One Company, Two Brands, Two Completely Different Messages

In class we briefly discussed 
Unilever. How many of y'all had heard of 
Unilever
before class? I personally had no idea about it until recently. However, if I had to guess most of you probably would have heard Axe prior to discussing it in class. The same probably rings true of Dove? 

Recently, I learned that both Axe and Dove are owned by the same company: Unilever. If you know anything about the two brands, you know that they have two totally different messages for their audience. 
Axe is all about "getting the woman." Just take a look at the description of the Axe brand from Unilever's website:

While Dove has a completely different message. Dove uses real people, not models for their commercials. They are about finding everyone's beauty. Here is what Unilever says about the Dove brand:

So the same company that is making women objects who have no control when they smell Axe (the "Axe Effect" as they call it), is also trying to build women's self esteem through the Dove brand... hmmmm... I see some contradictions do you?

Here is one of Axe's commercials.
There are so many of them and they all have a similar message: if you wear Axe, women will not be able to resist you. 

Below is one of Dove's commercials with the opposite message. Dove's brand has been about embracing women and showing what makes them beautiful. You don't need a certain body type or need to look a certain way to be beautiful, because you are beautiful.

There is a clear conflicting message between the two brands. The groundswell took notice of this. Check out this article posted on US News.
Or one of the other countless blog posts, and articles out there that speaks on this huge contradiction from Unilever. 

This excerpt comes from AdAge, one of the many articles that exist on this controversy. Dove's video above was at the start of their campaign to advocate for real beauty, what everyone has. Even though this was a great campaign, it received flak, because the groundswell noticed this hypocrisy at Unilever. So the groundswell went to work posting about this. And you know what, it seems that Unilever may just have listened. Take a look at one of Axe's newer commercials. 

Axe has begun to change its image. There is a huge difference between this commercial and the other one I posted. This commercial received a lot of positive feedback. 

 

 

So it looks like when Unilever listens to the groundswell it works out in their favor. Even though this commercial is appealing to the groundswell, their website still does not reflect this change. They need to fix this or the groundswell will see this was just a front and that Unilever has not really changed.

Do you think Unilever has changed or do you think the Axe commercial was just to appease the groundswell?

Patagonia Energizing the Groundswell

How many of you have heard of Patagonia? Well, if you haven't I'm genuinely surprised. Patagonia is a privately owned giant in outdoor gear. They strive to do good for the community, environment, and their staff. 

From this mission statement, it is no surprise that Patagonia is known for its transparency. It once posted an ad that encouraged people not to buy one of its jackets because of the damage manufacturing it would cause to the environment. Pretty interesting technique right? Since the company is an advocate of the environment, it only makes sense for them to stay true to that. The purpose of the ad was to encourage customers to think hard if the jacket was something they needed. The ad actually boosted Patagonia’s sales from customers who “would have bought cheaper products from competitors. Patagonia somehow created a rare perception of quality and do-gooder aura that certain people believe is worth a higher price” (Quartz). I mean but what company actually tells you not to buy their product, and then gets more people to buy it? Patagonia is the only one I can think of. This is because they have listened, talked with, and are energizing the groundswell. 

Because of this example of transparency we can see why Patagonia would encourage their customers to share reviews and stories. Patagonia understands the groundswell is who makes their brand what it is, not them. So instead of Patagonia doing all of the talking, they encourage the groundswell to do so. 

Li and Bernoff discuss the idea of energizing the groundswell (Groundswell). They told us how 23% of the groundswell are Creators, one third are Critics, and two thirds are Spectators. Patagonia understood this. They gave the Creators a blog, and the Critics reviews, consequently giving the Spectators somewhere to look. Patagonia also has ambassadors who share the story of what Patagonia means to them- energizing the groundswell. 

Patagonia created a blog called The Cleanest Line. From the description on the right we can see that openness, and transparency is something this company values. Blog posts are posted by anyone from their founder, to their employees, to their ambassadors, to every day people like you and me. On the blogs website, Patagonia gives us guidelines on how to submit a post. The blog is less about the specific products, but is more about Patagonia's brand. Which is why it's perfect for Creators. Patagonia gave Creators who are passionate about Patagonia and what they stand for a platform to share their stories. The posts range in topics: activism, sports, food, and much more. Not only can Creators get in on this blogging, but Critics and Spectators can too. Critics can leave comments on blogs and Spectators can read around.

