10 User-Generated Content Fails (and What You Can Learn From Them) –Part 1
With the unpredictable nature of the internet, asking people to share how they feel about your company doesn’t always go as planned.
UGC has been taking the world by storm. People don’t trust marketers—they trust other people. They trust testimonies and authentic reviews; which is why people respond more to posts made by accounts owned by actual people than ones by companies.
That’s what makes UGC so successful. It resonates on an emotional level with people and makes them want to be a part of the experience your brand provides. It also gives them a chance to be acknowledged and participate in something larger than them.
When used correctly, it can build a following and increase both trust and loyalty to a brand. If that sounds like something you’re interested in doing, we also wrote a piece on brands that have used UGC correctly and how you can, too.
But when it’s not, it can cause outrage. It can spark negative uproar all over the world that can get out of control, fast.
Whether it’s asking people to use a hashtag and tell a story or tag their friends on a video, the success or failure of a UGC campaign rests on the shoulders of the general public.
Here are ten times brand’s UGC campaigns backfired and what we can learn from them:
Lesson 1: Listen to public sentiment and do your research
How do you generate UGC? You pick a hashtag, post it on social media, and wait for the posts to come in, easy right? Well, not always.
Do your research. A lot of times, campaigns fail simply because those responsible are failing to research or are not listening to sentiment surrounding their brands. Take these cases for example:
Case 1: The #SpreadTheCheer campaign by Starbucks
In October of 2012, media outlets in the UK brought to light that Starbucks was evading tax by reporting that they had made no profit so that they did not need to pay income tax.
Shortly after, Starbucks made matters worse by lessening the amount of paid lunch breaks, sick leaves, and maternity leaves that their employees in the UK could take to account for the tax that they had to now pay for.
The public was not happy. In fact, a lot of people were outraged by these revelations to point of holding protests and even boycotting the brand entirely.
And in the midst of all of this negative sentiment is when Starbucks decided to release their #SpreadTheCheer campaign. On its own, it sounded like a good plan. They even partnered with the Natural History Museum in London to put up a big screen that displayed ALL the #SpreadTheCheer tweets, no filter.
And things went down from there. Because the public was so enraged by all the dodgy practices going on with Starbucks, they did not post their positive Christmas stories. Instead, they called Starbucks out for tax evasion and shady labor practices.
So the negative sentiment that was already spreading all over the UK was now also all over social media. Personal stories came out about how workers weren’t treated fairly. And even more individuals called the company out for paying taxes only to improve their company image.
It wasn’t good PR, at all. The campaign failed miserably and there was no way to stop the tweets from going live on their live screen.
So what were the specific problems of this campaign?
- They built a campaign to force positive sentiment in the midst of existing negative sentiment.
- They displayed the tweets live without any form of moderation (not even expletive censoring!)
- Instead of answering the crowd, they glazed over all the negative sentiment and put out a positive campaign.
But what could have been done better?
It’s really hard to say because brands can’t tell people how to feel. The negative sentiment at the time was justified—they did shady things. But here are some things that could have been done to have less damaging results:
- Even though it would have been difficult to sell, the brand could have issued an apology or an acknowledgment, at least. They could have mentioned what they are changing to make things better.
- They should not have forced the change to positive sentiment like they had tried to. That was bound to fail miserably.
- They should have monitored the tweets coming in, even just for the ones with expletives in them.
The bottomline is, they could have done a lot better. But the lesson remains: listen to public sentiment and do your research before launching any kind of campaign that involves UGC—because you might not like the content that you get.
Case 2: The #NotGuilty campaign by Entenmann’s
Have you heard of Entenmann’s? If you haven’t, Entenmann’s is an American sweets manufacturer that’s been around for over a hundred years.
In 2011, they made a blunder that made them seem both insensitive and coarse. They tweeted the following statement to promote their low-calorie sweets: “Who’s #notguilty about eating all the tasty treats they want?!” Sounds harmless and even apt, right? Well, let’s backtrack a little and add some context.
In December of 2008, the remains of a 2-year-old girl named Caylee Anthony were found in the woods near her family home. Months earlier, her grandmother had reported her as missing. Her mother, Casey Anthony, was eventually arrested for neglect and was accused of murdering the child.
In July of 2011, the hashtag #notguilty went viral because of the outrage people felt about the results of Casey Anthony’s trial—she was found #notguilty because she could not be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
And that was the social media atmosphere with which Entenmann’s decided to use the #notguilty tag.
