3 Reasons Why "What" is More Important than "Who"

Stevie is an independent jewelry artist who works and lives in Chicago. On May 25, she discovered that Urban Outfitters was selling a necklace that resembled her “I Heart NY” and by the very same name. Stevie posted the article on her Tumblr account.

The article was picked up Gayla Trail who posted a link to her Facebook page and was discovered by Amber Karnes, who tweeted about the story. The rest, as they say, is history repeating itself -- soon, the topic started trending on Twitter all over the world.

Few did the research to find out more before spreading the links. Helen Killer did on May 27, and what she found out will surprise you. It brings into question what is happening in social networks with content creators as well.

Here's why Stevie's story spread the way it did.

Influence triggers

Social networks have given people the ability to see what is going on miles and miles away from home. Having a profile on Twitter, or Facebook, means being able to comment and talk back -- to take action, and help spread a story. The social network and search engines play their part in making it visible.

Just like for many other communications that precipitated crises for organizations and governments, the catalyst was someone with very modest follower/friend counts online.

Certainly, not the people those businesses and entities would have been monitoring for signs of trouble, or looking to reach out to in an "influencer" program. Was this a special case?

Action figures

As I shared during our panel conversation on how to measure influence last week at Mesh, it was not. It is every communicator's monster in the closet moment. Yet, it shouldn't be a case of "damned if you do; damned if you don't" -- the truth, or a story people are feeling strongly about, has already come out for heaven's sake.

Do something.

With every new crisis situation in social networks it's becoming clear that the sooner the organization does something, the better off in the long term. Reputation management by silence can become quite expensive quickly.

Even as it could be a "tempest in a teacup" in the short term, you've got to show up for good and for bad, especially if your business is active in social networks. Set the record straight, apologize when warranted, communicate your plan to fix the problem as needed.

In the age of knowledge flows, drawing the bridge is not going to work so well anymore.

What is the matter?

Conversations about influence regularly lead to debating who is influential.

Keeping score on a few people leaves out the power of tribes -- those 1,000 true fans, as defined by Kevin Kelly and discussed further by Seth Godin. Those are the people who will buy (and attribute, thus protect) everything you produce.

Stevie belongs to the craft artists tribe -- they all identify with each other on the basis of their art. What trumps who. Hurt one of us, and you hurt us all, which means we will help get the word out. Once the news spreads beyond the tribe, it reaches mainstream human based upon the David vs. Goliath archetype.

The organization that finds itself on the receiving end of this wave of support against it, has its own what to attend to. As in what it is going to say and do become critical to how it will be perceived moving forward.

I also know from experience that often employees set up Google Alerts on several keywords, certainly on the company name. If you have a sales team, they are fore and center in this practice. When they see the organization not doing anything, they do take action in their circles.

Which may compound the issue.

Ripple effects

There are no small circles in an interconnected world. It isn't about the circles at all. It's about the points of connection -- and the object of attention. What goes around comes around has taken a whole new meaning with circles of friends connected online.

Being more connected means people have the opportunity to hear about and see things they might not otherwise learn or find out as news. While who we are drives our activity in social networks -- and in life -- we choose to act based upon a what.

Issue, cause, as in the story and one of the key take aways in Karnes' post, the what is the object and then subject of our attention. We look at who did the spreading, if at all, just to confirm that they are legitimate.

In the case of a friend, we know; in the case of a weaker connection, we may check them out -- their authority, who is connected to them. Online tools help us see that. By the time the organization realizes what is happening, it doesn't matter who, the ripple effect has overtaken follower counts.

3 reasons why what is more important than who

Which is why what matters a great deal more than who when it comes to influencing action. The three main triggers are:

1. a story that resonates -- emotional triggers are very powerful
2. the ability to spread it -- the connections in social networks make it super easy
3. doing something meaningful -- to feel part of something greater than self

I was sorry to learn about the incident for all involved, including Urban Outfitters. Surely there was a way to work with the artist in the production of the necklace. Why not support artists and craftspeople? Should customer- and artist-driven innovation be free?

