We Agree, Brands Should Join the Conversation, but Do They Always Have To Be Nice?
I just stumbled across an article about the formation of a Facebook group by British Airways employees. This controversial group serves many purposes, one of which is to mock passengers.
These were employees of the company, and not spokespeople for the brand, however, this article got me to thinking about a few things.
- In an era where, consumers are constantly leveraging their new found empowerment in order to bash brands, what rights do brands have?
- How aggressively can a brand vocally oppose consumer activity before consumers begin to get irate?
I am in no way suggesting that it would be a good strategy for a brand to create a Dell Hell type fiasco about it’s consumers, but if consumers are consistently doing things to employees of a given company that create a negative work environment, should the brand have the right to talk back? One of a brand’s most important assets are it’ employee’s, should they not be taken are of?
One of the popular gripes of BA employees expressed in the Facebook group is the following:
Passenger that puts boarding pass/passport in his/her mouth and then hands it back to you
Now, I cannot imagine why that is a frequent occurrence, but if it is, it is a bit gross. The question is, what can British Airway’s do about it? They can make an announcement to all passengers saying, “please do not put your passport in your mouth or any other body crevice”, but somehow I do not think that would go over too well. They can add some language on their website that addresses this issue, although not many people would ever see it. It is a tough call.
Here is my next question–what does British Airways do with these employees?
I tried to sign up for the group, and it is restricted so, as a consumer of the brand I cannot get in to see these comments. Is it against company ethics to have an employee only forum, where consumers are ridiculed? The answer is most likely, yes.
At the end of the day there is no excuse for berating anyone, however, over the last few years it has become perfectly acceptable for bloggers (and consumers and large) to rip brands to shreds online (for cause or not). I love the fact that everyone has the ability to effect change, but what I see happening is some citizen journalists lashing out against brands at the tip of a hat; diluting the over all pool of consumer complaints. It is no wonder that employees sometimes want to talk back–we are, after all, human beings.
Related articles by Zemanta
Tags: Airline, BA, brand, British Airway, Business, facebook, London Heathrow Airport, Virgin Atlantic Airways
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=88aac71c-71e8-4f34-a932-bd2e5e2d0139)






Nov 04, 2008
consumers can shit on brands and brands can NOT shit on consumers (not if it wants to endear itself them, hence provide margin for its patrons). This obstruction of the 1st amendment is price the brands pay for money they provide to stock holders, employees, bosses, ad agencies, charities, governments, etc…
Good trade. Like Bob Dylan says, You Gotta Serve Somebody http://blip.fm/profile/gmarch/blip/1085972
Nov 04, 2008
wow, this is the first time I ever got Bob Dylan as a comment–thanks Greg!
Nov 07, 2008
It’s definitely a double edged sword for brands. Consumers demnd that they become “more transparent” and “join the conversation” but they still aren’t allowed to be real people?
Just the fact that people are talking about this Facebook group is press for the airline, which is good. Some people will think this is funny and some won’t but brands need to be willing to put themselves out there. A couple of failed social media attempts is much more progressive than not trying at all in my book.
Nov 07, 2008
Great point Caitlin! I could not agree more