According to CNET News, it all started with Greenpeace, which has long been putting pressure on Nestle to eliminate palm oil from its products, an ingredient linked to deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and endangered species loss. Part of the environmental activist group’s efforts was to encourage supporters with Facebook accounts to change their profile pictures to anti-Nestle slogans. This was a bold move, which garnered press coverage and prompted a response from Nestle that marked the beginning of the aforementioned firestorm.

Rather than replace the ingredient altogether (read: create its own positive PR) or simply mediate the situation (read: talk with fans), Nestle countered with this mild threat: “We welcome your comments, but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile [picture] – they will be deleted.” Later, the page administrator thoughtlessly posted the following comment: “Oh please… it’s like we’re censoring everything to allow only positive comments.”

As CNET News staff writer Caroline McCarthy put it, the responses “come across as two instances where [Nestle] is attempting to stifle criticism.” That’s putting it lightly. In a forum meant for publishing opinions and collaboration, Nestle screwed the pooch. The onslaught of reactions from Greenpeace proponents ranged from, “Hey PR moron. Thanks [for] doing a far better job than we could ever achieve in destroying your brand,” to, “It’s not OK for people to use altered versions of your logos, but it’s OK for you to alter the face of Indonesian rainforests?”

Not surprisingly, Nestle quickly issued a public apology in the wake of the backlash, including a personal message from the page administrator addressed to Facebook fans. But that won’t be enough to wash away the bad aftertaste. If irreparable damage hasn’t been done to its brand character already, Nestle will have to work overtime to regain the trust of would-be fans that occupy the same social spaces. Specifically, more than simply brand a Facebook page and call it a day, Nestle must dedicate the majority its social resources to stimulating ongoing interaction with customers, acknowledging their needs, and responding accordingly. In this case, address the issue head on. Talk openly, honestly, and politely with consumers about it – stop talking at them. And ultimately create a solution that satisfies both public demand and business objectives. Easier said than done, obviously. But if you’ve hit rock bottom and want to get back on top, there’s no way to avoid the uphill climb.

Read the Article on CNET

Taking full advantage of this ever-growing trend – something all advertisers would benefit from nowadays, UNICEF launched a Denver-based campaign in support of the Tap Project, a national effort to bring clean water to millions of deprived children around the world. Between March 25th and April 21st, consumers could donate a dollar – the cost of providing 40 days of clean water to a single child – in exchange for 60 seconds of fame. That is, donors had the opportunity to project a personal, 75-character message on buildings and windows in the Mile-High City for a full minute. Think of it as a Tweet on steroids.

It was a simple, yet downright awesome idea. Essentially, the renowned non-profit organization sold ad space to “Facebookers”, “Twitter-holics”, and other recreational “networkers” – people that would love to see their “posts” beyond the confines of their friends and followers lists and have their name thrust into the spotlight. All for an amount of money typically found under couch cushions. Best of all, UNICEF has now taken another step toward improving access to safe water and sanitation facilities in schools and communities everywhere. Talk about a win-win.

See for yourself at http://sixtyfortyproject.com/.

Similar to Super Bowls past, some ads delivered the goods. Take Google’s subtle, sophisticated, and relatively inexpensive reaffirmation of its dominance in the search industry. Others fell short of the pre-game hype, like Taco Bell, while the remaining few were just downright odd. Congrats to Dockers for topping that list.

But that’s just us. You can check out how all of TV’s most expensive commercials scored with Ad Meter focus groups on USAToday.com. Or, read how the Twittersphere ranks the “super” brands that appeared during the Big Game. In the meantime, tell us what you think! Which ad was your favorite? Did any disappoint?

View USA Today’s Rankings

Check Out What the Twittersphere Thinks

The life expectancy of Super Bowl ads has increased over the past few years, thanks to complementary online advertising, galleries, and social networks. The smartest brands even launch sneak peeks of their ads on YouTube to generate pre-game buzz.

In 2010, advertisers will work even harder to maximize exposure and participation via organic search, online videos, Twitter, Facebook, and beyond. Regardless of the final score, it should make for an interesting game. Be sure to visit Stir-Fry early next week to check out our favorites, as well as a few other websites that track the top ads based on public reaction.

Hulu Ad Gallery

Determine what ads are doing best by the number of Tweets:

YouTube Ad Blitz

In the meantime, post your all-time favorites in the comments section.

John Freeman thinks there’s plenty. Author of The Tyranny of E-mail, he argues “reacting to demands on our time by simply speeding up has canceled out many of the benefits of the Internet.” Moreover, he believes innovation has “isolated us from the people with whom we live” and makes it more difficult to “listen and mean it, to be idle and not fidget.”

Did you hear that? It was the sound of generation X-ers and Y-ers everywhere collectively rolling their eyes. But Freeman’s manifesto for slow communication isn’t without some merit. Since the late 18th century, it seems progress has favored quantity over quality. The most popular means of communication currently are good examples. Take Twitter. Can we really expect to send meaningful messages in just 140 characters? Then there are platforms like Facebook. As more and more people rely on social networking to keep in touch, handshakes are replaced by friend requests and human emotions are reduced to animated emoticons.

