suddenly last month, sending a shockwave through journalists, fans and personnel associated with Washington’s NFL franchise. He was a prime example of the power of social media, which catapulted him from Applebee’s and Panera Bread to stadiums and locker rooms around the country – and even London, where Washington and Cincinnati played in 2016. The team “retired” his seat in the FedEx Field press box and marked it with a plaque.

Tandler began blogging about the team, as a hobby, in 2004. Four years later, he began doing it on a freelance basis for the cable station now known as NBC Sports Washington, and in 2011, he began doing it fulltime. At the time of his death, in addition to blogging, he was co-hosting a wildly popular podcast and making regular on-air appearances. In addition to his grieving family, he left behind nearly 30,000 followers on Twitter and more than 11,000 Facebook fans.

Journalists such as Tandler have little choice in joining social media networks; it’s virtually a job requirement nowadays, with the expectation that they will share their work and observations with whoever chooses to connect. In a larger sense, individuals for various walks can become their own brands, whether self-employed or representing the (usually) larger brand of their employer. 

Organizations should do it, too, because not doing so is akin to not having a website, which is unfathomable for a credible entity.

CEOs and other C-suite level executives can get away with having no social media presence, though their semiprivate comments (at, say, a university lecture) can spark raging cyberspace debates that embroil their companies. But organizations and even government agencies must be accessible to the public, which means sometimes being battered by negative content. With so many users on social media – Pew reports that roughly two-thirds of U.S. adults are on Facebook – it’s inevitable that some will be displeased about something and let everyone know it.

Individuals can be as snarky as they wish when responding to critics and trolls. But organizations don’t enjoy that luxury, as Nestle learned the hard way in its clash with from Greenpeace activists in 2010. However, the fear of viral negative attacks and bad word-of-mouth is no basis for organizations to shy from social media. There is no good rationale for being absent.  

Hootsuite lists “23 reasons for Social Media for Business.” A Forbes columnist advocates “Social Media as a Vital Engagement Platform for Government Outreach.” The fact is, public outrage will exist with or without the organizations and agencies providing the root cause. Better to jump in the pool and do some laps for your benefit, opposed to standing on the side and letting everyone splash you.

You’re going to get wet anyway, so why not go all-in?

As much as it hurts to see your organization/agency being trashed on social media – especially when inaccurate information is involved – the ability to listen and engage is invaluable. Conversations contain the good, bad and the ugly, all of which is beneficial to know. When the organizations/agencies in question doesn’t use their voice to join the dialogue, they forfeit tremendous opportunities to:

·       * Say “Thank you.”

·         *Ask “How can we help?”

·        * Say “Sorry.”

·         *Ask “What do you think?”

·         *Say “That’s incorrect.”

·         *Ask “Is there anything else?

·         *Say “We agree.”

No matter what crises might arise, no matter how bad the publicity, no matter the flood of negative comments, things eventually die down and the organization/agency must attempt to resume business as normal. The challenge isn’t as daunting on social media if credibility was established before the storm. That’s why it’s important to have a sound Social Media Plan in place, up and operating, before ever having to break out the Social Media Crisis Plan.

According to Dr. Carolyn Mae Kim, organizations/agencies should utilize four specific strategies to gain credibility in social media: personal interaction; expertise; invitational rhetoric; and trustworthiness. Kim said effective conversation on social media is about more than more than posting questions or inviting feedback. Instead, “it’s about purposefully crafting and sustaining two-way dialogue with intent to listen, respond and incorporate the publics’ comments.”

In other words, it’s exercising “relationship listening,” trying to improve relationships with an emphasis on understanding the other person. If an organization/agency truly listens and demonstrates genuine empathy, it should have more than enough social-media capital to endure a storm. And rest assured that storms will come, be they light drizzles of Cat-5 hurricanes. But also know there are plenty of resources to help guide you out.

Smuckers didn’t learn from Nestle’s mistakes and, in 2014. repeated the same delete-the-comments-to-stifle-dissent strategy, prompting some consumers to call for a boycott. If the jam manufacturer had implemented some of digital marketing’s best practices – many of which were included in a CMS article on Smucker’s fail – the headaches could’ve been avoided.

It appears that fewer organizations/agencies are letting fear and/or ignorance keep them from establishing a presence on social media. That’s good for smaller operations, who gain the potential to be written up for rocking cyberspace. Meanwhile, big-brand stalwarts can continue to lead the way. Even more government agencies and local governments are getting on and finding ingenious things to do with social media.

Yes, social media is easier for an individual, like Tandler, to navigate. He could ignore disagreeable commentators or block them. He could include more humor and sarcasm in his responses. Any faux pas wouldn’t necessarily reflect poorly on his employer.

That’s not the case for organizations and agencies. Individual employees might be responsible for posting the content, but any repercussions fall on the entire body. The press might come calling (and not for a feel-good feature story). People might lose their jobs. Revenue might be at stake, too.      

But that’s OK. There’s no reason for organizations/agencies to be antisocial and shun social media. They should come on in.

The water’s fine.