Nestle Facebook Response Leaves Sour Taste


Nestlé are no strangers to falling foul of the ethical lobby – the globally widespread boycott of Nestlé products over their aggressive marketing of baby milk formula started as far back as 1977, and rumbles on to this day. But their handling of the latest crisis, at least within the social media sphere, appears to be disastrous.

A campaign spearheaded by Greenpeace targets Nestlé’s use of palm oil in their products, which the environmental organisation claims is a major factor in destroying the rainforests which orang-utans rely on for their livelihood. The campaign was helped by a Panorama special recently which highlighted the company’s practices. Perhaps inevitably, the campaign’s latest movement is into the social media sphere, with the corporate Facebook page being invaded by protestors, many of whom have changed their profiles pictures to baby orangutans and a cleverly altered “Killer” KitKat logo. Corporate bashing isn’t new and Nestlé’s reaction deep in the boardroom may be a familiar sigh rather than panic. But as with so many companies, and as Paperchase found out to their cost recently, Nestlé ’s response to the crisis has not been to limit or mitigate the damage, but possibly to make things worse.

Killer Kit Kat

Killer Kit Kat

Dozens of Facebook users have posted their intentions to boycott Nestlé products, and other similar sentiments, on the official Nestlé fanpage, which to date has 90,000 followers. Nestlé have clearly heeded the mantra about an effective social media strategy equalling engagement. Unfortunately, this engagement has included sarcastic, irritable and downright rude responses to some of the messages from an employee who has clearly cracked under pressure. Our entire office guffawed at the response to one user “commending” the company for destroying the rainforest: “Unfortunately we have no house rules about sarcasm, so we’ll leave this post” (why not?) but their own sarcastic response to another user’s message “to the director of Nestlé” does not put the company in a good light: “Get it off your chest – we’ll pass it on.” And getting embroiled in unwinnable arguments breaches virtually every rule of PR.

Breaking Every PR Rule

Breaking Every PR Rule

Even some well wishers kindly point out the folly of their approach – one linking to this excellent piece.  Even so, at time of writing, the feisty responses remain on the page. Perhaps there is little point in engaging with the mob who have the bit between their teeth, one thing is clear – borderline abuse of people who may have been erstwhile customers is catastrophic. I would put it down to the social media engagement being put in the hands of a junior marketing person who is, frankly, clueless when it comes to social media best practices. The blame shouldn’t even be on that individual; it should be on senior management who have clearly deemed social media as an essential part of the marketing machine, yet not worthy of being handled by senior people or adequately checked and signed off. Doubtless Vodafone would agree with me.  In the meantime, however, they may be horrified by the needled reaction to a Helen Constable suggesting the obvious – that an ill-informed junior has been ill-advisedly put in charge of the Facebook account, with another sarcastic reply.

More Sarcasm

More Sarcasm

Like Vodafone, today’s events might encourage Nestlé to rethink their social media strategy – but for a company whose handling of negative PR has been enriched by years of experience, it is slightly surprising to see that they didn’t see this coming.

But what else could they have done? Extreme options could be to close the page altogether, or delete all negative posts. Both would be unwise. Digging in to the bunker with a good supply of choccy bars and waiting for the storm to blow over would probably be the best idea. The benefits of the Facebook page probably outweigh the drawbacks, however it’s worth pointing out that only those existing “fans” who actually visit the page will see all the negative messages as only Nestlé-written posts will appear in news feeds (admittedly with subsequent comments).

As the Evening Standard’s Paul Waugh pointed out at the Lewis PR Social Media Summit last week, social media has the effect of making stories flare up quickly, but also peter out more quickly than they would in traditional media. It remains to be seen how long this particular story will rumble on for – the campaign is backed by environmental heavyweights and is not restricted to social media. Yet again, however, there are basic lessons to be learned.

An Orangutan Speaks

An Orangutan Speaks

Are you in charge of Nestlé’s social media strategy? Want help digging yourselves out of a hole? Give Louise at The Social Media Academy a call on 020 7390 8525 and find out how we could help.




10 Comments »

  1. I love the summary (and the whole post actually..)
    i might give Louise a call just for a couple of advice :)

    Comment by Ilan Peer — March 19, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

  2. Good article. It’s a shame that Nestle’s PR seems to be more in the spotlight than it’s unethical practices. But whatever draws attention to the cause. And that gal from facebook in the purple dress, makes some very good points… :D
    Peace and love, Helen.

    Comment by Helen Constable — March 19, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

  3. [...] Eoghan O’Neill at Social Media Library – But what else could they have done? Extreme options could be to close the page altogether, or delete all negative posts. Both would be unwise. Digging in to the bunker with a good supply of choccy bars and waiting for the storm to blow over would probably be the best idea. The benefits of the Facebook page probably outweigh the drawbacks, however it’s worth pointing out that only those existing “fans” who actually visit the page will see all the negative messages as only Nestlé-written posts will appear in news feeds (admittedly with subsequent comments). [...]

    Pingback by Gauravonomics Blog » Blog Archive » The Greenpeace Kit Kat Viral Video and the Revolt on Nestle’s Facebook Page — March 20, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

  4. [...] “an altered version of any of our logos.” The brand’s representatives have also lost their patience a few times, snapping back with comments such as this one, which simply must be read in its entirety: [...]

    Pingback by Nestlé gets feisty on Facebook over palm oil « gabriel catalano | in-perfección — March 22, 2010 @ 9:17 am

  5. Helen – I hope you’ll forgive the PR oriented post, we’re in the business of online PR!

    Unlike many other similar social catastrophes, this one has had extensive traditional media coverage. Interesting to note that Nestle have announced a change of supplier – whether this makes any environmental difference whatsoever remains to be seen, but the campaign has certainly had a tangible effect.

    Comment by Eoghan O'Neill — March 23, 2010 @ 10:10 am

  6. I do not understand why Nestle has to apologize for their responses when they were the first ones attacked. The comments I saw being sent to them were anything but civil. To attack someone verbally who is “not supposed to” fight back verbally is not all that far from bullying.

    Comment by MaineiacSteve — March 23, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

  7. [...] not going to write a long blog post about this, as there’s already a good one here, and I really don’t want to be one of those bloggers who rehash other people’s posts, [...]

    Pingback by Jesus Christ, Nestlé…. — May 19, 2010 @ 7:08 am

  8. [...] noticed had Nestle not removed the video, which of course became a story in itself. And the rude responses from Nestle staff? Well, I’m sure you can imagine how people felt about [...]

    Pingback by The Horrors of Bad Online Response « The 4 Mores — July 16, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

  9. This is ridiculous, but thanks for share this.

    Comment by telecom book — August 2, 2010 @ 6:50 am

  10. [...] When news of this and similar interchanges spread on the Internet, Nestlé went into damage-control mode posting Facebook updates defending its use of palm oil. When that didn’t quell the furor Nestlé reduced its dependence on palm oil and partnered with a non profit that helps businesses develop sustainable forest harvesting practices. For more on the Nestlé response click here and here. [...]

    Pingback by Part # 2: More On Protecting Your Brand Against New Forms of Online Infringement and Challenges | IP In BRIEF: Developments in Copyright and Trademark Litigation — July 5, 2011 @ 2:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment