Why is this bullying? They came out three times and neither visit resulted in a repair, then customer service blew her off and basically told her to go ahead and tweet her plight.
Maytag got what it deserved.
Bullying, social or otherwise, has sadly been in the news a great deal over the last several months due to some of its tragic effects, thus creating an even larger movement against this vicious behavior. While a corporation is rarely seen as a victim, and the potential dangers to it are nowhere near the dangers of ganging up on an individual person, the social bullying threat against companies is real.
Bullying at its basic concept occurs when a victim is rendered helpless by the unwarranted attack of those around them. Many times the bullies are made more powerful by their level of popularity. In the corporate sense, the attacks are generally written or verbal, but an attack on a company by a popular social networker can still leave an indelible mark on the company’s brand, or even its wallet. Some unreasonable consumers have gone social or used the social threat to extract better deals from businesses - whether it’s free product replacements, shipping, unwarranted discounts or rapid service levels.
A controversial example of this occurred in August 2009 when mom blogger Heather Armstrong purchased a $1,300 Maytag washing machine and one week later, it broke. She reportedly called the maintenance people three times and each time they left without repairing her washer. She finally called Maytag customer service, requesting that they do something to help her and she claims that they didn’t. When she threatened to go to Twitter, they told her that didn’t matter, so she posted a series of tweets alerting her significant crop of followers to the disservice. Some of her tweets included all-caps screams of “DO NOT EVER BUY A MAYTAG” and called her experience “A TOTAL NIGHTMARE.” Many related to Armstrong’s experience and many also reacted. As a result, Armstrong received a personal call from Whirlpool (owners of Maytag) corporate headquarters and, after a few more hurdles, her washing machine was fixed the next day. She also received an offer for a brand new washing machine from BOSCH, which she declined but arranged for it to be donated to a local shelter — a noble move.
The thing is, there’s a fine line between demanding quality customer service and damaging a company’s brand, and it’s a line that is quite subjective. On one side, many saw Armstrong’s behavior as rallying on behalf of the little guy and raising awareness of a larger problem that Maytag should’ve addressed. On the other side, many saw her as a bully, a whiner… someone taking advantage of her “status” to achieve resolution faster than others could. Of course, real celebrities have been taking advantage of their power for years, so why should it be different with social network celebrities? At the same time, should a person truly rallying for the little guy leverage his or her celebrity to help the company solve the long-term customer service issues rather than bleeding the company’s crisis communications resources? Or, is that simply not her problem? Finally, was that the right approach for Whirlpool to take? They reacted because Armstrong has clout. But what message does that send to the unknown mother with the same issue? What did this do to the brand?
Dealing with social bullying in a fair and constructive way »
