Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Lessons from BrewDog’s Trump-fan promotion backlash

On the face of it, it would seem like a strong contender for worst PR disaster of 2018.

BrewDog found itself the target of online fury after a press announcement went out announcing an offer of free beer to British supporters of Donald Trump as part of a collaboration with US brewer Scofflaw.

The UK craft beer company is no stranger to controversy and has a reputation for ‘edgy’ marketing, but it faced a huge backlash when the press release was leaked on social media.

[FREE GUIDE: 3 helpful tips for your crisis comms prep]

Many people suggested they would no longer drink its beers or visit its pubs.

However, all was not what it seemed. It subsequently turned out that the press announcement—and the offer it contained—had not been seen or approved by either BrewDog or Scofflaw. It had been issued by an employee at the PR Agency used by the American Brewer, who had either ‘gone rogue’ or made a monumental error.

Here’s what PR pros can learn from BrewDog’s handling of the incident:

Denial

Denying responsibility can be a tricky thing during a media crisis. Audiences often reject it, or at least tend to be highly skeptical.

That was the case here, with many social media users suggesting this was either a misjudged PR campaign or an example of looking for brand mentions at any cost.

Yet, a denial is absolutely the right approach if an organization is sure it has no responsibility or fault and needs to correct misinformation. BrewDog was very clear from the start that it had not approved or even seen the offending release before it had gone out.

It followed this up with several further denials until the social media outrage eventually subsided.

Acting quickly

BrewDog was particularly quick to respond and distance itself from the issue just as the online fury and backlash was beginning to grow. It put out a tweet which stated that the release had been put out without its “knowledge or consent.”

It made clear that the deal with Scofflaw had been scrapped and vowed to send back its beer. The timeliness of its intervention impacted the subsequent media coverage, with the headlines focusing on the action the brand took:

  • “BrewDog scraps deal with US beer firm over Trump offer” – BBC News
  • “BrewDog cancels deal with US beer firm Scofflaw over plan to offer free drink to Trump supporters” – Evening Standard
  • “Brewdog and Scofflaw fall out over promise of free beer to Trump supporters” – The Times

They are not great headlines admittedly, but they could have been much worse.

Contrast this with the way Scofflaw’s PR Agency Frank dealt with the issue. It remained silent for the best part of a day with many newspapers running the line that it was “unavailable for comment.”

Around 24 hours later it did take to Twitter confirming the offending statement had been issued by an ‘individual employee’ without its or Scofflaw’s approval. That employee was subsequently suspended while an investigation takes place.

Leading from the front

As well as the tweets from the corporate BrewDog account, James Watt, its co-founder, was also active on social media.

Watt issued a series of tweets stating to his 48,000 followers that his company had “no idea” about the press release or the plans and went on to describe it, in Trumpian language, as “fake news.”

The boss doesn’t always need to lead an organization’s response when it finds itself in the media and social media firing line. However, using personal social media accounts can be a subtle way of showing you are on top of an issue and are actively involved in trying to resolve it.

Additionally, Watt answered questions from those who have financially contributed to the company—dubbed “Equity punks”—with a dedicated thread on its forum.

Sacrifice

There is a growing crisis communications trend of brand managers offering some form of sacrifice to apologize or show a commitment to change.

You may recall that when Starbucks found itself at the centre of a crisis earlier this year, it responded by announcing plans to close 8,000 stores for part of a day for employees to attend “racial bias education” —a move that would reportedly cost the chain around $16.7 million.

BrewDog’s own offering—offering free beer for anyone who supports “love not hate”—will have had a much lower financial cost, but still had an impact.

Examples

BrewDog was not only able to state that the Trump promotion was against its values, it was also able to show it.

A blog post on the brewing company’s website highlighted some of its previous activities, including producing a protest beer called “Make Earth Great Again” after, to use its words “The Donald” pulled out of the Paris Accord and unveiling a temporary bar on the US-Mexico border with the words “make beers not walls.”

It said: “Collaboration and inclusivity are at the heart of what we do – which we felt (and still do) stands in direct contrast with the views of the Trump administration’s plans to build a wall. That’s why we’d never offer a discount to those supporting Trump.”

Social media

If you are in the middle of a social media storm it can be tempting to try to reply to everyone who either raises a concern or posts in anger.

The risk with this approach is that the replies can seem robotic, with a heavy reliance on copy and paste—and there was more than a hint of that in BrewDog’s responses.

The other danger is that some complaints which might slip through the net and not get any form of response might take offence. This happened here with one of its “Equity Punks” and when he voiced his displeasure, the company’s tweeter blamed it on working a 14-hour day.

Audience

The overall picture, however, is of a brand which knows its audience and understands what channels they use. It emerged from the online fury with more people having a wider understanding of its values.

There was also a slight edge to its messages which fits well with its identity—reminiscent of the way KFC managed its chicken shortage fiasco earlier in the year.

What do you think of the company’s crisis response, PR Daily readers?

Adam Fisher is the content editor for Media First, a media and communications training firm with over 30 years of experience. A version of this article originally appeared on the Media First blog.



from PR Daily News Feed https://ift.tt/2DW50Df
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)