Social Media, Scientology and the Simpsons

Ideally, we praise publicly and critcize privately. But if we all did that, there wouldn't be much in the way of interesting blog fodder.

When I was the guest on the May 26, 2009, episode of The Experience Pros Radio Show, some of what we talked about was "what not to do" with regard to behavior on social networks.

On May 29, 2009, The Church of Scientology provided by example a much more definitive response than I did on the radio show. (Article: Wikipedia Blocks Church of Scientology From Editing Pages)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that features content provided by...well, anybody. It's wonderful for a quick answer and quite often for some pretty darn good in-depth knowledge of a subject. Example? Here's everything you ever wanted to know about the cathode ray tube but were afraid to ask. Why the cathode ray tube? I'm watching a Simpsons nostalgia episode on TV while writing this.

For the same reason it's popular, however, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information for articles or research papers. It's also frequently derided by self-defined intellectuals and pop culture critics. Here's one of my favorite Wiki passages from The Simpsons:

Bart: So Dean Martin would show up at the last minute and do everything in just one take?
Homer: That's right.
Bart: But Wikipedia said he was passionate about rehearsal!
Homer: Don't you worry about Wikipedia. We'll change it when we get home. We'll change a lot of things.

Because anybody can post anything about anything, entities of size often (should) task their PR teams with monitoring their Wikipedia site (along with other trackable web mentions). When false or incorrect information is entered, they correct it.

Okay, here's another Simpson's Wikipedia reference, but only because it's topical. My adoration of the show has only so much to do with it.

Snake: Hey, baby, listen carefully: someone's been editing my biography on Wikipedia. I want you to kill him.

Snake gives us a for-sure "what not to do" in regard to reacting to criticism on social media. So far as we know, Scientology hasn't gone this far. In fact, the nature of what the Church was doing--defending itself against criticism and providing its own point of view--wasn't the problem. It was the frequency and unforseeable end of the back-and-forth conflict an organized group of Scientologists were having with an organized group of critics on the site.

In most cases, best practice is to publicly acknowledge the already public complaint and move toward resolution. Let your entire potential market witness the fact that you care. "Win a brother over," as Experience Pro Eric Reamer puts it. In this case, "Anonymous"--the anti-Scientology group--wasn't going to get won over. Unfortunately for the Church, its mode of response overloaded Wikipedia's servers, and now they'll have to get more creative on protecting their brand.

With expenses outpacing revenues for social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter, largely due to increasing infrastructure burdens, your strategy for engaging critics must take into account the macro forces impacting the industry.