For years now and despite all its woes, General Motors has been one of the more aggressive adopters of social marketing tactics among the big old American corporations. It has a social media team that pushes its products and fields complaints, using platforms from Twitter and Facebook down to Gowalla. Social’s been a big at GM for a while, with departed vice chairman Bob Lutz’ Fastlane blog being among the first of such corporate sites to gain traction. But in the new, post-bankruptcy GM social’s going to be an even more important part how the automaker relates to its customers, if we’re to believe this quote from Scott Lawson, director of customer and relationship services:
“In the old GM, we said you need to call us or you need to write us a letter. That’s not treating them how they want to be treated. In the new GM, we’re going to be where our customers want us to be.”
Too bad that doesn’t extend to what customers want to call your most famous products.
GM’s decision to strip the ever so popular nickname “Chevy” from its communications in favor of the proper “Chevrolet” is one of the most boneheaded corporate moves not committed by BP I’ve seen in a while. In breaking the news today, The New York Times does a great job of teasing out all the ways in which this is idiotic–not that the matter needs too much teasing. The Times got a memo from Alan Batey, VP for Chevrolet sales and service and Jim Campbell, VP of marketing:
“We’d ask that whether you’re talking to a dealer, reviewing dealer advertising, or speaking with friends and family, that you communicate our brand as Chevrolet moving forward When you look at the most recognized brands throughout the world, such as Coke or Apple for instance, one of the things they all focus on is the consistency of their branding.”
Duly noted in the times piece is that Coke is short for Coca-Cola and that Apple products like the iPod or iPad routinely stand in for the corporate brand. That said, it’s not necessary to delve into why this is a dumb move. It is worth looking at what this says about the chasm between the use of social media as a marketing practice and the creation of a culture that is built on truly listening to consumers.
Right now, it seems every company has a social media team that spends all their time Tweeting and Facebooking and blogging. But far too many of those companies are still making top-down decisions that don’t take into consumer preference. They see social media channels in much the same way they see traditional ones: as one-way delivery mechanism for corporate messaging. They miss the fact that these platforms are readymade listening posts where they can learn from consumers.
The fact that we’re still having this conversation is astounding. Perplexing. All the more so in Chevy’s case, which is so exaggerated and quixotic in trying to undo a deep-seated consumer habit for no reason other than some antiquated scrap of marketing research. It’s sure to stand as the New Coke for social media.
How this sort of decision-making unfurled is unclear. The Times piece links it to Chevy’s– that’s right, CHEVY’S — recent change out of its ad agency. Its new shop, Goodby Silverstein & Partners, is one of the more enlightened around and it’s difficult to believe its folks recommended this course of action. If they did, it suggests that ad agencies are still struggling with that the whole listening thing and are perhaps relying too much on old-line branding philosophies that are overly concerned with fallacious notions like brand consistency.
It also suggests some organizational shortcomings at GM — which I know is a shocking suggestion. GM’s corporate ethos should either get in line with its marketing approach, or it should do away with all the big talk about humanizing the company. What, for example, must Chris Barger, GM’s head of social media be thinking right now? And what does a social media team exist for if it can’t put the breaks on culture-blind, deaf and dumb moves like these? Let’s turn to Twitter, where so far he’s had a couple comments on the matter.
Asked “Chevrolet or Chevy?” his reply was simple.
“Chevrolet. :-)”
Then a bit later:
“@ThoroughbredFRD @annalisabluhm You have my permission to keep calling it #Chevy. ;-)”
I’m sure a little whiskey and rye sounds good right about now.
The bargain GM transportationRemodels with new ostentation; If you're seeking cachetYou must say 'Chevrolet'Or you'll get a Chevy Citation.http://twitter.com/JFD8
Nicely done!
Hi Matt – thanks for the post. My first response, posted around 7 this morning (give or take), was just a reply to a friend of mine. At that point I had no idea (having just woken up) that the internal memo had leaked or that there was anything going on.I got in, saw the controversy, knew that the memo had been about official branding efforts in emerging markets… and realized that people were reading it as "we're trying to tell you that you can't say Chevy." So that's why I went out and tweeted that people had my "permission" (as if they really needed my blessing?!) to keep using Chevy. Since then, we pretty much have spent the whole day on Twitter and Facebook trying to clarify and explain. (We also had the VP of Mktg, Alan Batey, shoot a quick video explaining what we were thinking, which you can find here: http://bit.ly/cRA7an.)Really didn't think it would end up being a big deal… especially since the memo was internal and was never meant to see the light of day. It sucks, but stuff happens — and when leaks do, it is all too easy for the context to get lost. In this case, it really was less of a deal before it leaked than it was made to seem, though after the leak I realize that it was no longer important whether we intended it to be a big deal or an afterthought; it was a big deal at that point.As for what I was thinking today… Do I wish it hadn't happened? Sure; it made for a crazy day today when there were more important things to focus on. Do I think it got blown out of proportion? Yep – especially because people seem to love painting any big company (but especially us) as clueless, and this 'story' gave anyone who wanted to do so a very juicy opportunity. :-) Do I think it reflects some sort of huge disconnect or organizational shortcomings? Maybe — but not in the sense that I think you meant, because as I've spent the day telling people, we never intended to "ban" Chevy, so the 'tone-deaf' move you refer to was never there to put a stop to. In my opinion, maybe we do need to get smarter about realizing that anything put on paper/pixels will likely be seen by *somebody* outside the company. But as for the social web implications of what happened today, I'm actually relatively pleased with how quickly we were able to respond today. Within a few hours of the storm hitting about this, we were able to get not only a traditional media statement out, but: a Facebook post with follow up comments, several people (me, @GM_Joe, @jasonlaird, @lisagilpin) out on Twitter trying to engage people and explain, and even a flipcammed video of a VP explaining to the audience what we'd meant in the memo. Storm really started brewing by mid-morning, and by 1 pm we'd done all these things. That doesn't make the whole thing better and I don't pretend that it wasn't embarrassing…but we moved relatively fast when we realized how big it was getting. So I'm taking my hope in that.Now, about that whiskey & rye… where are we going, when are we starting, and who's got the first round? :-) Thanks again for your post.
Appreciate the YouTube link, the context is good to have.You should be happy about the quick response, having the context and clarity out there this fast (while the 'issue' is still fresh in my mind) has forestalled any further ranting I might ever do on the topic. I was telling a buddy yesterday over beers about the situation and we were both scoffing and huffing and puffing about it. Now when I see him later today I'll have the opportunity to give him the context as well.Thanks again!
Chris, Well said!
If they're going with consistency, why not go with the moniker that everyone uses! Chevy instead of Chevrolet. Problem solved!
If they're going with consistency, why not go with the moniker that everyone uses! Chevy instead of Chevrolet. Problem solved!
I don't think raging teenage hormones are quite the same with trying to entice someone in the back seat of their Chevrolet. Chevy's much sexier…
If they're going with consistency, why not go with the moniker that everyone uses! Chevy instead of Chevrolet. Problem solved!
I don't think raging teenage hormones are quite the same with trying to entice someone in the back seat of their Chevrolet. Chevy's much sexier…