What is it about some employees who use social media at work? Engaging brains doesn't seem to be part of the process.
We all know the story of the two Domino's Pizza employees in the US who made a mindbogglingly disgusting video in their store and posted it on You Tube. A million people saw the video and Domino's reputation was badly damaged. The incident cost the company millions of dollars in costs and lost sales and although by their own admission a little slow to react, they put into action a plan which delivered record profits later that year. The two employees, of course, were fired.
In the UK, supermarket shelf fillers did astonishing things with chicken breasts (you don't want to know).
Now, news in from the excellent CommCore (their President Andy Gilman saw J&J through the very serious Tylenol crisis). In their monthly briefing, they highlight another employee gaffe in the USA. This time at a social media agency working for Chrysler.
Chrysler decided to spend millions of dollars on a campaign promoting the regeneration of Detroit, a city they are obviously closely associated with. The people of Motor City have suffered badly in the recession, and Chrysler wanted to lift spirits.
In the midst of the campaign, an employee of the social media agency hired by Chrysler accidentally tweets on the Chrysler twitter account: "I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the motor city and yet no one here knows how to ******* drive." The tweet causes great offence in Detroit (as if they haven't had enough knocks). The employee thought he was tweeting on his own account.
Chrysler seem to have done a great job handling it. They fire the agency, of course. The agency fires the employee.
But what on earth was the employee of the social media agency thinking of when tweeting such a disrespectful message on any Twitter account? He damages the reputation of the client who is paying his wages and hurts the people of the city they are trying to promote. At best he is guilty of arrogance and gross disrespect.
Domino's learning from the You Tube incident was that you need to engage more with your employees and explain the boundaries required of their behaviour and the consequences of getting it wrong on social media. There are sensible new rules about the use of cellphones in store or in uniform. Domino's took it further and used the incident to deepen employee engagement, and certainly in London you can tell it from the great service you get. Very few employees of any company come in to work wanting to do a bad job.
I was discussing the incident with the manager of one of Singapore's top restaurants recently. He said that as soon as cell phones arrived many years ago they saw the potential problems and set immediate rules for staff. No cellphone use on duty. Cellphones are surrendered on arrival and locked up. Employees are free to use the house phone for urgent personal issues. His concern was primarily the privacy of his celebrity guests. But his view is that the staff like it when they are clear about the boundaries and no-one wants to put their jobs or the future of the restaurant on the line.
Many financial institutions and other companies who process sensitive data ban cellphones on duty for security reasons - to avoid screens being photographed.
Companies need to have conversations with their staff about the use of cellphones at work and be clear about the boundaries and risks. Some companies have discovered that the camera-enabled cellphone is as potentially deadly to their reputation as any prohibited weapon.
(Posted from Mumbai, India)
We all know the story of the two Domino's Pizza employees in the US who made a mindbogglingly disgusting video in their store and posted it on You Tube. A million people saw the video and Domino's reputation was badly damaged. The incident cost the company millions of dollars in costs and lost sales and although by their own admission a little slow to react, they put into action a plan which delivered record profits later that year. The two employees, of course, were fired.
In the UK, supermarket shelf fillers did astonishing things with chicken breasts (you don't want to know).
Now, news in from the excellent CommCore (their President Andy Gilman saw J&J through the very serious Tylenol crisis). In their monthly briefing, they highlight another employee gaffe in the USA. This time at a social media agency working for Chrysler.
Chrysler decided to spend millions of dollars on a campaign promoting the regeneration of Detroit, a city they are obviously closely associated with. The people of Motor City have suffered badly in the recession, and Chrysler wanted to lift spirits.
In the midst of the campaign, an employee of the social media agency hired by Chrysler accidentally tweets on the Chrysler twitter account: "I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the motor city and yet no one here knows how to ******* drive." The tweet causes great offence in Detroit (as if they haven't had enough knocks). The employee thought he was tweeting on his own account.
Chrysler seem to have done a great job handling it. They fire the agency, of course. The agency fires the employee.
But what on earth was the employee of the social media agency thinking of when tweeting such a disrespectful message on any Twitter account? He damages the reputation of the client who is paying his wages and hurts the people of the city they are trying to promote. At best he is guilty of arrogance and gross disrespect.
Domino's learning from the You Tube incident was that you need to engage more with your employees and explain the boundaries required of their behaviour and the consequences of getting it wrong on social media. There are sensible new rules about the use of cellphones in store or in uniform. Domino's took it further and used the incident to deepen employee engagement, and certainly in London you can tell it from the great service you get. Very few employees of any company come in to work wanting to do a bad job.
I was discussing the incident with the manager of one of Singapore's top restaurants recently. He said that as soon as cell phones arrived many years ago they saw the potential problems and set immediate rules for staff. No cellphone use on duty. Cellphones are surrendered on arrival and locked up. Employees are free to use the house phone for urgent personal issues. His concern was primarily the privacy of his celebrity guests. But his view is that the staff like it when they are clear about the boundaries and no-one wants to put their jobs or the future of the restaurant on the line.
Many financial institutions and other companies who process sensitive data ban cellphones on duty for security reasons - to avoid screens being photographed.
Companies need to have conversations with their staff about the use of cellphones at work and be clear about the boundaries and risks. Some companies have discovered that the camera-enabled cellphone is as potentially deadly to their reputation as any prohibited weapon.
As Domino's have demonstrated, it can be done without finger-wagging and used as an opportunity to get staff on board.
_________________________
On another crisis topic, and as I am in Mumbai, a picture last night of the fully restored and magnificent Taj Hotel, the scene of a terrorist attack in 2008. Lovely to see it very much back in business, but very visible tight security.
(Posted from Mumbai, India)
No comments:
Post a Comment