Crisis Management

Crisis Management – Who’d Have Thought It?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , .

Today I is mostly loving Burson-Marsteller and their ability to keep a straight face. That most marvellous of publications, Communicate Magazine, has a story about some research that B-M has conducted into the crisis-preparedness of European companies.

I am extremely lazy, and therefore, you – dear blog snorkeller – can read it for yourself. Click the light fantastic here.

What prompts me to share it are B-M’s findings as regards the consequences of a crisis (crisis (n.) an unstable period, esp one of extreme trouble or danger in politics, economics, etc), which, apparently, can include “falling share prices, loss of corporate reputation, loss of media and/or public trust and law suits by individuals or groups”.

In other news, scientists at the Institute for Studies have discovered that water is wet, the sky is blue and petrol is frighteningly flammable.

Corporate Communications – The Boxing Metaphor

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , , , .

Following on from an earlier post about publicity and the rules of engagement. Taking it as read that publicity – in some form or other (publicity (n) – information that concerns a person, group, event, or product and that is disseminated through various media to attract public notice) – is the end goal of everything that we do as communicators, then – ergo – there must be rules that the professional communicator has at least an eye to when going about the task.

For my part, these include (but are not limited to) telling the truth (or at least a part of it), not misrepresenting, not insulting, not belittling and not demeaning – and, here’s a biggie, not saying anything that you cannot, if called upon to do so, back up.

Obviously, there’s a fine line here. Many moons ago, Tesco announced a new home delivery service – for those of its customers who lived in some splendour and didn’t wish to see a Tesco-branded van up their cul-de-sac (to coin a phrase). The new service involved delivery by dark green Range Rover, and the pictures of said Range Rover (along with the story) got square hectares of coverage.

I myself announced that a particular pub restaurant chain was to launch ‘Pincher’s Portions’ of chips – to solve the age old issue of wives, girlfriends and partners refusing to order their own chips and then pinching yours. (Ooooooh – it still irritates me.) Again, the story tapped into the zeitgeist and generated a decent footie pitch of coverage.

Of course, neither story was strictly based in complete fact. Tesco had one, perhaps two, Range Rovers, and the posh delivery service vanished as fast as the story did. My lovely pub restaurant chain put the Pincher’s Portion on the menu in a couple of its outlets, for a brief while. It didn’t matter at all, though – the ideas behind the stories were great and, if absolutely pushed (by some humourless killjoy) to prove they were true – well, we could.

Now the boxing metaphor. As you may know, dear blog snorkeller, on Saturday, one David Hayes is to step into the ring of pugilism and face Nikolai Valuev of Russia. Clearly, Mr Hayes’ fortune rests on the publicity he can generate around the fight, encouraging people to pay their subscriptions to watch it, and making himself more marketable. He has been most vociferous around how well he is going to do, and how is is going to knock his opponent out. There has been reams of coverage – the story has been wholly unavoidable, unless you’ve been living in an hermetically-sealed bunker somewhere for the past couple of weeks.

Unfortunately for Mr Hayes, he is going to be called upon to prove all the claims he has made. Also unfortunately, his opponent is seven foot two inches tall, and weighs 23 stone. He is – looking at it in a logical and balanced fashion – going to get spanked.

A company caught generating publicity on the back of a lie will lose the trust of its stakeholders and the impact on its corporate reputation may be mortal. If you squint a bit and look at Mr Hayes as a company, what’s going to happen to him on Saturday is exactly the same.

Social Media – The Other End of the World

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Evaluation, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

As my regular blog snorkellers will know, I’ve not been backward in coming forward with my theory that social media is on its way out. This is for reasons too innumerable to mention here, including the fact that no-one’s making any money out of it, it’s being swamped by spam, the user growth figures are slowing, the user growth figures have never reflected the reality of the amount of people who sign up then never use the service again and – my favourite – because I say so.

There is another theory, however and in the spirit of fairness and balance, I give an iteration of it a hearing here. Clickety-clink – here’s the link!

(Can’t believe I just wrote that.)

