Social media networks are not disturbed by ‘stormy’ weather, but how can a brand guarantee that a controversy that begins on social media, doesn’t spill over into the real world and cause real damage to their label?
Does the name Yinon Magal ring a bell? Well, in case it doesn’t, the guy is a professional neo-conservative provocateur, who dabbles in racism, misogyny and homophobia on a daily basis. The consumers of his content are split between those who hail Magal and his anti-progressive views, and those who like to be enraged by his statements. In the US, this style of comms became the breeding ground for many media superstars, who now reap millions of followers and billions of dollars. Here in Israel, Magal’s radio show on 103FM, hosted together with Ben Caspit, is one of the most popular programs, and it likely pays well too. All of which is still entirely within the legitimate borders of freedom of speech.
At the end of January, Magal tweeted from his personal and very popular twitter account, a tweet that responded to an ad by AIG insurance company that featured a gay couple (Asi Azar and Albert Ascola) as the company’s presenters. Magal wrote: “Now that AIG are doing ‘progressive’ campaigns, I decided to leave them. Where does one get car insurance?” This wasn’t only a public display of homophobia: this was also a subtle hint to his followers to follow in his footsteps.
It took only a few minutes for the twitter storm to erupt. Heaps of counter comments flooded Magal’s page, only to be met with counter-counter comments and counter-counter-counter comments, in support of Azar. Other public figures joined the fight and the storm raged on for days. Although it didn’t really make it into proper headlines, it caught the attention of Israel’s SNL, “Eretz Nehederet” as well as other more laid-back platforms, including tabloids.
For those weirdos among us who still only get their daily news from conventional reportage or the evening news — It was as if this controversy never happened at all. But is it possible that once these boomers die out, a twitter storm such as this one can and will cause serious harm to a brand name?
Social media networks are large-scale content generators for an insanely large audience, catering primarily to young people, and for many, such networks have become the main avenue through which they consume news. If that’s the case, a social media storm surrounding a huge international corporation would definitely qualify as a comms crisis, don’t you think? But was that the case with Yinon Magal? Maybe, in order for a social media storm to cause an actual crisis, it still needs to gain legitimization by being picked up by traditional media. So how should companies manage a crisis when it takes place solely on social media (if at all)?
A new way to deal
Our experience shows us that if a storm erupts within the bounds of a social media platform, it usually doesn’t develop further; it doesn’t spill over into mainstream media to become a fully-fledged comms crisis. For the moment, the public (alongside the companies and institutions implicated in a given crisis) still awaits a headline in a conventional publication to serve as proof that indeed “something real and very serious has happened”.
Conventional media is still characterized by two vital qualities which set it aside from social media networks: an editorial process and organizational hierarchy. Even if a twitter storm passes the editors test and is deemed “worthy of publishing” — the story still must be of great magnitude in order to make it into the headlines, into a newsflash or really for it to become any item that is not a tabloid. But there’s also another element that shouldn’t be overlooked, and that’s competition: Traditional media isn’t in a rush to declare this or the other incident as a “big story”. The outcome then is that a social-media outrage of some kind will not be allotted the gravity that political, criminal, or national-security related issues are easily granted.
One can assume that the degree of intensity of a varying number of factors minimizes or enlarges the chances of a social media storm from spilling over into conventional media, and being declared as a crisis altogether. This dynamic is reminiscent of the ‘News Value’ model, put forth by Scandinavian researchers Galtung and Ruge, who, in the mid 1960’s, identified a list of 22 factors determining the chances of a journalistic story to successfully break through the editing gatekeepers’s wall of the institutionalized networks — and make it into the news cycle. Only that now it’s time to develop a new theory that is applicable to the social-media and digital era that we live in.
For example: when Kanye West spurs antisemitic rhetoric time and again on his twitter account, Adidas is compelled to take action, and indeed the company had to break a billion-dollar contract that appointed Kanye as the company’s presenter. The varying factors determining the scope of this crisis are, in this case: the number of his followers on social-media; the number of times his posts were shared; the number of times this crisis was referred to by respectable opinion-makers; as well as Kanye’s international bearing and the international status of the Adidas brand; the potential harm to the brand; and its incomes and the potential of this problematic behavior to recur. All these factors combined are credited for breaking through the firewall between social media networks and conventional media, which is what naturally convinced Adidas that this is a crisis that should be dealt with ASAP (albeit, it may have been already too late).
