Kellogg’s join the long list of companies
who have fallen fowl of the consumer by offering to do something about poverty
and hunger if they get something back in return.
There is a worrying trend in today’s age
with companies embarking in activities that can be easily deemed as emotional
blackmail. Promising to feed a hungry child in return for a mention, like or
re-tweet of information via social media is a high-risk strategy to say the
least. Of course Kellogg’s aren’t the first company to embark in such
controversial activity, however the way in which this message was communicated
and subsequently conveyed may take the award for worst social initiative of
2013. One critic goes as far as to sum this up as ‘vanity metrics’ and it’s
clear that when it comes to Kellogg’s and this campaign they couldn’t be
anymore self conscious.
Some have gone as far as to suggest the
Kellogg’s groveling immediately following this controversy is nothing more than
a non-apology. Whether this is true or not it is clear that if this is the
feeling Twitter still have some work to do with their social media strategy.
And this couldn’t be anymore clearer by the fact that Kellogg’s still continue
to plug its strategic social responsibility days after this controversy albeit
phrased in a slightly more political correct way.
Of course all of this begs an obvious
question. If you can afford to feed a hungry child then why would you endeavor
to feed as many hungry children as you can? Don’t hold the public to ransom or
try and pull the wool over our eyes by stating you will do something that has
as wide an impact as saving lives in exchange for generating online buzz. These
types of ‘vanity metrics’ are wrong and put plain and simply are exploitative.
Kellogg’s should learn to use their size and strength for as much good as
possible. And if you want to build a following or fan base do it off the back
of understanding your online audience as opposed to tugging on heartstrings
with a form of emotional blackmail.
No comments:
Post a Comment