The theory says that the traditional digital comms tools – email, websites – are themselves on the way out, to be subsumed into social media. The reasoning goes that social media provides opportunities to communicate and to provide content that email cannot – to summarise and paraphrase – email is one-dimensional and the social media are not. Same goes for the traditional, reasonably static website – why would you, really, when user-generated, arguably richer content pertaining to a brand or organisation is out there in the blogosphere, or posted on Facebook?

But then the theory trips up. I think it trips up because of the widespread inability to separate social media into its two component parts.

  • Something that people do in their spare time (and when they’re notworking, obviously) to keep up with friends and family, ask for advice on things that trouble/interest them and view/download jokes, clips, tracks, patches etc etc.
  • Something that simply is not working as a marketing, communications or reputation-building tool.

Just because individuals, in their day-to-day lives, may decide to run those lives via Facebook or Twitter or some combination of the two, does not make them valid, or valuable, business tools. Business requires communication without distractions, without logins, without a ‘spirit of community’ and – most importantly – without commentary from everyone who reads it. This is why email, as it is currently, works – for business purposes – so well. You can choose who receives it, you can monitor it and you can cane people who misuse it or try to hide their use of it. The thing that will change about email is how we send and receive it and what it looks like when we do send and receive it.

I also draw attention to the school of thought that says ‘ask a 20-year-old whether they’re using email’ as if this has any bearing on the matter. No, they’re not – they’re texting and using social media (well, some are, anyway) – but, quite frankly, who cares? Email is a business tool (and I include marketing and corporate comms within ‘business’) and 20-year-olds are a notoriously difficult-to-reach audience with limited appeal. You might as well ask an 80-year-old whether they’re using email for all the relevance it has.

And traditional, static websites – well, here’s a sensible post. Actually, there’s more of a place for traditional corporate websites that ever before – and why? Because, thanks to social media (and the way the bigger internet players are forcing us to behave – yes, forcing – Google SideWiki, anyone?) there’s such a slew of information that, ironically enough, the only place you’ll be able to go for reasonably accurate and (dare I say) impartial information will be the corporate website.

Now, I’d just like to make it clear – again, and mainly for my wife, who thinks I’m a cave-dwelling technophobe – that I am not either denying the existence of social media or telling anyone to stick their heads in the sand. Social media is here. Loads of people are using it. It is right and fitting that if we work in communications then we should have a knowledge of it. That being said – I repeat – do not confuse the social media that people use to run/ruin their personal lives and the social media that has all the potential to ruin your business (uncontrolled rumour and bad-mouthing) and none of the potential to materially enhance your revenues.

Social Media – A Bit of a Roundup

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

This is for those of you who think I’m at my best when dealing with social media as a topic area.

(Keen blog snorkellers may have noticed that I’m essaying a move away from just ranty nonsense about social media to more considered, but still ranty, horse-droppings about other elements of the communications mix. But it’s not to say that here isn’t still stuff to marvel at in the wacky world of social media, with all those fine gals, guys and horrible, abnormal cretins who are busy filling up the internet with mindless, unentertaining shyte. Oooop – did I say that out loud?)

So – thanks to the Evening Standard yesterday evening for their profile of Mark Zuckerberg (for those living in an hermetically-sealed coffin, buried at a depth of 75 metres beneath the Gobi Desert, he’s the 25-year-old wunderkind behind the terrifying Book of Face) and the idea that Facebook has a bigger advertising potential than Google. Which makes it pretty damn’ huge, ladies and gentlemen. As an aside, it also makes Marky richer than several squillion Croesuses, and good on him. Putting an interpretation on this, it means that otherwise sensible companies will be able to stop messing about with Facebook groups, sack their overpaid Heads of Social Media Strategy (bye-bye Scott Monty), and spend their money sensibly on the only thing that social media will ever offer to a commercial concern – advertising space. Yes, good old above-the-line.

What this means is, finally, we can all blow a big, fat raspberry in the face of the truly evil American idea of ‘The Conversation’. Ooooo – it’s all about The Conversation. The Conversation – it’s the future of business. We need to have ‘The Conversation’. I even came across – and I’m not going to link to it, it makes me all wobbly and cross – someone, with (I presume) a straight face, actually suggesting that a good measurement of social media strategy effectiveness would be a ‘share of conversation index’. Oh – please just f*ck off. You nasty little hippy.

