Brand-jacking

Twitter - ExxonMobilCorp

Last week I received an email notification that “Janet at ExxonMobil (ExxonMobilCorp) is now following your updates on Twitter.” Normally, I would block an unknown user from following my Twitter updates without much of a thought, however, after a cursory look at Janet’s public page, this seemed a bit more interesting than the standard “OMG I made a zillion dollars  click here to find out how!” business

I saw conflicting things:  the poor branding (a lossy, tiled background of gas stations and stock art) spoke to this as clearly not an official ExxonMobil outlet.  However, the tone and content (at first blush) of the seemingly reasonable and informed updates made me think twice.  Discussing the challenges faced by an oil company balancing energy needs with research?  I’ll accept that.  Maybe Janet was, as she states “an employee of ExxonMobil, who has decided to put forward her pride in her own company.”

However, a quick search turned up this IT World story confirming that Janet is, according to company officials, not connected to Exxon Mobil Corp, and that the giant energy company has been “Brand-jacked.”  In this instance, according to Forrester Research, Inc analyst Jeremiah Owyang, “they were caught off guard because they were not monitoring and responding to their own online brand.”

Owyang (who initially fell for Janet’s message) has compiled a list of “brands that got punk’d by social media” which is an interesting spectrum of the ways corporations’ messages can be co-opted, in part, by the low barriers to social media.  The chronology begins with a 2001 guerrilla campaign that defaced Apple iPod posters across New York City (via a web 0.0 stenciled lettering technique) up through the case of Janet from Exxon Mobil.  Many brand-jacking examples obviously push the agenda of the producers (like this video comparing the cost of a Starbucks Frappucino to amount needed to feed a starving Sudanese child) and are clearly not meant to seem as through they actually represent the corporation.

This, I think, is what makes Janet’s faux-corporate Twitter account that much more interesting (and perhaps damaging):  Janet’s message isn’t merely that of a shrill activist.  Instead, it very subtly twists and shifts the positions of a large, very visible company (the subtlety is such that Janet’s intentions still seem generally unclear: most of what she says seems to be true and almost sounds like good marketing, yet other items, like taking sides on legislation, are things that Exxon Mobil does not do).  In the end, it is clever, it is subtle, it is being broadcast to hundreds of followers…and it is out of the control of the proper owners.

What is a brand to do?  There are no easy answers.  It used to be that a brand could simply hoard as many permutations of a URL as they could and their web presence would be reasonably secure.  Now, with low- to no-barrier two-way communications available in an array of broadcastable media, there is no concrete checklist to avoid brand-jacking.  Owyang suggests vigilent brand-monitoring and internal social media guidelines, as well as an onus on the consumers (us) and deliverers of new media to validate information sources.

Perhaps the most common-sense takeaway is that a companies should be able to assert themselves and voice their true message in the face of these challenges.  Brands can work with these outlets for what they are: communication tools through which companies can interact with the public, foster relationships, gather feedback, accept criticisms, and gain insights.