And within that same moment, there was uproar. By the next day (earlier, even), media outlets were reporting on how insensitive it was that Entenmann’s had“hijacked” the hashtag about the Anthony Case’s verdict.
So what were the problems?
- The social media team did not listen to public sentiment before posting.
- They deleted the post, but someone had already taken the photo.
- They did not have a crisis communication plan.
But here’s what they did right: They apologized sincerely.
According to Adweek, Dave Kerpen (CEO of Likeable Media, Entenmann’s social media handler at the time) had not only apologized but also improved their company image by saying:
“While this was clearly a mistake, it’s important to not only say sorry, but to leave the situation better than it was before. To that end, I’ll be increasing the pro-bono work we do for nonprofit organizations in need.”
Lesson 2: Don’t force the love, it’ll backfire
If your brand has a negative image—don’t force it. Start creating great content and make positive changes, and the rest should follow. On top of that, don’t seem too desperate. Here are some cases that we should look at:
Case 1: The #ILoveWalgreens campaign by Walgreens
Walgreens tried so hard—and that was its downfall.
Walgreens is the second largest pharmacy in the United States. In 2013, the company decided that they wanted to hear why their customers love Walgreens. So they launched the #ILoveWalgreens campaign on Twitter.
According to Adam Kmiec, their director of social media at the time, said that the campaign had three goals:
- To create positive conversations on social media surrounding the brand;
- To reach more people through these conversations; and
- To redirect people to an offline helpline.
The problem with Walgreens though, was not in the campaign idea or goals. Sure the campaign was a little tacky, but in the earlier days of social media, it wasn't that uncommon for people to create campaigns of this sort.
The problems was in their execution. Walgreens paid Twitter a six-figure amount to get onto the trending list—and that just screamed desperation.
There was no buzz around Walgreens—positive or negative. But because of this campaign, negative conversations around the brand started popping up.
Instead of posting positive rhetoric, people started telling stories about why they didn’t like Walgreens and tagging it with the #ILoveWalgreens hashtag. The positive press they were hoping to receive took a turn for the worse. It was a nightmare.
After a while, people started asking how it was possible that #ILoveWalgreens was the trending topic of the day. After a little digging, they found out that the brand had bought their way onto the trending list. And that didn’t sit well with them, either.
So as a summary, what went wrong?
- There were no relevant conversations around Walgreens when the campaign went live, so it was suspicious when they became trending overnight.
- They seemed very desperate, which did not resound well with social media users.
There’s a lesson to be learned here: If you do something right, conversations around you brand will happen naturally. If you force it, it will probably backfire.
Case 2: The #myNYPD campaign by the New York Police Department (NYPD)
Again, here’s a brand that didn’t read the mood.
In 2014, Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, was shot by a white police officer named Darren Wilson. This caused uproar in the Ferguson, Missouri, where it all happened. The anger and mistrust quickly spread throughout the entire country, and soon everyday citizens had stopped trusting the police because of police brutality.
In an attempt to create a better image for their officers and rebuild trust, the NYPD decided to ask the public for photos of themselves with police officers with the offer of potentially being featured on their Facebook page.
This backfired almost immediately. At the height of the campaign, the hashtag was used 10,000 times—most tweets were negative.
People shared photos of police brutality—everything from using their batons to “frisking dogs.” It didn’t help the NYPD’s image at all. If anything, it hurt the reputation of police officers nationwide.
Once again, we ask, why did this happen? What went wrong?
- Negative sentiment already existed prior to the campaign.
- Instead of slowly but steadily working on their image, the NYPD wanted a quick fix to their negative image, but we should all know by now that quick fixes rarely work.
- They didn’t have a contingency plan. Negative feedback always happens, which is why we need to anticipate it. Sadly, the NYPD did not. Instead, they said that there was “no such thing as bad publicity.”
Despite the massive backlash and negative outbursts, there were some positive outcomes:
- They didn’t give up. Instead, they retweeted and reposted the positive tweets that they found.
- On the vanity side, they gained 4,000 followers.
So apart from not forcing the general public to positively associate with your brand, what else can we learn? To listen to public sentiment, never give up, and always plan for the worst.
Continued in part 2…
Next week, we look at six more cases to learn from, including a desperate hashtag campaign by Bill Cosby. Be sure to follow our publication to stay up to date!
