Companies who decide to be involved with social media are just asking for all the negativity. I agree with Bruce Turkel when he mentions that people will comment anyway, whether you have a literal wall, or a facebook "wall." What really matters is the reason for putting your company name up on a social network. Social networks are for networking and communicating, period. How could companies not realize that by getting themselves involved with such media that comments, either positive or negative, would be present and ongoing? If the main objective was to get the company's name out there, then why not only use a company website? Why did they have to take it one step further and use social media? Sure, they may be reaching a larger audience, however, they seem to be paying the price of receiving negative feedback just for some portion of advertisement.
I also agree with AT&T's tactic of intervening instead of interrupting. They seem to realize that receiving negative comments would be inevitable, yet they respond to them, literally. I think that in and of itself is pretty remarkable, and not only that, but staying up till 4 in the morning? Not only do they respond to customer's comments, but whether good or bad, they respond positively, and that reflects on their name. In my opinion, AT&T is doing the exact right thing. They made the decision to get involved in social media, and were prepared to deal with the downsides that came with that decision. What I have taken from it, is that AT&T cares about their customers, and not only their happy ones. Even though I am not even an AT&T customer, I see how well they are treating consumers, and it makes me want to be a part of their company.
No comments:
Post a Comment