Know the battlefield: tweets, reels and status updates
Not only are there differences between how platforms function, but there are also differences in the way they perform and affect change in different countries. In Israel for example, Twitter is known as an elitist platform, attracting mostly journalists, politicians, intellectuals and political commentators — rarely appealing to the masses. That is probably why Yinon Magal’s outraged tweet didn’t have a lasting effect on consumers. Facebook on the other hand, despite its overall decline in popularity, is still the most widely used social-media platform in Israel. If Magal’s outrage happened via Facebook and not via Twitter, it’s possible that we would have seen some headlines. On the other hand, a platform like TikTok is only ever mentioned by conventional media if it promotes content that could negatively affect or incite young adults to unethical behaviors. In other words, when a company or institution wishes to determine whether or not talk about their platform is spilling over and turning into a crisis in need of management — the type of platform and its distinct use-character within the Israeli internet environment have pivotal roles in that assessment.
So how to determine a crisis?
The Magal-AIG example could be easily determined based on the amount of calls the company received from customers requesting to cancel their membership due to Magal’s statement; Or, based on how many calls the company received that consisted of homophobic slurs and curse words; Or on the contrary: perhaps the company even received calls in praise of featuring a gay couple, and in support of Assi Azar and his partner? And of course, another simple method is to track the number of references in mainstream media, and where they appeared (hard vs. soft news). And lastly, we mustn't forget a series of tracking services that allow an organization under attack to see their prevalence in public discourse — whether those mentions are positive or negative, in the context of the given social network, and in search engines such as Google.
A sharp rise in negative references that appears in another social platform is an obvious red-light that indicates that the controversy has spilled over into another network that the one within which it emerged.
How to prevent the spill-over
Given that the overall pace in social media is extremely quick (ask yourself: how far back do you scroll in your feed? Not so far, right?), and that the user attention span is extremely short — one of the prevalent techniques that can be used by organizations that find themselves in a social-media storm is actually quite genius in its simplicity, and that is: Not doing anything at all. Just remember that “this too shall pass” within 2-3 days, and in the meantime, take a deep breath — it may very well be the best strategy for you. Meanwhile, the users will be distracted by something else.
But! If you’ve chosen this approach, don’t just stand still. Be proactive in surveying the number of mentions you got on social media, and not only their nature. Remember: your primary pitfall is not necessarily lengthy and detailed comments; the danger most often originates in the herd: For example, if someone (who is not necessarily the person who ignited the outrage in the first place) decides to ride on the storm and encourages viewers, in their thousands, to unlike/unfollow your brand’s page. They really don’t need much. All they need is a catchy hashtag that says “Hey everyone! Now, unlike their page — we’re gonna show them!”
And what will happen if, say, a wave of profile badges gets going, with your logo on it, reading "I also left them"? And what if opinion makers and high-end influencers see these negative statements as a quick and easy way to gain some recognition and attention on your behalf? That is why “not doing anything” can’t be the only thing you do. You should also make sure that you’ve got some tech solutions prepared, such as SEO — a program that allows you to shove negative mentions about your brand into the bottom of search engines — as well as recruiting influencers for your cause, but also actively delegating users to speak up. We don’t mean bots or any other ethically fishy means, but rather relying on official and recognized users.
When it becomes clear that the storm has already gained traction within social media networks, they will already be prepared for being confronted with various claims, and they will present the factual evidence, echo the label’s position on the matters, and while refraining from patronizingly admonishing others, they will formulate the unique voice of the brand as an identification marker rather than something that will look like a concocted, stern-looking legal proclamation. And by the way, if the outrage is about a product that was removed from your stock (and not because of a careless hate-speech remark), you can also just take the high road and say “Hey you guys, we’re convinced and we’re bringing it back”.
P.S.
Magal’s homophobic comment made it to Eretz Nehederet’s satire show, but it had no concrete effects in the real world. Trust us, we checked.
Assi Azar: by Martin Fjellanger, Eurovision Norway, EuroVisionary | Rotem Sela: by Ronen Akerman | Yinon Magal: by Aviv Hoffy