1. Reflect on the role of content communities and social networking sites, as social media, in terms of how the initial Greenpeace campaign escalated into a full-blown crisis for Nestle.

2. How would you characterize the initial response from Nestle to the emerging crisis and to its critics, and should the company have taken a different approach instead?

Transcribed Image Text:

a chocolate biscuit. Greenpeace posted the video on YouTube, after its direct dis- cussions with the company had stalled. Greenpeace felt that Nestl should have followed other companies such as Unilever, Kraft and Shell which had ended their contracts with their unsustainable palm oil suppliers. One supplier in Indonesia, the Sinar Mas Group, in particular, was known to burn forests to clear land for palm oil plantations. Besides contributing directly to an increase in carbon emis- sions, the clearing of land also endangered already threatened species such as Sumatran tigers and elephants, and orangutans. According to Greenpeace, it had targeted Nestl as it is the largest food and drinks company in the world, and already a major con- sumer of palm oil - the last three years have seen Nestl's use of palm oil almost double. Considering its size and influence, it should be setting an example for the industry and ensuring its palm oil is destruction free. Instead, Nestl continues to buy from companies like Sinar Mas, that are destroying Indonesia's rainforests and peatlands. When the video was posted, it took Nestl by surprise. In a direct attempt to quell the storm, the company decided to ask YouTube to remove the video for copyright infringement. Yet, this had the opposite effect. Visitors who wanted to view the video saw the following statement: 'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Socit de Produits Nestl S.A.' The video itself was quickly reposted on other sites such as Vimeo, as well as on the Greenpeace site. Arguably, it also came across, even unwittingly, as an admission of guilt, and very quickly the protest went viral, with the video being shared amongst protestors and consumers, and with many of them turning to the company's Facebook site. There, thousands joined to post negative comments. The initial censorship had thus mobilized social media activists, whose actions on the Facebook page were being re-tweeted and reached a global audience. Interestingly, these activists had not been part of the Greenpeace action, but had very quickly organized themselves around what they saw as an important campaign. The moderator of the Nestl Facebook page was woefully unprepared for this kind of onslaught and became ever more bitter and rude in his responses. Instead, a more diplomatic and humane tone would probably have been fitting, but it demonstrated how unprepared Nestl was in terms of a social media strategy. The moderator threatened Facebook users with the removal of posts on its fan page that contained altered versions of the company's logos such as a Kit Kat logo that had been altered to read 'killer'. This led to a further discussion between one Facebook user and the Nestl moderator, which ran as follows: Nestl: 'To repeat: we welcome your comments, but please don't post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic - they will be deleted.' Facebook user: 'hmmm, this comment is a bit "Big Brotherish", isn't it? I'll have whatever I want as my logo pic thanks! And if it is altered, it's no longer your logo is it!' (Continued) a chocolate biscuit. Greenpeace posted the video on YouTube, after its direct dis- cussions with the company had stalled. Greenpeace felt that Nestl should have followed other companies such as Unilever, Kraft and Shell which had ended their contracts with their unsustainable palm oil suppliers. One supplier in Indonesia, the Sinar Mas Group, in particular, was known to burn forests to clear land for palm oil plantations. Besides contributing directly to an increase in carbon emis- sions, the clearing of land also endangered already threatened species such as Sumatran tigers and elephants, and orangutans. According to Greenpeace, it had targeted Nestl as it is the largest food and drinks company in the world, and already a major con- sumer of palm oil - the last three years have seen Nestl's use of palm oil almost double. Considering its size and influence, it should be setting an example for the industry and ensuring its palm oil is destruction free. Instead, Nestl continues to buy from companies like Sinar Mas, that are destroying Indonesia's rainforests and peatlands. When the video was posted, it took Nestl by surprise. In a direct attempt to quell the storm, the company decided to ask YouTube to remove the video for copyright infringement. Yet, this had the opposite effect. Visitors who wanted to view the video saw the following statement: 'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Socit de Produits Nestl S.A.' The video itself was quickly reposted on other sites such as Vimeo, as well as on the Greenpeace site. Arguably, it also came across, even unwittingly, as an admission of guilt, and very quickly the protest went viral, with the video being shared amongst protestors and consumers, and with many of them turning to the company's Facebook site. There, thousands joined to post negative comments. The initial censorship had thus mobilized social media activists, whose actions on the Facebook page were being re-tweeted and reached a global audience. Interestingly, these activists had not been part of the Greenpeace action, but had very quickly organized themselves around what they saw as an important campaign. The moderator of the Nestl Facebook page was woefully unprepared for this kind of onslaught and became ever more bitter and rude in his responses. Instead, a more diplomatic and humane tone would probably have been fitting, but it demonstrated how unprepared Nestl was in terms of a social media strategy. The moderator threatened Facebook users with the removal of posts on its fan page that contained altered versions of the company's logos such as a Kit Kat logo that had been altered to read 'killer'. This led to a further discussion between one Facebook user and the Nestl moderator, which ran as follows: Nestl: 'To repeat: we welcome your comments, but please don't post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic - they will be deleted.' Facebook user: 'hmmm, this comment is a bit "Big Brotherish", isn't it? I'll have whatever I want as my logo pic thanks! And if it is altered, it's no longer your logo is it!' (Continued)