However, this line of thinking assumes a direct correlation between Stevie and the copying. What if that is not exactly the case? Helen Killer casts doubts on this version of the story.

Who matters, of course. All the people involved in spreading the story matter. As always, the answer is not a straight line.

(We'll tackle who should be on your outreach program Thursday.)

Who has influence now?

Had you seen the tweets about this story? Since I was attending Mesh, I was very focused on the live interactions for a few days and only saw the story Friday. Would you have acted differently had it happened to you?

If you read the comments to Amber's post, you will find out that Stevie had used the design of another artist, Sudlow, for the necklace. @grabbeth Michael from London also adds some perspective to how Urban Outfitters could have sourced the product:

Whilst in this case due to the usage of the same name and copying of text, it would be very difficult for UO to argue innocence, I think the reality in many cases is that a foreign manufacturer may have seen the designs and decided to replicate in bulk. Subsequently, a buyer for UO saw the designs, and bought them.

Indeed, that is a possibility as well. Which is why modern communicators need to apply the principles of risk communication to their responses in social.

Even if you know nothing of Urban Outfitters, the comment thread is bubbling up similar situations with other designers, which doesn't cast them in a good light. And the retail company does work with artists. Which is one on the positive end of things.

The more of a reason to respond with more than "we're investigating" rather quickly and clarify the company's philosophy and actions.

What matters

Social networks and digital tools do empower individuals to speak up and spread news. The power is still with the organization to do something about it and go through the 1-2-3 of whats in reverse order to restore faith in their business by fixing the issue at the root.

Will hundreds of people boycott Urban Outfitters now that we know this? Ironically, the lack of further action by the outraged community returns the influence earned with the attention to the issue back to the organization not taking action.

The lesson: A connected and unorganized community loses power where it matters the most -- results and change.

Your take?

I'm thinking this is a good opportunity for Urban Outfitters to set the record straight on its business practices -- and change them as/if needed. Use this incident and the fact that it has attracted attention to address the ongoing conversation about its products.

Call it an incentive to do better. What would you do if you were in their position?

 

If you enjoyed this post from Conversation Agent, subscribe, share and like it.

Comments

[Howie at Sky Pulse Media]

This story proves yet again the phrase I coined: Social Media is a Revolution in Interpersonal Human Communication Technologies.

It is about people. This story would never happen if Urban Outfitter's caught Stevie copying one of their designs. It wouldn't be on Twitter or Facebook. Social Media is not about Brands it is about people. It is why the hardest place for Brands to Market is Social Kedia because we have no proven after 2 years of failure we don't want Brands in our Social Media. We might want a very small select handful that meet what Seth says is a Tribe of big fans. But 99.999% of Brands out there we don't want to interact with via Social.

As for influence I still view it as a myth. It is much more powerful on the negative side than the positive side for brands as this story proved. If urban outfitters had a really hot new ring a few people will find out via social (without Blog/Media Coverage helping). Meaning I see this great ring and take a picture upload it to Twitter and Facebook some people will see it. If I do the same and say 'They stole my design!' all my friends will go batty retweeting/sharing which will reach the 'community' like Stevie's.

It's the same rule of thumb we have in B-School. Make one customer happy they tell one person (now with social it's 10) make a person unhappy they tell 10 people (now it's 100 or 1000)

[Stephanie Smirnov]

Hey, Valeria, great point -- we don't always focus enough on what happens *after* the tribe has spoken. I like the image of the power defaulting from the tribe back to the -- uh -- bad guys unless the tribe is organized enough. But I'm wondering in the UO case if what the tribe accomplished was enough -- they stirred up a maelstrom of discussion that put UO's business practice in the spotlight and (from what I read in Amber's breakdown of the situation) pulled the offending necklaces from all their stores. Isn't that enough of an accomplishment? On a related note, I think the UO formal response was badly handled -- came across as defensive and utterly without accountability.