And, therefore, the inevitable demise of The Conversation will mean a drop off in the slew of noisome Twitteration that’s being forced down our throats currently. Once and for all, Twitter is an ego trip and no-one cares what you are reading or eating or thinking/watching/excreting etc etc – except those people who also think that someone might be interested in what they are etc etc etc. This is why Twitter’s growth is slowing in the US. It’s a fad, always has been, and it will be for the rest of its (hopefully) short and dwindling existence.

Meanwhile, stuff surfaces proving once again a) the danger of social media to a company or brand and b) that every company, among its employees, has a greater or lesser number of fuckwits who I wouldn’t trust with a digestive biscuit, never mind access to a uncontrolled, unregulated, global communications portal.

Recently the employees of two UK electrical retailers – Currys and PC World – created a Facebook group, poking fun at their customers. Really, really stupid, did nothing for corporate reputation and, I sincerely hope, nothing for the career prospects of those who set the group up. Now, I read, again in The Standard (great paper – free, d’you see?), that they’ve done it again – and the clowns have set up a Facebook page as an open letter to their bosses, which – in summary – accuses them of being barriers to free speech. The sheer enormity of their delusion and stupidity is beyond comprehension.

And finally, as a little light relief, here’s something from msn.co.uk. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – in capitals, just in case you’re missing the point – DO NOT LET YOUR EMPLOYEES ANYWHERE NEAR SOCIAL MEDIA IN WORK TIME, ON WORK BUSINESS, OR ON BEHALF OF YOUR BRAND OR COMPANY. There’s a lot of stupid people out there. Beware.

Corporate Comms – What Wouldn’t You Do?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , .

It’s a question of ethics – not the county to the north-east of London – no, the whole moral rightness and wrongness deal.

At various points in what has passed for a career, I have been asked the question ‘is there anything you wouldn’t handle communications for?’ (I’m aware that this is grammatically lacking and should be phrased ‘is there any brand, company or organisation for whom you would not manage a communications strategy’ but that wasn’t the question. Lesson #1 for today: No-one likes a clever d*ck.)

Well. Mostly, my answers have been flippant. Deodorants. Catfood. Superglue. Gentlemen’s shaving requisites. And why – because they are all as dull as penguins. No fun whatsoever. And I know, that in answering the questions in this way, that I’m not endearing myself to the questioner.

But the truth is, what some may see as morally unsound stuff – fags, booze, chips – I have no real problem with. For instance – and seriously for a moment here – I’d absolutely love to work on a tobacco brand. Yes I’m aware it’s mostly issues management (and that’s not a problem) but it’s also a massive opportunity. I was having a beer in Zagreb recently – where smoking is still vaguely tolerated – and there, on the table, was a black ashtray with a red triangle on it. Now I’m a committed Marlboro man, but even had I not been, I would have recognised it. But it gets by all the rules – no overt branding, no name, no guidance, no relevance (apart from it being an ashtray, obviously) – it works because the brand itself is so strong.  That’s genius.

As an aside, there’s a lesson for us all here, no matter what we work on. How would you promote your brand, company or organisation (or your clients’ etc etc etc) if it were suddenly decided that you couldn’t promote it through any traditional means. I think that if we all focused on that question as an intellectual exercise, then our current efforts would probably be that much stronger. And we’d probably have the influence on brand/corporate strategy that we so obviously lack currently.

Anyway. Just this week, right. The one thing that I wouldn’t touch with a bargepole. A very long bargepole. Even if I was wearing gloves. And lead body armour.

Nick Griffin.  The BNP.

As far as I can see, there’s two people handling their comms – John Walker and Simon Darby. C’mon, PRWeek – I think a decent, in-depth interview with them – and their views on spin and obfuscation – would be quite enlightening. And a salutory lesson to the rest of us. And fairly topical, given Mr Griffin’s impending appearance on Question Time.

Has the world gone completely insane?

Social Media – Social Media Crisis Management 2

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , .

