This week, the reputations of companies, brands, and individuals have been tarnished, supported, enhanced, and immortalized. The public has contributed its voice through social media channels.
Yesterday, family, friends, and celebrities gathered to say goodbye to singer, Whitney Houston. While acknowledging her vulnerabilities, the powerful eulogies paid tribute to Houston’s achievements and helped secure her place in history as one of the great voices of her time.
Ordinary fans gathered on Twitter to pay their respects, just as they had done a week earlier to express their grief over Houston’s tragic death. In fact, Houston related themes dominated the top ten Twitter trends for much of the past week.
At the beginning of the week, Harris Interactive released the results of its 2012 Reputation Quotient Study. Apple ranked highest, confirming (perhaps, even enhancing) its reputation with the general public.
But, to some, this achievement was surprising. For several years, Apple has been fighting groundswell against the treatment of employees working in its supply chain. One New York Times article alone, “In China, Human Costs are Built into an iPad,” attracted 1,770 online comments condemning Apple’s human rights record.
Corporate social responsibility is only one of six categories in the survey. The financial performance of the company, success of the iPhone 4S, and the recent memory of the visionary leader, Steve Jobs, contributed to Apple’s overall first position.
The following day, the Twitter world was abuzz again. Tim Cook, Apple CEO, finally, acknowledged the company’s human rights problem by announcing that the Fair Labor Association is assessing working conditions in its factories. In a further victory for activists, Foxconn Technology, an Apple manufacturer, announced pay rises for workers.
If Apple is to maintain second place in the social responsibility ranking, it needs to deliver on these promises. The company cannot ride on its innovative products and financial performance forever.The question is now clear, “Profit at what cost?” The world is watching.
As a result of another social media outburst, the reputation of 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc. took a nosedive this week. The company suggests it is rated number one amongst its competitors for customer satisfaction – I’m guessing not any longer!
1-880-Flowers.Com failed to deliver hundreds of orders on Valentine’s Day. Unhappy customers posted derogatory messages on Facebook or took to Twitter to express their dissatisfaction. Soon, complete strangers were engaging in conversations with each other. The anger towards the company increased. Apologetic employees attempted to quell the Twitter outcry.
While we might applaud 1-800-Flowers.Com for monitoring the social media channels and for listening, responding, and apologizing to its customers on Twitter, communication cannot fix the problem. It can only attempt to limit reputational damage. Improving performance is key to restoring trust.
Time is limited. With Easter and Mother’s Day on the horizon, will dissatisfied customers (and the many others who read the angry Tweets) give the company another chance? Or will the newly formed Twitter group recruit more disgruntled followers?