ExxonMobil situation shows “brandjacking” is for real
ExxonMobil’s experience in the Twittersphere should serve as a wake-up call for organizations dragging their feet when it comes to paying attention to the social media space. It took only three days from the first time a tweet appeared from a Twitter account called ExxonMobilCorp to capture the attention of mainstream media and investment analysts.
This interest in ExxonMobil’s participation in the conversation was certainly amplified by recent coverage of Comcast’s ComcastCares activities on Twitter, including feature articles in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. Suddenly, any company engaging customers with an official voice on Twitter is intriguing, and to be sure, there are other companies doing it, like Southwest Airlines.
The ExxonMobilCorp account, though, should have raised some red flags immediately. The graphic image on the account shows service stations, an odd choice since ExxonMobil has announced its intention to sell its service stations and get out of that business altogether. The person behind ExxonMobilCorp—who identified herself only as “Janet”—began answering questions that came from followers. Some were answers no self-respecting communicator would have given. For example, when someone raised the Exxon Valdez issue, Janet noted that, while tragic, the Valdez spill didn’t rank among the top 10 such incidents. Clearly, Janet has had no communication training, since that response would provoke anger and hostility.
Still, I was excited when I read Jeremiah Owyang’s account of the ExxonMobil Twitter stream, since I’d been out to ExxonMobil to talk about social media with the Public Affairs team. So, after reporting about it on FIR, I sent off a congratulatory note to my contact at ExxonMobil, only to learn in the reply that Janet and the account weren’t part of Public Affairs and the company was trying to track her down.(I want to be clear here: I didn’t alert anyone at ExxonMobil to the Twitter account; they already knew about it.) I tried to send a direct message to Janet, but since she had not opted to follow me on Twitter, it wasn’t possible.
Ultimately, I was able connect Jeremiah with Alan Jeffers, who works in Public Affairs and is an authoritative spokesperson for ExxonMobil. Jeremiah’s account of the conversation is here.
To their great credit, ExxonMobil never considered legal action aimed at Twitter (for trademark violation), opting to address the issue carefully and within the context of the social media culture. Jeffers also agreed, in his conversation with Jeremiah, that ExxonMobil needs to be diligent about those things that are being said “about you, by you, and (by) those pretending to be you.”
Jeremiah calls what happened to ExxonMobil “brandjacking.” He tells Janet that she should turn the Twitter ID keys over to ExxonMobil and own up to being something other than an official spokesperson for the company. (She may be an employee making a sincere effort to communicate in this space, but we won’t know until she fesses up, which I’ve asked her to do now in a public tweet.)
In the meantime, any company should be acquiring the Twitter account names that are most likely to be construed as official accounts; the same is true, now, of Identi.ca account names and the names of Friendfeed rooms. Far too many organizations shrug off emerging social media channels like Twitter and Friendfeed. The Janet incident should make it painfully clear just how easy it is for somebody to step in and represent your organization with inaccurate and even damaging information using these very channels.
08/01/08 | 17 Comments | ExxonMobil situation shows “brandjacking” is for real