Last week, Louisa wrote a fabulous blog post about her experience wrangling a blog for a small Pilates studio after the page was hacked. This was a great example of how in the age of Web 2.0, the conversation can be hijacked- this time literally.
Brand hijacks, is anyone safe?
I touched on this issue last week as I wrote about the pitfalls of initiating a connection with the right publics, but in turn losing control of the conversation we wished to have with our audience. Like Louisa’s blog, our social pages were also hijacked by messages we definitely did not want to put out there as an NGO attempting to raise awareness of incredibly delicate issues.
Social identity theft- it happens to the best of us (well, depending on what side of politics you swing).
Louisa’s post insightfully sheds light upon the proper process of managing the small crisis facing the studio’s brand. However, lets look at another social identity theft, this time on a much larger scale.
Source: Google Images
Last month it appeared Julie Bishop was going through a emoticon filled rennaiscance, as her twitter account was hijacked by a user pushing their weight loss program onto unsuspecting followers. After a twitter user thanked Bishop “for the tip”, the hijack was swiftly bought to her attention.
Bishop’s famous death stare
With the last 12 months replete with other embarrassing examples of social identity theft- see CNN, Jeep and fellow pollie Denis Napthine’s account– how is a practitioner to best protect their client from a brand hijack?
1. Secure your online presence- no copy cats allowed
Secure your social footprint by registering strategic variations of your brand on ALL social streams: even if you don’t intend to actively use them, securing the rights to YOUR brand’s name is what is important.
Ensure that by the time you hear that thunder or intercept a Viagra ad in your stream, you have a sturdy plan in place to respond. Don’t let the trolls catch you out.
Thriving most in vulnerable sections of society, Mental Illness remains one of the hardest things for Australians to talk about. If people are unable to physically communicate about this issue, you can imagine how problematic taking this conversation to social media can be.
After speaking to many journalists who simply hung up the phone at the mere mention of an ambassador affected by suicide, I decided to make contact with Jeremy Little from Mindframe, an organisation charged with educating practitioners about the discussion of suicide and other issues of high sensitivity in a Web 2.0 context.
Jeremy’s input became invaluable with the rise in popularity of our social media channels.
As our pursuit of media coverage fell on ears deafened by the restrictions and particulars of reportage about mental health, we noticed a huge spike in the popularity of our Web 2.0 channels.
But this blessing, turned out to be a very unexpected curse, as we were faced with the pitfalls of creating a thriving hub of social media engagement.
The Fallout
We had unwittingly created a community which had taken on a form entirely of its own, as tragic stories emerged through our feeds and people wrote in with expressions of hopelessness we were not equipped to handle in a mere comment box.
In the age of Web 2.0, the barriers of expression had been broken down so effectively that people were taking to our pages to share their darkest thoughts.
Our response
Guided by Mindframe’s recommendations, the team went into a state of crisis management, deleting comments readers would find triggering, and contacting their authors with details of support networks they might defer their concerns to.
Over to you
Web 2.0 is a fabulous opportunity for connecting with our audiences, however, the democratic free for all of the medium means we as strategic communicators are no longer able to control this conversation.
Do you think this is liberating, or potentially disastrous?
