Do activists have the right to assault your Facebook Page?

I was frustrated today to see that a corporate Facebook Page coordinated by a friend of mine was being attacked multiple times a minute by environmental activists. It's something we've all come to expect in the world of corporate marketing and PR, but it's still annoying to see first-hand.

They spouted a bunch of copy-and-paste attacks on the company and made it clear that they were there to scream, not to talk — and most certainly not to listen. (I'm not going to link to the Page for now, because I don't want to give these infantile protesters exactly what they want: attention.)

Asked my advice on the situation — one where any decision is fraught with potential repercussions for the brand — I found myself unapologetically favoring one approach:

Show these jackasses to the door.

I'm a big believer in companies answering their critics in social media, even those who seem irredeemable. But when a coordinated group invades a Facebook Page with the sole purpose of being disruptive and incendiary, I have no qualms with deleting their spammy posts and banning them from the Page.

Some might feel this approach is anathema to the openness and community spirit of social media. To me, it's just common sense.

Look at it this way: Facebook is your business' digital lobby.

Some people come in mad. Some are happy. Most just need information. Dealing with each is a standard part of daily business life.

But if an organized group — much less a frothing mob — came into your lobby and began to scream about you torturing animals or killing babies, what would you do? You might make a few attempts at pointing them toward the right channel for their complaints, but then you would almost certainly have security escort them off the site.

What they do after that is their call. In real life as on Facebook, they're welcome to go start their own protest efforts elsewhere. They're just not welcome to intimidate your customers and coworkers on your own property with closed-minded fear-mongering.

Will banning your critics have negative repercussions? Sure. And you should never be too hasty to pull the trigger. But once you determine that a commenter is only there to start trouble, then you're best served getting rid of them sooner than later. Yes, they're likely to go blog about how you're a vile corporate oppressor, but that's probably a blog post they already had sitting in draft form, ready to post.

Again, this isn't a general recommendation for how to handle all your negative feedback. I say do everything you can to engage even your most upset customers in sincere dialogue.

But at the same time, be mindful of whether your critics come bearing an ax to grind, or a molotov cocktail.

David Griner is the Director of Digital Content for Luckie and Company and contributing editor for Adweek’s blog, AdFreak.com. You can reach him by e-mail or on Twitter.

Photo credit: Tim Simpson on Flickr.

Comments

[@kinga_p]

I agree with your approach David. I would also add that your fans (who are there for the conversation & engagment) will appreciate it. Especially if they haven't come to your defense already & gotten no-where.
There's only one way to deal with bullies - ignore them.

[Gerardbabitts]

Good stuff. Two additional quick and tried methods to slow down a coordinated attack is (1) include language in your house rules allowing for the removal of duplicate posts and banning of serial offenders and (2) to shut down wall and post commenting for a few hours and allow for the velocity of attacks to die down.

[Joseph Fiore]

David,

Thanks for sharing your perspective and advancing this discussion.

I want to pre-empt what I'm about to share as being observational experience on the subject. In no way should this be interpreted as an attempt to accuse or school anyone on this always contentious subject.

In our line of work, we see "social disobedience" play out in far too many ways to be able to properly describe them in their various iterations.

What I can share in a simplistic and easily parsed manner is that they range in form and size, and the more coordinated attacks have a way of sullying even those with the highest reputation level.

If I may impart an accompanying opinion, it has to do with the intrinsic value social media brings to the corporate world. More specifically, how the social media machine is able to provide significant benefit to building on brand identify and reputation.

Because reputational currency is built on a foundation of online interactions and relationships, the benefits become mutually tied to a trust that is earned through commentary and opinion. Any deletion of even the harshest critics becomes counter-intuitive to establishing a trusted online brand reputation.

The "green" aka social graph (or what we call the "eco-graph") is something that has a way of becoming inextricably linked to brand reputation.

Brand initiatives guided through environmental stewardship, that demonstrate a responsible and devoted commitment to sustainable business practices will almost always impress online audiences.

Conversely, those brands doing the opposite, or who are deemed by activists as being guided by deceptively green PR will do nothing more than raise the ire of unrelenting and angry voices by overlooking or ignoring shared concerns.

A big part of our awareness efforts are guided by this notion of listening, and in the case of disobedience reflected in angry wall posts, such actions can only properly be calmed through listening, engagement, and sticking with addressing the issues by presenting the straight facts.

Brands should also consider adopting a "tell it all, tell it early, tell it yourself" approach in addressing more serious cases where corrective action may be required.

Ignoring or deleting feedback, no matter how difficult to handle at times, is not an option for any brand that wants to demonstrate uncompromising ethics and staying power.

Joseph Fiore | RepuMetrix Inc.
@RepuMetrix
@RepuTrack

[David Griner]

Good points, Gerard. While I might stop short of turning off all commenting (depending on the intensity of the attack), I should also have included that page admins:
1. Add the attackers' more incendiary terms ("dead babies", etc.) to the Page's moderation blocklist
2. Disable "Expand comments on stories" so that fans aren't subjected to seeing all the negative, unrelated posts in the comments field of Page updates.

[David Griner]

@Joseph You raise some interesting points, but I'm going to have to disagree. Deleting comments is an unfortunate fact of life for businesses of all sizes. A policy of leaving all comments intact could expose a company to liability issues and create a negative customer experience for your actual consumers. (Just as it would be bad business for you to let someone scream obscenities and death threats in the middle of your store without having security escort them out.)

[Joseph Fiore]

David, I agree on more extreme cases. As readers, we aren't afforded the luxury of offering an accurate or contextual opinion because we're using a wholesale acceptance or refusal on the subject based on an attack example with no specifics.

Unfortunately when this happens, the background narrative emerging from vague referential examples almost always places conditions on ignoring or deleting confrontational comments or opinions.

Escort them out or show them the way to the door, but let's try to be specific on the conditions before hastily doing so.

BTW: Great discussion!

Joseph

[Terry Schrimscher]

Good points, David. While social media certainly is about answering critics in an open forum, but the only way that can be done is through a civil discussion. Frothing mobs do nothing constructive.

I like the analogy of social media as your lobby.

[Dee]

I think that corporations should keep the posts alive, if only to show that they stand behind their brand and also free speech. Branding is not a one-way conversation. If the brand is under attack, for whatever reason, the corporation should invest the time and resource in responding at least a couple times, and then ignoring the posts and go on with usual weekly/daily positive posts. I would hate it if apple censored product ratings. I don't think any brand has the right to censor anyone's voice but their own. It's easier said than done, but truth be told, if there's a menace shouting on your page, the'll dig their own grave. Your fans can spam them. But the Corp should be the parent, and let it pass.

@deelieber

[Aaron Eden]

Yes, they have full rights to assault it. Tools like Facebook give activists a platform to voice their opinions. But of course, you also have full rights to block them, and report them for abuse.