It’s a valid argument – relevance has diminished and face-to-face interactions have dwindled. But in the end Freeman’s ideals end up sounding archaic and nostalgic. The web is evolving and social media platforms are the cause. According to Erik Qualman, founder of the theory of Socialnomics™, social media represents a “fundamental shift in the way people interact.” Consider just a sample of his statistical research: Ashton Kutcher and Ellen DeGeneres have more followers than the entire population of Ireland, Norway, and Panama; it only took Facebook nine months to acquire 50 million users (to put it into perspective, it took television 13 years); and there are over 200,000,000 million blogs with more than half of the bloggers posting content or “Tweeting” daily. By the time you finish reading this, those numbers will likely have increased. In short, the world runs – and will continue running – on the web.

The Social Media Revolution depicted by Qualman represents the most significant societal change since the Industrial Revolution. Fast talk is just a byproduct of that evolution. Freeman would warn that the rate at which we communicate is diminishing the value of those communications. Maybe. But the advantages of innovation far outweigh the disadvantages. We are interconnected like never before, seamlessly communicating with friends, families, and colleagues whenever, wherever. Facts, opinions, and information alike flow freely 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Companies that offer real value to consumers scale overnight, while imposters disappear with the blink of an eye. With upsides like those, the revolution can’t turn fast enough.

Watch Erik Qualman’s Socialnomics Video

Read John Freeman’s “Not So Fast”

    

The campaign, which reminds consumers to “Make Face Time,” features friends and couples in close quarters (with implicitly minty fresh breath) and boasts lines like “The Original Instant Message” and “Chat Room Full.” Even their website was designed to sign the user off after three minutes of use, encouraging their audience to turn off the computers, put down the cell phones, and create more reasons to need fresh breath.

Dentyne’s keen insight will inevitably boost brand perception and likely sell more gum. Call me an optimist, but my hope is that the campaign will be more successful in its attempt to boost intrapersonal communication.

Is this a savvy marketing campaign? Or will Dentyne’s message fall on deaf ears? Tell us what you think.

View the TV Spots Here

View the Print Ads Here

We have a saying around here. Everything communicates. Actually, it’s more like a mantra – a pillar of our strategic model and a familiar tune to our clients for sure. It’s simple, really. Everything you do, from the way you answer the phone to advertising, is a reflection of your brand. For better or for worse.

That goes for Twitter, too. Yep, a tweet can say plenty. In fact, with a unique angle (read: you have something interesting to say) and enough followers (read: people are actually interested in what you’re saying), 140 characters are enough to build a brand.

Or, kick it in the groin. Take J.R. Smith, a point guard for the Denver Nuggets. Recently, The Denver Post raised questions about whether his tweets were gang related. Consequently, J.R. pulled the plug on his account to avoid the bad publicity. Then there’s Antonio Cromartie, a defensive back for the San Diego Chargers. He was fined $2,500 for complaining about the food at training camp, claiming the team hasn’t reached the Super Bowl in the last few years due to malnutrition.

It wasn’t long after the two incidents that ESPN issued a memo prohibiting affiliated “personalities” from using Twitter unless it serves the network’s agenda. The call for censorship isn’t surprising when you consider that the athletes are essentially employees of ESPN, a brand with a reputation to maintain among its viewers, a.k.a. customers.

The same goes for your brand. Share insights, answer questions, entertain, and provide links. In short, if you’re going to communicate with customers, be relevant. It will help serve your company’s agenda. But don’t do it without a level of control and thoughtful restrictions. After all, in a world powered by social networking, it doesn’t take much to smear a brand these days. Just a tweet will do.

Less than stellar customer relations is certainly not a new phenomenon, but companies’ best learn that the ability of slighted customers to share their rage over poor treatment has taken on new, virulent dimensions. For sure, twenty years ago Mr. Carroll would have been no less pissed off at the “friendly skies” carrier. Still, his recourse typically would have been a cathartic rant to his wife and maybe a stern letter to customer service the next morning. Today, on his way to long-term parking he’s already called them out with a Tweet, a Facebook status update and a blog post instantaneously from his Smartphone. And, if he’s really fired up as Dave was, in a few hours a well-produced and entertaining music video is blasting the company for thousands of eyes worldwide.

Word of mouth, viral communications has always been the most powerful kind of advertising. What’s new is that the “mouth” is now an instantaneous, global megaphone in the hands of a skilled user. We’re sure United wishes they had taken better care of Dave Carroll’s guitar and accidents do happen. Next time though, they might want to think about taking better care of Dave Carroll – or if not, maybe make sure they damage his laptop and I-phone too!

Technology is revolutionizing the way we share and consume information. Just ask the people reading this post on their iPhone, while at the same time updating their Facebook page, tweeting about a great restaurant, and monitoring a bid on eBay.

We are interconnected with friends and associates like never before. And the marketing industry will have to evolve as a result, specifically the means in which we communicate with consumers. Some are ahead of the curve. Shaq is building personal brand equity on Twitter. ESPN anchors are reporting via their Facebook pages. And Dominos Pizza recently quashed an onslaught of bad PR using viral videos. That’s the reality. Now we have to deal with it.

Check out a real-life example of social media at work