Just following on from yesterday’s post about dealing with a ‘social media attack’ – or, less dramatically, an issue or crisis occasioned through or by social media networks.

I’ve been using Domino’s Pizza as an example. The incident took place in March or April – but since then there’s been continued interest in how the company dealt with it. If you’ve been living in a sealed container for the last six to eight months, help yourself to a wee clicket here.

Obviously, the continuing interest in the incident, and the fact that Domino’s is so often cited as a case history, says two things. The jury’s out on how the company handled it. And it’s still the most high-profile example of social media biting back. (The reason that it’s so high-profile might, of course, have a lot to do with thing one – Domino’s didn’t do a terribly good job, and that’s why everyone knows about it. Or it might be, genuinely, that no-one else has been unlucky enough to get nailed this badly.)

But, in fairness, the issue’s been done to death. And it’s served a purpose by highlighting how easily this can happen, and the signal necessity of having a social media policy in place in your company, and of pre-planning for a social media-driven crisis.

What’s delighting me is the way Domino’s has made – and continues to make – hay out of this. In the UK – which is my stomping ground –  their Communications Manager has been doing speaking opportunities and educational seminars around the way the (US-based) crisis was handled and is now the subject of a dps feature in CorpComms magazine. I’m afraid I can’t link to the article – but here’s the website.

The truly brilliant piece is the way that they’re not claiming moral high ground and are tacitly saying that they weren’t ready, didn’t know what was going on and that it was good fortune, as much as good practice, that helped them find a solution.

The company goes up in my estimation – this is good practice. Life gives you lemons – make lemonade.

Social Media – Social Media Crisis Management

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , .

I’m still fretting about Domino’s Pizza. As you’ll all know, the company came under some pressure earlier in the year as two employees posted a video on YouTube of themselves – ahem – ‘abusing’ the food they were preparing. Cue furore. Anyway, it’s in the past now, the company hasn’t gone bust and pizzas continue to be delivered to the free world as usual.

Thing is that there are two schools of thought on Domino’s response to the crisis (for such it was). One is that they handled it well, the other (clearly) is that they didn’t. (Just so you know where I stand, I read that it took them some time to address the issue and when they did, the response was limited.)

Anyway, as I was looking for reportage on the incident, I came across this on usatoday.com, which got me thinking more about the general principles of handling a ‘social networking attack’ (their words not mine). The article publishes the views of experts – I reproduce them here. As usual, the plain text is theirs, the italics are mine.

“Here are key things experts say marketers can do to quickly catch and respond effectively to similar social-networking attacks:

• Monitor social media. Big companies must actively watch Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social sites to track conversations that involve them. That will help uncover potential crises-in-the-making, says Brian Solis, a new-media specialist and blogger at PR2.0.

Couldn’t agree more with this, and it’s not difficult to do – however, although it’s easy to believe that Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are the only social media, there are (of course) myriad others that may not appear on the radar and which could be the source of your issue. Nothing beats pre-planning – what are the issues that could impact your business and how would you handle them (and how would you respond) if they came up? Your crisis management plan needs a social media section.

• Respond quickly. Domino’s responded within hours. “They responded as soon as they heard about it, not after the media asked, ‘What are you going to do?’ ” says Lynne Doll, president of The Rogers Group, a crisis-management specialist.

This isn’t what I heard, but responding practically immediately is exactly what’s required.

• Respond at the flashpoint. Domino’s first responded on consumer affairs blog The Consumerist, whose activist readers helped track down the store and employees who made the video. Then it responded on the Twitter site where talk was mounting. “Domino’s did the right thing by reinstituting the trust where it was lost,” Solis says.

Yes, by all means – but how are you going to deal with the wider fall-out? Trust may initially have been lost on Twitter, but you can be certain it was also lost amongst the readers of mainstream, traditional media, who don’t go online, and don’t use social networks. They won’t have seen the response.

• Educate workers. It’s important that all employees have some media and social-media training, says Ross Mayfield, co-founder of Socialtext, which advises companies on new media.

No it isn’t. It’s important that all employees understand what your social media policy is, and the consequences of breaching it.

