Some companies understand that every customer transaction (we call it brand touchpoint) is an opportunity to build that brand with the customer. One of the key ways to get this done is through internal brand strategy whereby everyone within the organization understands their role in living the brand. No one understands this more than Southwest Airlines with their empowered brand of travel. Their people are trained to understand the brand and live it everyday. From rapping flight attendants to gate agents who make the inexperienced nervous flier comfortable, they are well versed in the brand and have the freedom to create fun and efficient flying experiences for their customers. 
This went through my mind last night as I dined at Bonefish Grill, a national chain of fish and seafood restaurants. Our customer experience was minor but it does speak to the power of empowered brand trained employees who live their brand and those that don’t. Bonefish is in the latter category.
My friend ordered the sea bass. This item is offered in 6 and 8 ounce portions. He ordered the smaller portion. The waiter, who offered exceptional service in every way, came back and told us that they had run out of 6 ounce portions and that he could order something else or accept the 8 ounce portion. My friend said he would accept the 8 ounce portion, but didn’t think he should have to pay for the larger order. The waiter agreed that this was something they should be able to offer and said he’d go to bat with management. That was that. Until his order was placed on the table that is.
My friend was given a piece of fish no more than 6 ounces. We were all somewhat surprised by this. He asked the waiter, “so…did they find a 6 ounce piece of fish” and the waiter said that they had taken a larger piece, took off 2 ounces and served what he ordered.
We all looked at each other in amazement. Someone in management would rather throw out 2 ounces of fish than unexpectedly delight the customer. We asked about this and the waiter said he was just as surprised and would get the general manager. Apparently the kitchen manager made the call.
The manager came over, was very apologetic about what happened, and handled it well.
But this was a huge missed opportunity to build the Bonefish brand with some regular customers! Rather than bring the customer a small extra serving at no additional cost, the kitchen manager only saw his job to live to the order. He had no understanding on his role in creating a memorable experience for the customer, and thereby building the Bonefish brand with us.
We were filled to the gills, but our brand experience of Bonefish Grill was certainly, well, fishy…all because of two key missing ingredients. First, the waiter should have been empowered to do what it takes to satisfy the customer and build the brand. And second, the kitchen manager needs to know that, despite being behind the scenes, his decisions can impact customer’s brand touchpoints everyday. Will we go back to Bonefish? Probably. But our expectations of their brand are definitely lower.
Crisis Communication Rules for Social Media – Open to Interpretation
If you looked at 20 resources offering guidance for dealing with negative feedback on business-focused social media sites, you will find very similar rules:
In theory, this advice makes perfect sense. In reality, it doesn’t always work. Take one of our experiences for example.
Round 1: A young, vocal detractor posted a negative review on a client’s Facebook page. I would categorize it as a somewhat merited attack expressed in a very vengeful manner. When the post was discovered, we proceeded with the customary strategy:
Textbook fix, right?
Result: Apparently, this particular book was a “choose your own adventure” volume—and the detractor chose an alternate ending. Within minutes of our client’s posted response, the detractor began a full-scale attack campaign, recruiting friends and family to join forces in harassing the company through Facebook. One negative comment turned into eight, which then turned into a photo album, leading to the grand finale—an “I Hate” Facebook page. Why did this happen, when we’d done everything “right”?
Round 2: We responded, again inviting the detractor to an in-person meeting to discuss concerns. Each direct response actually seemed to motivate the detractor to step up his smear campaign, leading to an increase in negative postings. We obviously needed a new strategy:
Result: Brand ambassadors began speaking up, complimenting the company and posting positive reviews. The attack campaign fizzled. Since we became more proactive with our posts regarding the perceived problem, it has left little room for negative feedback. We continue to monitor the “I Hate” page, and activity there has significantly decreased.
In Conclusion: I have every confidence that the detractor will come back, but we are prepared. The standard steps for handling negative feedback on social media sites are a good starting point, but that is all they are … a starting point. The response an unhappy consumer may take to those steps is unpredictable. If things take a sharp turn toward the unexpected, you may have to take the time to re-evaluate your steps and pursue an unexplored path—one that is customized to your unique crisis. As we all know, the exceptions make the rules.
2 Comments