Patagonia does not regulate the comments, but they do moderate them. Patagonia has this blog, and they, as well as everyone else, are finding out what their brand truly stands for. Li and Bernoff pointed out that the Mini brand has their own culture, Patagonia does as well. Patagonia realized this and provided a forum to energize its groundswell.

Patagonia also adheres to the Critics needs by allowing them to post their thoughts on the products. I went to look at what I consider one of their most popular items... the classic pullover. I mean come on, has anyone actually never seen this jacket before? I know I see it everywhere. Anyway, when looking at the product, in the top right corner you can see the star ratings. To read the comments you can simply click on the starts and it will scroll you down to where they are located. 

The overall rating of this product was a 4.6 with 340 total ratings. From the screenshot above, we can see the groundswell, especially the Critics, are eager to share their input on this jacket. The first post shows just how helpful the groundswell was in helping that customer order her jacket. The Critics did their part and helped others because Patagonia gave them the opportunity to. The cool thing about this rating system is that it has the stars, the explanation, the overall yes I would recommend, or no I would not, a place to scale the fit, and lastly a place where Spectators can acknowledge if a review was helpful or not. 

Since this reviewing system does not appear to have comments, I am wondering if Patagonia has reached out to people who were not satisfied. 

Patagonia saw and understood their groundswell was a culture, and decided to create a forum for Creators to blog, a space for Critics to review, and an overall place for Spectators.

Patagonia energizes the groundswell and has ambassadors who will blog, post, and share the brand. They are also involved in helping to develop the gear for their particular sport.

I know that the more I learn about Patagonia from the groundswell, the more I want to buy their products. Would you buy from Patagonia too? 

The Fix Fixing It's Social Media Presence

How many of y'all like to go out to eat at restaurants? Ding ding, that's me too. I love going out to eat, trying new restaurants, and of course going back to my favorites.

One of my FAVORITE restaurants, is The Fix, right here in Worcester. If you have ever been there, you can attest to how amazing it really is. From pulled pork nachos, to build your own burgers, and to spiked milkshakes... you really can't go wrong with anything you pick.

Being that I loved the restaurant, I decided to "like" The Fix's Facebook page.

Keep in mind, I am very particular about what I "like" on Facebook for two reasons. One, once I like it, it's available for others to see that I liked it and that then associates me with whatever I liked. Secondly, sometimes after I like something, all I see are posts from that particular thing, and that can be annoying.

But whatever. I wanted to like The Fix's page because I was that crazy about the restaurant.

Well... recently The Fix has been having "contests." All you have to do is like the picture and comment with your favorite menu item. Seems easy enough...

The first time I saw this, I was hesitant. I know there are times if you like a picture, it could show up on your friends' timelines depending on how active Facebook is at that time. Also, if you comment on a post, it is likely that the post will show up on your friends' timelines, even if they do not follow the page or person that you commented on. Has anyone else experienced this? ... I once liked a political picture, and a Facebook friend of mine got into a comment war with the person who posted it. Meanwhile my Facebook friend was not friends with the person who posted, and only saw the post because I liked it...

Anyway, from this experience I have been a little more conscious of what I like and what I comment on. Because even if my Facebook friends are not friends with the person's or page's post that I am commenting on, there are still chances that they will see it.

This was my thought process. "Oooh Gift Card, that would be nice to win. But if I comment, my friends might see. Oh well, it's just a burger restaurant."

After the first time I liked and commented on the post, I decided to do a little test. I asked my boyfriend to go on his Facebook timeline and see if he saw anything from The Fix. Sure enough it said above the picture "Nikki Feinberg commented on this." So even though he did not previously "like" The Fix, he saw their post.

Sure, this post is just a contest. But it is so much more, its advertising too. Every time, someone likes and comments, a whole new network is now going to see The Fix's post. The more people who like and comment on the original post, the more and more people will see the name, The Fix.

To be honest, before taking this course, I probably would not have caught on to that sneaky little trick The Fix is pulling. They are using the groundswell to promote them without truly asking for the groundswell to promote them.

Think about it. If you see your friend commented or liked a post with a picture of delicious looking food in it, you may look up the place to see where it is and what it's about, and who knows you may wind up checking that place out. Let's say you don't have the time or even want to look the restaurant up, you are still aware of them now. Maybe you are looking for a new place to go eat, and you are thinking about the post you saw with the delicious burger that your friend liked, and then you remember the restaurant... just because you saw it on Facebook.

