900 bad buzz in 2016 ? Who are the victims ? What are the main triggers, what about the consequences of a bad buzz ? What are the most effective tactics ?

1. 1 BAD
BUZZ
2016:
RESEARCH
FINDINGS
Almost 900 bad
buzz
since
2015
(1)
(1)
871
bad
buzz
from
01/01/2016
to
12/31/2016
(2)
Inventory
of
significant
bad
buzz
on
English
&
French
web
Bad
Buzz
March
2017
+
40
% vs
2015
(2)
2015
MMC
BAD
BUZZ
BAROMETER

2. 2 PROFILE OF
BAD
BUZZ
VICTIMS
B
to
C
companies
are
still
the
most
exposed
to
bad
buzz
even
though
a
bit
less
than
in
2015
Public
administration &
associations are
more
exposed
to
bad
buzz
in
2016
vs
2015
PROFILELocationTactic
TriggerConsequences
49
25
16
9 1
55
20
18
6 1
2016 2015
%
*
Associations
&
charities
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer
-­‐ 2016

3. 3 SECTORS EXPOSED
TO
A
BAD
BUZZ
14
13
11 10 10
7 6 6
4 3
16
18
9
11
9
7
7 8 6 5 5
15
2016 2015
%
Media is
less
exposed
than
in
2015
but
still
the
number
one
victim.
Internet
is
as
exposed
as
restaurant-­‐hotel
Culture is
more
impacted
by
bad
buzz
vs
2015
PROFILELocationTactic
TriggerConsequences
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer
-­‐ 2016

4. 4 TRIGGER:
COMMUNICATION
VS
OTHER
INITIATIVES
Only
30%
(vs
40%
in
2015)
of
bad
buzz
result
from
miscommunication
30%
40%
2016 2015
Communication Other
initiative
(behavior…)
Does
it
mean
communication
&
digital
manager
are
more
vigilant
?
ProfileLocationTacticTRIGGERConsequences
Events
that
trigger
a
bad
buzz
:
communication
or
another
initiative
(behavior…)?
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

5. 5 TRIGGERS:
DIGITAL
TABOOS
5
Sensitive
topics
explain
nearly
70% of
bad
buzz:
ethnical*,
sexual
&
social
discrimination,
manipulation,
disrespect
towards
clients
22
13 13
10 9 9
6 5 4 3
6
18
13
10
11
10 9
4 4 0 3
18
2016 2015
%
Ethnic
discrimination
is
a
more
sensitive
topic
now
Religious
discrimination
has
become
part
of
the
top
ten
sensitive
topics
*Ethnical
&
regional
discrimination
ProfileLocationTacticTRIGGERConsequences
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

6. 6 PLACE
OF
EMERGENCE
/
ON
LINE
VS
OFF
LINE
Off
line
media
lost
ground
vs
On
line
media
2016 2015
On
line
media Off
line
media
Profile
LOCATIONTacticTriggerConsequences
95% 93%
Where
does
a
bad
buzz
break
out
On
line
or
Off
line
?
Profile
Trigger
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

7. 7 PLACE
OF
EMERGENCE
/
SOCIAL
MEDIA
Social
media
has
extended
the
lead
over
blogs
&
websites
Twitter is
still
the
main
place
where
a
bad
buzz
appears
Facebook
is
catching
up
with
Twitter
37
30
25
7 1
36
21
35
4 4
Twitter Facebook Web
sites
&
blogs
Video
platforms
Other
2016 2015
%
Where
does
a
bad
buzz
break
out
on
the
web
?
TacticConsequencesProfile
LOCATIONTrigger
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

8. 8 FACEBOOK
IMPACTED
40% of
bad
buzz
impact
Facebook
page
&
almost
simultaneously
Twitter
TacticConsequencesProfile
LOCATIONTrigger

9. 9 TACTIC
/
COMMUNICATION
VS
SILENCE
In
2016,
silence
has
kept
loosing
ground
vs
communication
2016 2015
Communication No
communication
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
13% 16%
When
hit
by
a
bad
buzz,
how
do
the
organizations
react:
communication
vs
silence
?
Communication is
the
number
one
tactic
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

10. 10 TACTIC
/
MEA
CULPA
– BACK
TRACKING
Mea
culpa
or
back
tracking
are
not
yet
the
dominant
reaction
56% 58%
44% 42%
2016 2015
Mea
culpa
or
back
track
Neither
mea
culpa
nor
back
track
How
many
organizations
do
apologize
or
back
track?
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

11. 11 TACTIC
/
MEA
CULPA
Organizations
are
more
likely
to
apologize
for
a
miscommunication than
a
controversial
initiative
(behavior…)
47%
30%
COMMUNICATION OTHER*
Mea
culpa No
mea
culpa
How
many
organizations
issue
a
meaculpa
following
a
miscommunication
vs
another
initiative
?
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
*other
initiative
as
an
inappropriate
behavior,
product…
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

12. 12 TACTIC
/
BACK
TRACKING
In
61% of
cases,
it’s
possible
to
back
track
(go
back
on
a
decision,
cancel
an
advertizement…)
48%52%
Rétropédalage Pas
de
rétropédalage
Proportion
of
back
tracking*
But
only
48%
of
organizations
choose
this
tactic
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
*
When
it’s
possible
to
back
track
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

13. 13 TACTIC
/
BACK
TRACKING
WITHOUT
MEA
CULPA
More
than
1/3of
organizations
which
back
track
don’t
issue
a
mea
culpa
How
do
organizations
back
track*
?
63%
32%
5%
Back
track
+
mea
culpa
Back
track
+
explanation
but
no
mea
culpa
Back
track
+
no
communication
*on
the
basis
of
the
organizations
which
back
track
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

