Who are the victims of bad buzz ? What are the most effective reactions ?

1. BAD
BUZZ
2015:
RESEARCH
FINDINGS
643
bad
buzz
situations
since
January
2015
(
1)
(1)
Inventory
of
significant
instances
of
a
bad
buzz
on
English
and
French
websites
Bad
Buzz
February
2016

2. WHO
ARE
THE
VICTIMS
OF
A
BAD
BUZZ?
Worldwide
brands
are
no
longer
the
only
victims
of
digital
crises
B
to
C
55%Public
administration,
public
firms…
SMEs
18%
Associations/char
ities
6%
B
to
B
1%
PROFILE
OF
BAD
BUZZ
VICTIMS

3. They
are
markedly
different
from
the
victims
of
traditional
media
crises:
Media
&
Fashion
are
the
two
sectors
most
exposed
to
a
bad
buzz
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
SECTORS
THE
MOST
EXPOSED
TO
A
BAD
BUZZ
Media
Fashion
Culture
Restaurant-­‐Hotel
Food
Hi
Tech
Internet
Retail
Transport
Equipment
Other
WHO
ARE
THE
VICTIMS
OF
A
BAD
BUZZ?

4. WHERE
DOES
A
BAD
BUZZ
BREAK
OUT?
The
web is
where
a
bad
buzz
most
often
appears
93%
7%
PLACES
WHERE
A
BAD
BUZZ
APPEARS
Internet Traditional
media

5. Twitter &
editorial
websites*
are
the
main
places
where
a
bad
buzz
appears,
followed
by
Facebook
*
sites,blogs
Websites
-­‐
blogs 35%
Twitter
36%
Facebook
21%
YouTube
4%
Other
4%
PLACES
WHERE
A
BAD
BUZZ
APPEARS
ON
THE
WEB
WHERE
DOES
A
BAD
BUZZ
BREAK
OUT
ON
THE
WEB?

6. BAD
BUZZ:
MAIN
TRIGGERS
40%
of
bad
buzz
situations
result
from
miscommunication
Communication
40%
Other
initiatives
(behavior,
…)
60%
EVENTS
THAT
TRIGGER
A
BAD
BUZZ

7. BAD
BUZZ:
MAIN
TRIGGERS
5
Taboos
explain
more
than
60% of
bad
buzz:
ethnical*,
sexual
&
social
discrimination,
manipulation,
disrespect
towards
clients
*Ethnical
&
regional
discrimination
Ethnical/geograp
hical
discrimination
18% Sexual
discrimination
13%
Manipulation
11%Social
discrimination
10%
Disrespect
towards
clients
10%
Deviant
behavior
9%
Non-­‐ compliance
with
web
rules
4%
Animal
cruelty
4%
Physical
discrimination
3%
Disrespect
towards
the
innocence
of
children
3%
Other
15%
DIGITAL
TABOOS

8. WHEN
HIT
BY
A
BAD
BUZZ,
HOW
DO
ORGANIZATIONS
REACT?
Silence
is
no
longer
their
number
one
reaction.
Organizations(1)
prefer
to
communicate
(1)
Companies,
associations,
charities,
other
organisations
Releasing
a
statement
84%
Keeping
silent
14%
Keeping
silent
but
back
tracking
2%
REACTION

9. Organizations(1)
are
less
likely
to
issue
a
mea
culpa
(1)
Companies,
associations,
charities,
other
organisations
Mea
culpa
48%
No
mea
culpa
52%
AMONG
THE
ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH
PUBLISH
A
STATEMENT
WHEN
HIT
BY
A
BAD
BUZZ,
HOW
DO
ORGANIZATIONS
REACT?

10. REACTIONS
ARE
NOT
ALWAYS
APPROPRIATE…
In
50%
of
cases,
the
response
of
the
organization(1)
has
no
positive
impact:
it
does
not
calm
web
users
down
(1)
Companies,
associations,
charities,
other
organisations
50%50%
IS
THE
REACTION
EFFECTIVE?
Yes No

11. WHAT
ARE
THE
MOST
EFFECTIVE
REACTIONS
?
1Communication:
a
necessary
condition…
76%
24%
REACTIONS
OF
THOSE
WHO
MASTERED
A
BAD
BUZZ
They
issued
a
statement They
didn't

12. 1Communication…
not
sufficient!
54%46%
IMPACT
OF
COMMUNICATION
Bad
buzz
that
is
less
critical
No
positive
impact
WHAT
ARE
THE
MOST
EFFECTIVE
REACTIONS?

13. 2 Mea
culpa
is
an
effective
option
Bad
buzz
that
is
less
critical
76%
No
positive
impact
24%
IF
MEA
CULPA
WHAT
ARE
THE
MOST
EFFECTIVE
REACTIONS?

14. REACTION
TO
AVOID:
CENSORSHIP
Nearly
30%
delete
negative
comments
on
Facebook
Delete
negative
comments
27%
Don't
73%
CENSORSHIP
ON
FACEBOOK

15. RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
Study
of
the
English
&
French
web
from
January
1st,2015
to
December
31st,2015
to
identify
and
analyze
significant
cases
of
a
bad
buzz
affecting
companies
and
public
organizations
of
all
sizes
and
in
all
sectors.
A
significant
bad
buzz
(or
digital
crisis)
is
defined
as
any
controversy
which
happens
to
be
critical
of
a
company
or
an
organization
and
that
takes
place
at
least
in
two
different
locations
on
the
web
(at
a
significant
or
strong
level).
Some
may
be
“covered ”
offline
as
well.
MMC’s
proprietary
methodology*
used
to
evaluate
the
efficiency
of
the
company/organization’s
tactics
when
hit
by
a
bad
buzz hinges
on
the
analysis
of
several
key
factors
such
as
the:
• Tone of
web
users’
comments
following
the
reaction
of
the
company/organization
• Evolution
of
the
number
of
“supportive”
and
“understanding”
comments
and
opponents
*
The
MMC
methodology
takes
also
other
factors
and
criteria
into
account
to
further
examine
and
refine
the
evaluation.

16. MMC: the
expert
In
digital
crises
20years
of
experience
in
crisis
communication
management
&
6
years in
digital
crises
Empower
&
support
international
brands
http://mmc-­‐communication-­‐crise.com/