Sure, not everyone who sees that their friend liked/commented on a restaurant's post is going to go check out that restaurant. But the odds certainly just increased in favor of the restaurant.

The groundswell works not only in spreading the name of the restaurant, but it also adds credibility. Seeing a friend of yours liked this restaurant is a good indication that you may like it too (that is, of course if you have the same tastes as that friend). You know them and so you are more likely to trust them, versus someone from the restaurant itself. Reviews are helpful too, but knowing someone that has an opinion will be even more helpful.

So, I fell for the trick. I did not win a gift card, but because of me, my network has now seen the name, The Fix.

I'm not mad that The Fix used me. I'm sure many people do not even realize they are being used. I'm okay with it... I just think I should get a Gift Card for helping them out. Don't you agree?

Try Taking Pee Out of a Swimming Pool

"'You can't take something off the Internet. That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool'' (Li & Bernoff, 2011, p. 5).

Think about it, it's literally impossible to take pee out of a swimming pool. Instead, you have to deal with the consequences. The pee is in there floating around, and combining with all of the water in the pool. So now you have to have a game plan of what to do. Do you just leave it there, and pretend it did not happen? No. You have to get people out, and properly shock the pool with chlorine to disinfect it.

In the movie Grown Ups 2, there are chemicals in the pool that will make it turn blue when someone pees (see video). Of course, those chemicals do not actually exist. However, it does a great job at portraying just how quickly it spreads, and how it becomes impossible to cover up.

Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff make this case right at the start of their book "Groundswell". In explaining what the groundswell is, they argue there is no escaping it. Just like the "Grown Ups" had no way of escaping the blue chemical once they peed; there is no escaping the groundswell.

Li and Bernoff define the groundswell as: "a social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather from traditional institutions like corporations" (Li & Bernoff, 2011, p. 9).

The power is now at the hands of the people. So if this groundswell is something that cannot be escaped, companies need to join. First they must understand it.

Understand the groundswell.

Understand that we are in a digital age and as soon as you hit that post button, there is no going back, no matter how fast you delete it. So think about how your audience will receive what you post.

Let's look at the tweet Clorox submitted (on the right). Keep in mind this was right after Apple released its new emojis in 2015 to include emojis of different races... yeah Clorox... ya messed up.








Clorox handled the mess-up well. Instead of leaving it as it was, or replying back and forth with individual tweets, they combated their spill and apologized in a funny way that was well received.

Understand the groundswell.

Understand how the groundswell works. No matter what medium you are using, understand it before you use it. Understand Twitter. Understand that Twitter is a social network that allows for short updates. Understand the concept of the hashtag. When you use a hashtag on Twitter, you are joining a community of others sharing the same hashtag.

DiGiorno Pizza certainly did not understand the technology it was using and it hurt them.
The WhyIStayed hashtag was being used for a community of victims of domestic violence... and spreading awareness of it. DiGiorno thought it was being part of a trend using a popular hashtag, but they did not do their research properly. If they had, they would have seen just what the hashtag was being used for and would have seen that their tweet had no business being in the same community of tweets. Instead they neglected to do that, and posted it...

Unfortunately, I scrolled all the way down... and Twitter would only let me see the tweets from March 2015 and sooner so I was unable to look into the comments or see if the tweet was still on their page or not. However, I did find a tweet of them apologizing.

When looking at this tweet, I was able to see a comment. Someone screenshotted their conversation with DiGiorno.

I found it very interesting that DiGiorno individually reached out to people who retweeted their offensive tweet. Looking at it though, it seems that at first its a ploy just to get rid of the tweet, the more people they can get to take off their retweet, the less it is circulating around (after finding this, I am guessing they deleted their original tweet). The apology is not until after asking for the favor. I almost feel that DiGiorno could have done a better job at this. If they wanted to get rid of the tweet (which obviously they could not do... because of the groundswell, duh...), they should have first started by apologizing and saying that because it is offensive they do not want to offend more people and that is why they are requesting you to take it down. Of course that's just my opinion... what do you think?

From both of the examples I showed (and the many others still out there) it is so obvious and evident how prominent the groundswell is, and how important it is to understand it. Because once you hit that send or submit button, there is no getting it back, no matter how hard you try.
Understand the groundswell, or you will find yourself trying to take the pee out of a swimming pool.