How to respond to a damaging tweet or post is one of the trickiest parts of how organisations deal with social media. All too often, it is a call to the lawyers that is the first reaction but legal action may cause further damage to a reputation.
Reaching for the power of the law can often be the knee-jerk response of senior management when a comment is posted online. In the same way that they, wrongly, believe that lawyers can instantly stop damaging stories from appearing in the traditional media, it is hoped that the law can control social media – it cannot.
Instead, law and communications should come together for the purpose of protecting an organisations’ reputation.
Invariably, the threat of a legal response brings a social media backlash with it. It also provides an otherwise dull story with an angle that the media pick up on. Take the example of Ray Mallon, Mayor of Middlesbrough, and his threat to take action against a local resident who tweeted about one of his advisers. The story was picked up on social media and many more people now know about the disagreement than would otherwise ever have been the case.
Everyone, it seems, now knows about Mario Costeja Gonzalez and the repossession of his home since he took action against Google and claimed a ‘right to be forgotten’.
Even the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine in the US used online tools to complain about treatment by his employers. Again, a threat of legal action by them helped to secure the story international coverage.
Action taken against those who post damaging online reviews only seems to deliver media via coverage for the action and highlights the reviews. If an organisation does successfully get such reviews removed then the media coverage stays in place. At least until they can apply for it to be ‘forgotten’.
In the case of Jones Day, they found their cease and desist letter published online and then had a meaningful response posted as well. This reply even accused them of bullying.
Of course, there are occasions when strong action is needed and that means the law is the perfect response. But even then, communications can be utilised to deliver and support the message. In the case of Lord McAlpine and his libel action against Sally Bercow and others, many were settled by a financial or work in kind donation to a charity These provided a clear demonstration both of the completely unfounded nature of the tweets but also that the law was being used to defend a reputation not for the purpose of personal enrichment.
It is often the ‘David vs Goliath’ nature of such stories that make them interesting. Organisations are thought to have the resources needed to launch action leaving individuals powerless to respond. These are the types of considerations that need to be balanced when any response is being carefully constructed.
Whatever the chosen course of action, a clear communications action plan is required and direct contact with key stakeholders goes hand in hand with this.
It is all about the law and communications working together.