Let's say you're surfing the Internet one day, and come across a rumor about your company that you know to be false. What do you do?
Many people would instinctively choose to defend their firm, setting the record straight by telling their company's side of the story. According to three psychologists cited in a recent Economist article, however, that instinct may be dead wrong.
The Economist piece profiles a page set up by Coca-Cola to rebut a variety of rumors about the firm. Among them: that the company is anti-Muslim; that boycotting it makes a statement against America; that terrorists have contaminated the company's flagship product.
The psychologists cited in the Economist piece offer advice that, to some, will seem counterintuitive: rather than directly rebutting the rumors, the company should instead "put out a stream of positive messages about itself […] This deprives myths of oxygen and also nudges people to doubt nasty things they may hear about the company in question."
The alternative—to do as Coca-Cola has done—is to propagate the rumors simply by repeating them, even if only to rebut them. That, claims the piece, effectively creates a game of Telephone that you can't win:
"As information is passed around, important qualifiers are lost. A rumour may start as 'I’m not sure if this is true, but I heard that…' Then it evolves into: 'I heard that…' Finally it becomes: 'Did you know that…?' Even when no one intends to spread falsehoods, they spread."
Obviously there are questions of degree at work here: the appropriate response from a company will depend entirely on the nature of the rumor. Looking at the three mentioned above, for example, the most important one to quash is surely the allegation that the firm's product is tainted—that's something that will stop anyone from buying the product, regardless of their particular constituency.
For the other two, however, the advice of the psychologists may well prove to be the best option. Put simply, they don't stand up to any sort of rational analysis. Therefore, anyone willing to believe such rumors is not operating from a rational standpoint in the first place. That makes them unlikely to be swayed by a reasoned response, and significantly more likely to view any response simply as a wider part of the conspiracy they've bought into.
Faced with that reality, perhaps Coca-Cola would indeed be better served simply to highlight positive messages—with a specific focus on work it is doing in the Middle East, and outreach efforts within the Muslim community. That, at least, will give anyone seeking to defend the brand—and even those seeking to defame it—concrete examples to point to, as opposed to yet more rhetoric.
--Phil Stott, Vault.com
Editor’s Note: It is the nature of today’s world of social media that rumors coexist side by side with PR propaganda and genuine outreach. Is Coca-Cola alleging that squashing these rumors constitutes a significant portion of its cause marketing then?
As Phil points out, why not spend those resources on cultivating genuine brand messaging by actually engaging with their stakeholders: employees, consumers, and suppliers? In a February, 2010, interview with Forbes, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent said: “I have not appointed one [chief sustainability officer], and never will. That’s me.”
Perhaps now would be a good time to hire one who can not only holistically drive change within the beverage company, but also engage and communicate this progress with its communities? Obviously, a CESO (?) isn’t working out.
Want to be found by top employers? Upload Your Resume
Join Gold to Unlock Company Reviews