The post was written – the post passed
A few years ago, Wade Groom, a salesperson for New York’s Lacoste store, was fired for posting a payroll on Instagram. Wade was the top seller and brought in $ 40,000 for the store in the best week, but only made $ 1,500 himself. He complained that his family was sorely lacking this money to survive in Manhattan – only housing rent in this area of New York costs an average of
$ 3,667 per month… Despite not mentioning the brand directly in the post, the story made it to Business Insider, New York Post, Inc. and other media. As a result, both Lacoste and Groom, unwillingly, found themselves in the center of a media scandal.
A similar story happened in Russia. An Aeroflot flight attendant posted a photo on Vkontakte showing an indecent gesture to passengers sitting with their backs to her. Two years later, the photo got to the blogger Ilya Varlamov and a scandal erupted. The controversy lasted for several days, the stewardess was fired, and then – after Varlamov considered the dismissal too strict measure – they took back to the state. Varlamov argued that the conflict affected the value of the airline’s shares.
Both scandals happened over 6 years ago. Since then, the audience of social networks and Runet has grown – for example, the share of Internet penetration in Russia has increased from 57% to 75.4%. Public dramas with employee participation now happen almost quarterly. Only in the last year can one recall the scandals around specialists from Leroy Merlin, Aviasales, Aeroflot, Beeline and so on. Thousands of negative comments and internal corporate information are posted daily on “testimonials”, sites like Pikabu and personal pages, etc.
So, careless or negative statements by employees on the Web cause public scandals and weaken the brand’s reputation.
Let’s look at two main scenarios:
# 1. An entry on an employee’s personal page on a social network or his comment on someone else’s post becomes the cause of a conflict. The media pick up the conflict, structure it and convey it to a wide audience – it becomes socially significant. Then change leaders come in – they comment on the situation and increase the reach. The cycle repeats itself.
# 2 Employees generate hundreds, even thousands, of employer reviews on testimonials, forums and social networks. An audience of job seekers and potential customers purposefully searches for reviews in search engines and share information with each other. As a result, negative feedback from employees is gaining
hundreds of thousands of views…
Why companies are reacting too late
According to HeadHunter, 84% of employers
check profiles of candidates on social networks when applying for a job. And only 6% regularly track the profiles of existing employees. Most companies agree that keeping track of staff is time consuming and expensive.
That is, most likely, 94% of employers, at the stage of employment, check the profiles of candidates “with their eyes”. It is possible to study a hundred accounts at one time in this way, it is difficult to follow a hundred every day, it is impossible for a thousand. As a result, at the moment when a specialist becomes part of the business and begins to influence his reputation, the company does not analyze his behavior on social networks.
If you look at the issue of monitoring through the eyes of an employee, few people want to be viewed by managers, colleagues from the HR department or security service. Working in an atmosphere of surveillance and mistrust is uncomfortable. On the other hand, it is hardly possible to ignore or block such “subscribers”.
Control without total surveillance
There are two ways to control employee behavior on social media. The first is to manually add to friends and follow the page updates. The approach has disadvantages – it is laborious, almost does not work on a scale, and generates mutual distrust in the team.
The second way is tracking mentions using social media and media monitoring services: Youscan, Kribrum, Brand Analytics, and so on.
Some of the listed services are smart enough to compose a detailed socio-psychological portrait of an account. And their work can be put on stream. For example, you can analyze hundreds of accounts and evaluate for each volitional sphere, motives, self-esteem, signs of stress, or the ability to interact in a team. You can foresee in advance the account’s propensity to risk, violence, interest in destructive organizations, etc. This information helps you identify potential risks early and avoid unpleasant surprises in the future.
With the help of monitoring, we can monitor in real time the context in which the company is mentioned by the accounts of employees and the external environment, identify problem points and resolve them in a timely manner.
We may find content in public employee accounts where the company is not mentioned, but the general context is contrary to its values and could damage our reputation. It costs a lot to reveal such things before the media and bloggers.
We don’t have to invade the privacy of employees, subscribe to them and create some kind of framework. Monitoring systems follow context, not people.
We can see not only negative, but also positive mentions from employee accounts and encourage them, even if they work far away and we don’t know them personally. Nowadays, the laurels usually go to those who occupy management positions in the head office, simply because they are more often in sight.
The material was prepared by Anton Trishin, PR-manager at Ashmanov & Partners