No one HAS to respond that quickly to something like this. Even if they didn’t know who Borowitz was, and even if he didn’t have the reach he has, his tweet should have been their trigger to huddle internally and say (as if this were any surprise at all), “People are going to make fun of us in social media. Do we respond? If so, how?”

On question #3, I don’t think sternness should be the tone in any response. Professional, yes. Meeting guidelines for potential legal action, yes. But that type of response can be framed in a tone that respects the followers/customers you’ve worked so hard to get in the first place and doesn’t provide more fuel for the flames.

Great topic. I’m sharing internally to continue our discussion about what voice we have in our accounts and how to maintain consistency.

Clearly the satirist is trying to take advantage of the situation. If it's off message, responding only validates it. Let it go out into the void…

just walk away. =)

And you point out something else really important… one person (or a team of people) can become the voice of the brand. This is not something we brand strategists like to hear necessarily, because it means the slightest infraction can have big consequences. My belief is that if management makes good decisions, they'll have people in place who really understand the brand, who get the social media space, and who value the role of marketing in building a brand.

I just get concerned when we see poor decisions being made. Not that JetBlue doesn't have sophisticated marketers behind-the-scenes on the Twitter account. This situation just shows how delicate the role is.

People remember the negative… A brand break has so much more impact than 1,000 (or maybe even 10,000!) on-brand tweets. Because an on-brand tweet is the expected, it's the norm, it's sustaining. But a tweet that feels wrong (or is seriously off-brand) can send a shockwave.

I look at it like a restaurant that serves great food for years, and then one day has a food poisoning epidemic. That single day is what everyone remembers. It's burned into the mind because the positive days of service blended into each other. The food poisoning day is an aberration, but it's now a permanent part of the essence and history of the restaurant. It will take a long time and a lot of positive experiences to counteract that one misstep. And it's always in the back of the mind of the consumer. That's just how a brand works.

You're right… a little “mistweet” may not cause a brand collapse, but it's a good idea for companies to take social media seriously and not look at it like a playground or “we're not doing brain surgery.” Every interaction counts.

Thanks for bringing up an interesting point!

Another fun and pointed post, Michelle. Thanks for your original reporting and insights.

On brands in general: I think when a brand is genuine, impressive and dedicated to their customer experience, they can weather a perceived crack in voice – a misguided tweet – and even a thorny news story. When they are inauthentic to begin with, it’s over. Strong brands are real. One stressed-out employee (or two) making a bad snap decision won't hurt the “soul of the brand.” But if it shines light on a bigger internal issue, then the culture isn't matching up with the voice. And that's a whole other nest of wasps.

I think in the urgency of the situation they all forgot exactly what you said: stuff goes viral fast. JetBlue has a good track record, so I do think it was a flub on their parts. It's just that with someone notable things have a higher chance to go viral, fast. Things can also go viral with people who aren't noteworthy simply based on timing and who they're connected to.

With that said, time for me to go and channel the brands of my clients. Thanks for a great post!