I'm also posting this because it is a really great example of a lot of things from class.
Based on this thread alone, I dismissed the idea of purchasing a Blueberry Guitar without ever even having played one - definitely a negative impact. But there are also people in the thread who clearly had never heard of Blueberry and now view them as a purchase option - definitely positive.
The thread is long, so here is a blow-by-blow:
- "Blueberry Guitars" is a new company owned by Danny Fonfender trying to gain market share. Their point of differentiation is that their instruments all have elaborate traditional Balinese carvings.
- A lot of posters on the AGF are deeply knowledgeable. Kevin Gallagher, who starts eviscerating Blueberry on page 2, is a professional guitar builder, as are many other frequent posters. As compared to the average guitar consumer, AGF members care much more about tone and much less about aesthetics, so it should be obvious already that Blueberry's venue choice was a mistake.
- "stewart4328" and "Sammy_L_D" are clearly shills for Blueberry posing as regular forum members. My guess is they are from some rogue marketing firm who suckered Blueberry into hiring them to do a "new media campaign."
- On page 5, Fonfender himself steps in and writes a butt-hurt response, which just makes things worse. Note the swift reply by the moderator "cotten," and the ultimate locking of the thread by moderator "wthurman."
- Blueberry wanted free advertising, but instead ended up with an epic flame war.
- Even though the thread was derailed, do you think stewart4328's post was ultimately good for Blueberry (i.e. increased sales)?
- Is this kind of shilling (not disclosing your association with the company) ethically acceptable?
Those are two great questions, which I’m sure we will be hotly debating over and over throughout the quarter. I have some thoughts about them, but I would like to hear from others in the class first before I write more on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI actually have personal experience with this issue from the perspective of the company. I was working late at night at my first job (a social networking site) and one of the employees ran across a really inflammatory blog post that accused our company of essentially being a giant scam. There were some legitimate complaints but most of it was very much a conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteThe blog post hadn't received any comments in a while and was pretty dead until said co-worker decided to write a glowing review in response. Within the hour someone responded outing him as an employee and the comments kept coming in over the next week. All he really did is raise more awareness of the negative opinions of the company he was trying to fight.
I think the negative response of such a tactic is unnecessarily risky. Honestly representing yourself and disclosing affiliation with a company is a way more effective approach and in the very least leads people to appreciate your involvement.
Ryan, thanks for the stimulating question. If I'm using terminology correctly, Jeff_M is a troll who really set a bad tone almost from the start of the discussion. When things go bad like this right from the start, do you think it's best to close the thread and try again? Or does that reflect poorly on the forum?
ReplyDeleteA few posts look like they generate bad reaction from others in the industry. This may or may not be important from a competitive standpoint, but I tend to think it's harmful. If I have a successful and non-competing brand, why would I help this "bad" start-up brand.
I think the founder made a terrible decision to post in this forum. I dont think his calling out of Jeff_M is going to inspire him to say something positive in the future.
As to your second question Ryan, I don't think it is necessary to start your first post in a thread with "My name is Andrew, and I work for a social media marketing firm promoting X", especially if your first couple of posts are purely factual. But, when people start to get upset, its time to come completely clean (more disclosure than Stewart provides).