• Foster a positive culture. Workers who are content and customers who like your product are far less likely to tear down a company online, PR guru Katie Delahaye Paine says. “This would be a lot less likely to happen at places like Whole Foods.”

These are, unfortunately, Utopian motherhood statements. Workers are not content and not everyone likes your product. Social media or not, there is always a risk – even at Whole Foods – that someone will have a go. By all means invest in company culture and corporate reputation – but don’t forget your contingency planning.

• Set clear guidelines. Companies must have clear policies about what is allowed during working hours — and what isn’t, Doll says. “It won’t prevent everyone from breaking the rules, but at least they’ll know what the rules are.”

Yes – but make it a policy, not a set of guidelines. Guidelines are open to misinterpretation and flex – policies say what is and isn’t allowed and specify the penalties for infringement. Call them rules, if necessary.”

Social Media Policies – Pros and Cons

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , .

You may well have seen this, but I hadn’t and I thought it’s worth commenting on. This is from February this year, when an Irish blogger – Jason Roe – thought he had discovered a glitch in Ryanair’s website. He blogged about it. His post attracted commentary from Ryanair Staff – later confirmed as being, yep, a member of Ryanair’s staff.

Read – and gasp in wonder – here.

Quite clearly, at the time, Ryanair had no social media policy, governing who could post to what, when and how they should approach it. When the official response came out – here’s an article containing it (and a picture of Mr Roe) – it was made quite clear that they had no intention of getting a social media policy anytime soon.

You can take one of two things from this – up to you.

  • This is a salutary lesson in the importance of having a social media policy and ensuring that all your employees understand and abide by it
  • This demonstrates that it really doesn’t matter whether you have a policy or not, and whether your employees post to social media sites/blogs/messageboards or not – if your company has a sound business proposition, corporate reputation is not important, you’ll continue to make money

Personally, I think it’s all about what sort of company it is and – most importantly – what sort of leadership it has, based on the eternal truth that, like it or not, all business organisations will reflect the character of their leaders (CEO, President, Chairman – whatever).

In the case of Ryanair, it’s all about price. It’s cheap and it at the moment it has a strong customer base because it’s cheap. As long as it’s cheaper (or as cheap) as its competitors, it will have a share of the current market, a market which is (must be?) growing as people (generally) have less money. Therefore, the warmth of corporate reputation and customer admiration is something it doesn’t need.

And its leader is Michael O’Leary, a seemingly unpleasant, short individual with – it would be easy to infer from interviews given and commentary made – the emotional intelligence of a scorpion and the subtlety of an angry rhino. (Just in case anyone’s missed him – here’s some O’Learyisms.)

On balance, a company such as Ryanair has no need of a social media policy currently. It remains to be seen how long they can continue like this, mind.

(Oh – and I’d fly Aer Lingus or Aer Arann if I were you.)

Social Media – Eliminate the Negative

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , .

On Monday, I noticed that the latest post on the Domino’s Pizza Facebook wall read something like – who am I kidding, it read EXACTLY like – this:

“EWWWWWWW THE NEW SALAMI AT DOMINOS IS FUCKING SHITHOUSE. IT TASTES LIKE SOMEONES ARSE!!!!!!!YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK.”

At the time, I mused that – while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I’d rather gather my consumer feedback in a rather less public manner. Focus groups, for example. Or an online survey. Anyway, who am I.

Thing is, this raises one of those thorny social media issues. The whole thing about social media is that it is supposed to be an open and transparent dialogue. It’s free-to-air. Anyone can join in. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you disagree, then you should attempt to convert the other party through engaging and persuasive conversation. The medium is not the message. Oh – and this one really make me laugh – you cannot control the message.

But. When you get the sort of comment that Domino’s got on Monday, and you’ve got over 330k Facebook fans (who ARE these people, who want to share the fact that they ‘just order (sic) a Pastabowl and a Sandwich’? I don’t care! Although I do find it odd that you’re ordering a pastabowl and a sandwich from a caterer specialising in pizza) – well, no doubt about it, it’s damaging.

Here’s where the social media thing breaks down and all you can hear is the sound of social media gurus’ heads exploding. Yep – the basic principle of social media says everyone’s entitled, and therefore you cannot take the post down. But – the post is damaging to your corporate reputation – and you must take it down. What to do?

