Rules for a successful Twitter campaign

In today’s society with social medial at an ultimate high, numerous organizations are turning to Twitter to launch its campaigns. Twitter reaches large groups of potential publics. However, it is imperative to evaluate both the pros and cons of releasing a campaign through a social media site like Twitter.

It is crucial for an organization to understand the inner workings of Twitter and that negative feedback is a possibility. If an organization does not have knowledge of it’s audience or precise goals Twitter can lead to brand damage. An important concept that must be kept in mind when using Twitter is that the organization has no control over its audience; once the campaign has been posted on the social media site its fair game. A skilled PR practitioner is needed to monitor the trafficking on Twitter to control the risk that could be the end result. However, there are various rules that organizations should follow in order to construct a successful social media campaign.

Rules for initiating a social media campaign using Twitter:

  • When establishing the hash mark that will be used ensure it is one that will allow the publics to voice their opinions, but have a skilled PR practitioner supervising the content. Also, it is extremely important to choose hash tags that are clear and precise with the organization; the organization needs to reduce any confusion that could be associated with its harsh tag. Use hash tags that is directly recognized with the organization that developed it. If confusion does occur, the social media monitor should address this confusion in a quick and timely manner. One example of a hag tag not being used properly is the one used by Entenmann’s Baked Goods Company. During the Casey Anthony trial, Entenmanns established the hash tag #notguilty which caused confusion to Twitter users because people were associating the hash tag to be directed at the Anthony trial.
  • The Twitter topic should be an interesting topic that will aid in building relationships. Since Twitter is mainly about reaching large masses, topics have to be catchy in order to reach the most potential publics. Getting people talking about the organization through a trendy topic increases the promotion, thus saving money and helps build a better reputation. One organization that really achieved a big buzz with its topic is Subway.
  • The last rule to follow by is the 80/20 rule. This rule simply states that 80% of the time shared on Twitter should be about current events, entertainment, or anything that interests publics. The remaining 20% should be focused towards promoting the organization. When an organization focuses solely on itself normally causes irritation to the following publics, thus reducing its followers. Sharing various information people want to know about other than organization news can cause a fan base that will come to respect and rely on that organizations Twitter page. Posting articles like the weather, savings and other interesting articles can create a larger fan base over a Twitter page that deals strictly with organization business. A good example of an organization that conducts its Twitter page in this manner is Puritan Dry Cleaners.

If a Twitter campaign goes wrong it is extremely essential to respond as quick as possible. Ignoring the incident is not the correct way to handle such situations. The questions or comments need to be addressed honestly and openly. Ask questions for recommendations from the organizations publics; feedback is a great tool to help improve the organizations character. Lastly, make it worth the followers while by issuing savings and deals on Twitter.


Wal-Mart de Mexico bribery

The New York Times recently discovered that Wal-Marts in Mexico have been using bribery  to further its expansion since 2005. The paper trail connected with Wal-Mart de Mexico bribery actions has totaled more than $24 million. The bribes allowed Wal-Mart de Mexico to expand quickly, changed zoning maps, removed environmental objections and diminished the life span of permits necessary for building. As a result of these activities, the organization was able to accelerate growth in Mexico.  It has been noted that top executives knew about the payments and hid the evidence from Wal-Mart’s headquarters located in Bentonville, Ark. Wal-Mart de Mexico was basically purchasing market dominance in various locations.

According to the master list of reputation repair strategies, Wal-Mart’s response falls under the excuse strategy. When applying the excuse strategy the organization denies its intent to do harm that ultimately prompted the crisis; thus minimizing the organizations responsibility. Along with the excuse strategy, several subsets follow along including: provocation, defeasibility, accidental and good intentions. In this particular instance, Wal-Mart used a combination of defeasibility and good intentions. Defeasibility is when the organization claims to have limited information of events that eventually led to the crisis. A good intention is when the organizations goal was to do well.

Wal-Mart stated that it takes the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) very seriously and are devoted to containing an effective global anti-corruption program in all of the countries the company operates in. Noncompliance with the FCPA will not be tolerated in the company. Wal-Mart stresses the bribery took place six years ago and the organization does not pertain all the necessary information on exactly what took place, but a detailed investigation is being conducted.

The crisis strategy that Wal-Mart used is hard to swallow. It is very hard to accept that a company as large as Wal-Mart had no inquires as to how its Mexico branch was accelerating so quickly. This has been allowed to conduct for six years and the amount of money that was moved is vast. The response given was apologetic, but also defensive. The response began with the organization stand on the FCPA and how noncompliance will not be tolerated. Then the response turned defensive by repeatedly remarking that this occurred six years ago and that a full investigation is necessary to determine what really occurred in Mexico. I just felt that Wal-Mart was angry that it was being scrutinized. The wishy-washy template for the response decreases faith in the organization. At this moment it is hard to determine whether or not this will ever be resulted or if Wal-Mart will continue to sweep this occurrence under the rug.