@Sherry and @Barb – I agree; Kami Huyse’s warning against assuming familiarity is wise and thought-provoking (as is her blog!). I’m definitely keeping it in mind for future posts.

@jenn – We’re all still thinking about all of this and your worries are the things that worry us all. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.

@Ari – I’m just trying to make an observation. I think it’s important to observe phenomena and figure out how best to navigate them without passing judgment on people for their reactions. The people behind the Motrin campaign were trying to reach these moms. I truly believe they failed to do so, whether or not that impacts their bottom line or they do things differently moving forward remains to be seen. My thinking is just that it makes sense to form relationships — of course not with every person, but with well-connected people within the social networks they were trying to influence.

@Mark – I respect your bringing the contrary to the party, but I hardly think anyone at Motrin got it EXACTLY right — and I’m sure the people at Motrin know they didn’t get it right. I hardly believe that their objective was to anger a bunch of influential moms.

@PRJack – I think you’re right — I don’t think the *content* was the problem in that ad — it was the *delivery*. The people behind the Motrin campaign didn’t do the necessary work on the front-end to form relationships with the people they intended to reach on Twitter. Humor without context often leads to misunderstanding without laughter.

@Kellye – You do raise some very good points (you’re such the smart one!). It would be very interesting to know whether or not they lacked confidence in their own testing. I also agree that offering their work up as a case study for the community to learn from would be a great service to us all!

@Barb – I also really love your anecdote about your chocolate egg suggestion and shared distaste for Peeps (I really don’t care for them either ;). And, the new kid in school analogy is spot on — you have to put yourself out there and participate, but with a genuine I’m-here–to-make-friends-and-share-great-information spirit.

Sherry quotes Kami Watson Huyse saying, “Don’t assume familiarity when there is none.” That sounds like important advice for brands and corporate/institutional Twitter accounts.

Tangent begins here–

For individuals, though, doesn’t Twitter invite a certain level of familiarity where none exists, and then real familiarity is built through subsequent exchanges? If you don’t dive into the Twitstream somehow, you won’t get wet–and you won’t learn to swim.

Example: A PR person I don’t know personally tweeted a question a couple of days ago about what flavors of jelly beans to serve at a wedding.

I responded because my creativity was challenged by the question of 2 other flavors to go with Dr. Pepper-flavored jelly beans. I ended up suggesting foil-covered chocolate eggs because the wedding is near Easter, an idea this person liked. We then shared our mutual dislike of Peeps.

Voila, familiarity where none existed before.

Now, this isn’t brand-building on my part (for my personal brand, or that of my institution–that’s a separate Twitter account and I would never have done this from that account). I’m neither a candy manufacturer nor a wedding consultant. It was just fun.

Seems to me it’s also how someone becomes “one of us”–through participation (not rude or offensive participation, as Shannon points out).

It’s kind of like being the new kid in school: do you join the kickball game on your own, or wait to be invited? You may never play if you don’t venture forth.

The challenge for corporate accounts will be figuring out where they can feel included enough to try some things out, and potentially fail. Along these lines there’s a recent Social Media Insider post that I tweeted: “Dare to be embarrassed” & other advice on social media: http://tinyurl.com/66hlz7

Maybe this wasn’t a tangent after all.

@BarbChamberlain

Your point “Stop thinking of us as publics/numbers/demographics and start thinking of us as a culture” rings true both on and off social networks. As people continue to become ever-more sophisticated in their consumption of all media, their demands for genuineness and real relationships will keep rising. Perhaps the greatest way Motrin could now become part of our community would be to offer itself up as a case study, sharing details, including how they tested this ad. As Mark states, they’ve shown that they listened – taking this next step would engender enormous good will.

We’re (at least me) are looking it from two different viewpoints. From my vantage point, I’m primarily looking at the creative. I think it was poorly done and yes, I can easily see how it could be offensive. That’s one story.

The second story is the response by many mothers who put up videos on YouTube, etc. Are they representative of the majority of mothers? Or, more importantly, would most mothers find the ad offensive (maybe not to the same extent a others)? Is this a case of a few mothers complaining and that’s all we see so we assume that most mothers feel the same way?

The third is, as you point out, are social media types being to self-congratulating on this? Is this a 24-hour story, a mere blip on the screen that will be soon forgotten about…except for some social media consultants who use it endlessly as a case study?

I’m just trying to point out two issues. The level of offensiveness of the ad to mothers vs. the level of effectiveness by the social media response as being spun by social media gurus.

Motrin got it *right*. EXACTLY right.

I’ll echo the sentiments that many folks in the social media field are becoming elitist, and in their efforts to prove the value of social media are becoming overly self-congratulatory every time a blogger gets something right or a viral campaign is spectacularly successful.

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. We shouldn’t be so quick to trumpet our ‘successes’, and we especially shouldn’t congratulate ourselves for making a mountain out of molehill and missing the point of social media, which is, of course…

…to be social and develop relationships.

For the record, I am a social media professional who manages online community for a half-dozen Fortune 500 companies. I, too, face the difficult struggle of proving ROI and value for brands. I’ve been in this business for 10 years.

There is a huge danger in thinking in terms of ‘us’ who get it, and ‘them’ that don’t. The operative word should be WE.

Both brand and consumer working together.

So why do I say Motrin got it exactly right?

Simple. They went to a party. They tried to tell a funny story and it didn’t go over so well.

They apologized. They *instantly* recognized their mistake and swiftly made a heart-felt, sincere apology. That’s what they should have done.

In this crazy 24/7 anything-you-say-can-be-broadcast instantly world, mistakes–a slip of the tongue–are bound to happen.

It’s how one responds to the mistake is what counts. We are all human, and we all mistakes.

Let’s not castigate Motrin for making trying to make a point with some humor. They were trying to connect with folks who purchase their product. Some folks appreciated the humor, some didn’t. Those who didn’t, were very vocal about not appreciating the joke, and Motrin immediately apologized.

That’s how relationships are supposed to work. Kudos to Motrin for ‘getting it’.

And boo on those in the social media field who are trumpeting this incident as a failure.

Once again, Shannon–many thanks for starting a lively conversation. I might disagree with you on this topic, but that’s what makes for a good party, isn’t it? :-)

And a few more facts can be found here:
http://www.tommartin.typepad.com/

It is obvious that the outcry over the Motrin ad doesn’t reflect the views of all women. I would also hazard to guess (and I may be wrong) is that a decent amount of those that attend a Third Tuesday event are the “Sex and the City” type that Shannon talks about.

Often people in advertising/PR see outcries over ad as an attack on creativity. So there often a knee jerk reaction to defend it. In fact (I used to carry my son around), the point here wasn’t whether or not “babywearing” could take a toll of someone’s back…it was the attitude of the ad, diminishing the idea of it being a “fashion statement” that makes one an “official mom”. And the “but what about me?” line goes against the sentiment of being a selfless, child-oriented mom (or dad).

The consensus seemed to be that while Motrin didn’t play its cards right, the outcry did not represent the thoughts/beliefs of all of those that the ad was targeted at.