Simples (thanks, Aleksandr). You do what Domino’s has done. You take the post down. You censor the horrible mutant who thinks it’s a good idea to post comments of this nature on a public forum. You put an end to your Facebook group, release your fans back to their ridiculously needy litle lives – I’m sure they’ll find another large caterer to be their (only) friend – and start re-investing the marketing budget that you’ve just liberated into something that’s actually going to make a difference and deliver some real ROI.

Unfortunately, Domino’s stopped short of closing its Facebook group and you can still visit it and – should you wish – poke fun at the trolls, gnolls and dweebs who live there.

A big up to Domino’s however – I’ve been posting about the consumer need for Free Stuff over the last couple of days, and drawing the conclusion that social media cannot realistically satisfy this need. I still run with this opinion, but (thanks Domino’s) I’m forced to qualify it – you can use social media to publicise your free stuff amongst the trolls, gnolls and dweebs and – according to the stats – of 330k fans, 95 of them like it.

In fairness, Domino’s would probably have captured those people through its website without the social media aspect but – hey. I’m just an old grouch.

Social Media – Effectiveness Depends on Point of View

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Flicking through the pages of a PRWeek advertising supplement – it was the Corporate Affairs one – and came across an article by Colin Byrne.

(And no, contrary to what you might expect, I’m not going to have a go at these trivial exercises in self-publicity and ask why do what appear to be otherwise quite sensible people insist on perpetuating their existence by agreeing to participate and paying for the privilege. No – this time I shall demonstrate some restraint.)

The article was, in summary, about the danger to corporate reputation presented by the rise of social media and the fact that guarding against it – or being prepared to guard against it – is now a fact of business life. It also plugged a recent Weber Shandwick (Mr Byrne is CEO, UK and Europe, Weber Shandwick) study – Risky Business: Reputations Online – which I am delighted to re-plug here. Should you so wish, I am certain that Weber Shandwick will be delighted to furnish you with a copy of the study (and some salient advice to go with it), in the same way that I am certain that PRWeek will furnish you with a copy of their Corporate Affairs advertising supplement. For a small consideration.

In the article, Mr Byrne referenced the now-infamous Domino’s Pizza incident, in which a group of employees filmed themselves abusing ingredients and posted the result on YouTube. He suggests, rightly, that ‘reputation assassins in their many shapes and forms are hard at work out there and the real test is how the incident is subsequently handled’.

So far, so good. A description of Domino’s response follows – apparently ‘instead of issuing press releases and back-pedalling to limit the reputational damage, Domino’s released an apologetic YouTube video response featuring company president Patrick Doyle, and set up a Twitter page to answer customer queries’.

Thing is, blog snorkellers, Mr Byrne seems to think this is a good response.  Now, I could be misinformed and my memory could be playing tricks, but as I remember it, it took Domino’s an unconscionable amount of time to do anything at all about the incident – whether on social media or otherwise – and this delay was not seen as a good thing.

Regardless of whether that is the case or not – the incident, which started out on YouTube, rapidly went mainstream and (given that not everyone is plugged into social media, and not everyone has internet access) many thousands of people will have heard about it via broadcast and print without ever having seen the offending film.

By not issuing a press release (hell – I’d have gone further and taken out some tactical ads) and restricting themselves to Twitter (4,412 followers) and Facebook (312,645 fans), Domino’s missed a chunk of their audience, and only semi-addressed the issue. This is the problem with taking the ‘social-only’ route, or giving undue prominence to social in the communications mix. It doesn’t work in isolation. Can’t.

So – the Domino’s issue. Same incident. Same response. Different views on it and – therefore – different views on the effectiveness of social as a whole. Take your pick.

(By the way – the last comment on the Domino’s Facebook page reads “EWWWWWWW THE NEW SALAMI AT DOMINOS IS FUCKING SHITHOUSE. IT TASTES LIKE SOMEONES ARSE!!!!!!!YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK.” Makes you wonder why they bother. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion – but I think I’d rather gather it through customer research, myself.)