Amazon has been on the blog bandwagon for a number of years now. According to Spring and Briggs (2006), large companies are hesitant to participate in blogging. They do not realize the benefits of blogging and blogs’ ability to provide updated information in real time reaching more audiences than traditional media. Amazon has realized the value of having a blog, or multiple blogs in Amazon’s case, and uses blogs as a platform to manage its reputation. Also, Amazon is on Twitter, tweeting it up, as well as Facebook and utilizes social media to manage its reputation.
However, on the weekend of April 11, 2009, Amazon proved to have little understanding of the concept of responding quickly. Amazon’s actions, or lack there of, definitely affected the company. Amazon could have avoided the large impact this particular situation had, but did not understand the potential size of the hit it was about to undergo. Amazon prides itself in being connected to its customers, and being the largest customer-centric company, but clearly does not understand the importance of not only establishing customer relationships, but more importantly, maintaining those relationships.
In early April, without warning, Amazon.com had begun marking specific titles as “adult”— mainly gay and lesbian themed books, along with feminism themed books. In marking these books as “adult,” it stripped them of their sales rankings, which resulted in making them more difficult to search and find. Authors and consumers were outraged and Amazon’s only response, late response that is, was that it was a glitch, period, the end.
People on Twitter were tweeting up a storm all throughout the weekend, accusing Amazon of discrimination and censorship. A response was demanded, and Amazon’s failure to immediately respond intensified the situation even more. It took Amazon most of a day to respond, and its first response was only to cite that it was a “glitch.” Amazon was criticized immensely for the vague explanation and the public wanted more. Boycott threats, petitions, and caustic accusations filled Twitter decks and tweets. Amazon could have lessened the impact of this situation by simply responding the moment it was being discussed on Twitter.
This just goes to show that instant online communication tools and social media can either be beneficial or detrimental to a corporation, and businesses need to understand the effect of social media communication tools such as blogs, social networking sites and Twitter and their ability to publicize and influence instantly. According to Motoko Rich, a journalist for The New York Times, Amazon has experienced the effect of social media and an outcome that suggests that the growth of social media may be driving up the cost of inaction.
Amazon.com has successfully and unsuccessfully utilized Web 2.0 as an instant communication tool. The increased rate of communication and availability of information has forced companies to change and adapt to this new phenomenon. Companies who have not realized the effect of social media will soon learn the value of it and the level of impact, negative or positive, it can have. The capabilities of Web 2.0 need not be something companies fear, but they should embrace them, and use them establish and maintain relationships with their audiences. If ignored, it can be detrimental to a company’s reputation, and CEOs everywhere need to understand that Web 2.0 can work for a company or against a company.
Also, companies must use Web 2.0 correctly and not just hop on the bandwagon. Blogs, Twitter and social networking sites will do a company no good if not utilized properly. Overall, Amazon has embraced Web 2.0, and has used it effectively in most cases. The Twitter issue just goes to show that no matter how much a company embraces and uses Web 2.0 to its advantage, the second you turn your head and ignore it, the consequences will be difficult to overcome.
More to come…. On how social media can be beneficial….