[Valeria Maltoni]

actually, there is documented evidence that we spread the word about great experiences with higher frequency in word of mouth situations -- which is where conversations more easily lead to conversions.

See data in this post http://www.conversationagent.com/2011/05/return-on-complaints.html

The problem is that brands continue to either a) hire inexperienced people for social; b) tie their hands behind their backs when that is not the case.

[Valeria Maltoni]

It was a defensive move -- both pulling the necklace and the response. Companies get what they pay for and allow. We will be seeing a lot more of this kind of situation because organizations continue to think "tools and technology" thus hiring junior staff or "new marketing channel" thus getting an agency to work on activation stuff when it comes to social media. No strategy.

Great customer experience comes from great experience. Period.

[Gina]

Great example of why brands need to make listening a high priority - and have a plan in place ahead of time for responding when stories like this arise. These are the very kind of stories that "go viral" because of the emotional David and Goliath twist that brands need to be most concerned with.

Lesson learned for UO?

[Hannah Law]

Thanks Valeria - your outline of 3 reasons why "what" is more important than "who" will be really valuable for helping clients and my team understand issues management online.

For UO, this was definitely a chance to turn the criticism into an opportunity to talk about their philosophy and highlight the great work they do in terms of supporting artists (if they really do - there are conflicting reports on this!). From this point, they should develop a sound issues management plan so they are better prepared to respond quickly, appropriately and in-line with their brand & online strategy if (and when) a similar incident happens again.

[Judy Gombita]

After I referred a (marketing) Twittermate to this PRSA member's article in Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/apr2011/bs20110427_477428.htm

that individual referred to reputation management as "an [effective] TACTIC of MARKETING." Sheesh.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Brands are tracking their mentions, not yet demonstrating they are listening. This was no exception. How long does it take to track a buyer down and ask them? Wasn't there a process documented anywhere about the necklace line in the first place, was there?

There is a feel good component to the community calling these kinds of things out. However, without an agreement from the company that it is changing its business practices, it becomes an instance of being caught.

UO is one of the few brands close to home. I met Glen Senk a few years ago and liked what he had to say. It's hard to believe the company would have changed so much since then.

[Valeria Maltoni]

it will be interesting to see what they do. So many businesses are unprepared to deal with issues they create. I'm feeling like a broken record for saying this. It starts with 1) hiring the right people - go for experience, going cheap may turn out to be costly; 2) working with the right agencies - go for those who have an understanding of business, not just the tactical shops, or you end up with no strategy to hang your hat on.

Poor execution on the two points above is the reason why so many experienced professionals are running their own business these days.

[Valeria Maltoni]

that's alright, MBA programs don't teach selling, nor do they generally help with the other "Ps" in marketing besides promotion.

As for PR, alas it has built a reputation for helping clients with free publicity so they don't pay for ads... there are many serious and skilled professionals, of course.

Generalizations are hard to make. However, I have been called to clean up the work of agencies and consultants too many times and know that, right or wrong, companies often end up paying dearly for downright unskilled, inexperienced, and unprofessional deliveries in their quest to save a buck up front.

[Jgombita]

I agree that the majority of (so-called) "PR agencies" focus the bulk of their time on marcomm (or marketing PR); but there are other firms (or at least divisions within) that specialize in reputation or issues management.

Regardless, reputation management is hardly a tactic, let alone something that should be given to the marketing department to handle. (After all, marketing really focuses on a single stakeholder: persuading customers that they want to buy the company's product or service. Public relations deals with a variety of stakeholders on a variety of programs, issues and varying levels of relationships.)

[Michele Price]

Valeria this just gives real life examples to what we have said for a while that social media is a leveler, it gives power back to the every day person.

Corporations might want to rethink their mindset and attitude around how they participate period. Not just in social media but how do you participate in the world.

Social media is just the tool that allows the spread of the message/conversation. Who are you being as a company inside and out.

Stop taking cheap way out and setting up alerts, have someone be responsible for real conversations giving a depth that consumers want anyway- to be real- to be heard-to be respected. All humanistic qualities that smart businesses will embrace.