Reputation Management

Bank of America has a presence on both Facebook and Twitter.  The brand perception that one walks away from after visiting each one couldn’t be more different.  In a presentation I recently did I used the contrast between the two as a way to illustrate success, and failure, during the strategic planning process.

A Few Common Strategic Planning Pitfalls

During the planning process for a social media presence some commonly overlooked questions include:

• Do we have the right goal?
• Who will be the brand owner of the social effort?
• What should our tone/voice be?
• How will we handle negative interaction?
• How do we define success?
• Are we prepared for the depth of commitment required for this to be successful?

There’s plenty more pitfalls, but we’ll focus on those above in reviewing Bank of America’s Facebook and Twitter presences.

Bank of America Example #1: Facebook Group (the failure)

If you go looking for Bank of America on Facebook, you’ll find a few different Groups and Pages.  From the get-go, not all of what came back looks great.  For Groups there’s “Bank of America Are Crooks!”, “Please BOYCOTT Bank of America”, and no shortage of “Bank of America Sucks!” Groups.  This is a bit beyond the context we’re talking about (these Groups were created by non-Bank of America personnel), so I headed over to the Group that I guessed was the official Bank of America Facebook presence as it was listed first and had the most members (over three-thousand).

It’s simply called “Bank of America”.  Here’s a screen capture below of what you see on arrival:

Fairly innocuous.  Clicking on the “Wall” tab reveals the conversation being had here, and it’s quickly clear that things aren’t sunshine and rainbows.  The Group has become a soapbox for anyone and everyone who is unhappy with Bank of America, and Bank of America is nowhere to be found to stand up for itself.

Considering the social media strategic planning pitfalls above, see how the Bank of America Group fares:

Do we have the right goal?

Of course I have no way of knowing what the creator’s actual goal was, but we do have a publicly stated goal under the Information heading: “Help build the biggest BOA Facebook group.”

Well, they succeeded at that goal.  This is the biggest Bank of America Facebook Group.  Unfortunately its now clearly an anti-Bank of America Group.

How do we define success?

If being the biggest was success the metric being used this would then be considered a success.  I’m fairly certain this isn’t what the creator was hoping for.  And, a little more poking around shows that this Group wasn’t intended to be for the general public.  In the Description it says the Group is open to “Bank of America employees and alumni.”

Who will be the brand owner of the social effort? What should our tone/voice be?

For Bank of America, this is where the plot thickens.  This Group, which appears to be an official Bank of America Group, was created by an employee – a teller at Bank of America.  His role of Bank of America Teller is listed as a previous job he held, so it’s safe to assume he’s no longer with the bank.

So, although this looks and feels at first glance (before you read the Wall content) as its likely an official Bank of America Group, it’s something a teller created hoping to create a gathering place for past and present Bank of America employees, not a ‘formal’ effort Bank of America corporate undertook.

How will we handle negative interaction? Are we prepared for the depth of commitment required for this to be successful?

Things get a bit more complicated here.  How is negative interaction being handled?  Hear no evil, see no evil, respond to no evil.  To which one might say “you just said that Bank of America didn’t officially create this Group.”  My response is that while they didn’t create it, they certainly don’t need to be ignorant of it.

It’s not beneficial when your most popular presence on the largest social media site in the world sets up a regular association between your brand name and the word “sucks.”

This Group uses their trademarked name, and was created by someone who is easy enough to track down.  There are plenty of options that Bank of America could explore to be a part of this conversation and help shape perception.

As it stand now, the inmates are running the asylum.

Bank of America Example #2: BofA_Help on Twitter (the success)

Here’s something completely different.  Bank of America created a presence on Twitter where you might think they’d be at even more risk to get eaten alive by negative criticism.  Unlike Facebook, Twitter welcomes profiles that don’t require the real person behind them be readily apparent.  In situations like this, getting beaten up verbally can go haywire as people can hide behind an ambiguous profile name and complain to their heart’s content.

The interactions on Twitter, however, are far different from those on the Facebook Group page above.

Do we have the right goal?

I’m paraphrasing from what I’ve read about BofA Help on Twitter.  In the broadest of strokes the purpose of this social presence is to “provide timely customer service to Bank of America customers.”

That’s a good goal.  Social media is well suited to customer service.  It’s also a goal that Bank of America could (and likely does) apply real metrics to so their progress can be measured.

How do we define success?

For this question I’m at a loss for an answer.  I haven’t spoken to anyone at Bank of America (although I’ve tried), but from an outsider’s view I’d have to assume that their efforts are successful (if you work for Bank of America specifically with their social media efforts feel free to contact me!).

The interactions seem to be reasonably prompt, and people aren’t attacking Bank of America, they’re looking for issue resolution, and it would appear that Bank of America is using Twitter as a place to intercept complaints and concerns, and to then move the conversation to a medium where issues can be resolved.

There’s also plenty of “thank you” tweets commending B of A’s representatives for a job well done.

Who will be the brand owner of the social effort? What should our tone/voice be?

BofA_Help is manned by six representatives.  Looking over the interactions they each have with the customers that come with problems, they’re all representing their brand well.  Each representative smartly signs their tweets with their initials (good thinking) and communication is professional; empathetic even.  All the representatives respond and interact in lock step with a calm, helpful approach.

I did see some representative Tweets that look as though they are canned responses. I’m assuming this is an aid to the volume of inquiries they receive.

How will we handle negative interaction? Are we prepared for the depth of commitment required for this to be successful?

This is all about customer service and issue resolution.  The nature of the beast is that the interaction starts out with negative overtones.  From where it goes form there everything seems to be handled very professionally and with the (serious) commitment required.

Bank of America’s goal on Twitter isn’t to create something to point at and say “Look how great our customers think we are!”  Their goal is to provide better service for their customers.  By focusing on that goal, however,  they’re achieving the other in the form of the feedback their customers are providing in return.

{ 2 comments }