14. 14 TACTIC
/
CENSORSHIP ON
FACEBOOK
Censorship
has
raised
sharply
(+13%)
and
has
become
a
common
practice
40%
27%
2016 2015
Don't
delete
negative
comments
Delete
negative
comments
How
many
organizations
practice
censorship
on
Facebook
?
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

15. 15 TACTIC
EFFICIENCY
/
SILENCE
Silence
is
the
most
risky
reaction
Tactics
that
calm
web
users
down*
91%
9%
Communication No
communication
*
See
methodology
slide
24
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

16. 16 TACTIC
EFFICIENCY
/
COMMUNICATION
55% 54%
2016 2015
Success No
success
Communication
is
not
really
more
effective
than
in
2015
What
has
been
the
return
on
experience?
When Organizations
communicate,
how
many
succeed
in
calming
web
users
down
*?
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
*
See
methodology
slide
24 MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

17. 17 TACTIC
EFFICIENCY
/
MEA
CULPA
Mea
culpa
is
often
the
most
effective
reaction
to
calm
web
users
down
74%
42%
MEA
CULPA NO
MEA
CULPA Success No
success
Success
rate
in
relation
to
mea
culpa
or
not*
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
*
See
methodology
slide
24
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

18. 18 TACTIC
EFFICIENCY
/
BACK
TRACKING
When
justified,
back
tracking
is
the
most
effective
weapon
to
calm
web
users
down
Sucess
rate*
in
relation
to
back
tracking
or
not
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
77%
40%
BACK
TRACKING
NO
BACK
TRACKING
Success No
success
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016*
See
methodology
slide
24

19. 19 TACTICS
EFFICIENCY
/
CENSORSHIP
ON
FACEBOOK
Organizations
which
practice
censorship
on
Facebook
are
less
likely
to
calm
web
users
down
quickly.
Is
it
just
a
coincidence?
45%
58%55%
42%
CENSORSHIP NO
CENSORSHIP
Success No
success
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016
Success
rate*
if
censorship
vs
no
censorship
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
*
See
methodology
slide
24

20. 20 TACTIC EFFICIENCY
/ OVERALL
RESULT
In
48%
of
cases,
the
reaction
of
the
organization
has
not
a
positive
impact
52% 50%
2016 2015
Success No
success
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016
No
significant
progress
compare
to
2015
Lieu
Proportion
of
bad
buzz
properly
handled*
?
ProfileLocation
TACTICTriggerConsequences
*
See
methodology
slide
24

21. 21 BAD
BUZZ
IMPACT
/
CRITICAL
TABOOS
It’s
much
more
difficult
to
handle
a
bad
buzz
in
case
of
allegations
of
manipulation
58% 51%
40% 39%
30%
ETHNIC
DISCRIMINATION
SEXUAL
DISCRIMINATION
DISRESPECT
TOWARDS
CLIENTS
SOCIAL
DISCRIMINATION
MANIPULATION
Success* No
success* MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016
ProfileTacticTriggerCONSEQUENCESLocation
*
Proportion
of
organizations
which
succeeded
in
calming
web
users
down
quickly

22. 22 BAD
BUZZ
IMPACT
ON
THE
ORGANIZATION
In
almost
40
% of
cases,
a
bad
buzz
has
a
negative
impact
on
the
organization
38%
62%
Negative
impact
No
negative
impact
Proportion
of
bad
buzz
with
negative
impact
New
criteria
ProfileTacticTriggerCONSEQUENCESLocation
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

23. 23
Main
negative
consequences
of
a
bad
buzz:
additional
costs,
impact
on
business
&
online
reputation
(1) Additional
costs
:
to
stop
an
advertising
campaign,
change
a
key
process,
offer
a
compensation
to
clients…
(2)
Impact
on
business
:
decline
in
turnover,
development
project
cancelled,
product
recall….
(3)
On
line
reputation
:
social
media
deactivated
or
flooded
with
criticism
for
several
weeks
Which
impact
is
the
most
common
?
New
criteria
ProfileTacticTriggerCONSEQUENCESLocation
BAD
BUZZ
IMPACT
ON
THE
ORGANIZATION
28% 24%
16%
9% 6%
17%
MMC
bad
buzz
barometer -­‐ 2016

24. 24 MMC
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
Study
of
the
English
&
French
(1)
web
from
January
1st,
2016
to
December
31st
2016
A
significant
bad
buzz
is
defined
as
any
controversy
which
happens
to
be
critical
for
a
company
or
a
public
organization
and
that
takes
place
at
least
in
two
different
locations
on
the
web.
Some
may
be
«covered»
offline
as
well.
MMC’s
proprietary
methodology
used
to
evaluate
the
efficiency
of
the
company-­‐
organization’s
tactics
when
hit
by
a
bad
buzz,
hinges
on
the
analysis
of
several
key
factors
such
as
the
:
• Tone
of
web
users’
comments
following
the
reaction
of
the
organization
• Evolution
of
the
number
of
«supportive»
or
«understanding»
comments
vs
«opponents»
METHODOLOGY
(1) Almost
70
%
of
the
bad
buzz
analyzed
in
this
study
are
« covered »
by
the
english
web

25. 25
http://mmc-­‐communication-­‐crise.com/
ABOUT
US
20
ans
d’expérience
en
gestion
de
crise
A‘’Pure
player ’’
in
digital
sensitive
communication
for
7
years
MMC
PURE
PLAYER
DE
LA
CRISE
DIGITALE
@
20 years
experience
in
commmunication
crisis
management
Key
prevention
tool :
a
predictive
test
to
anticipate
a
controversy
&
a
guide
line
to
deal
with
a
bad
buzz