“The human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter.”
~ Mark Twain

When Nicole Eggert got harsh publicity from the media for gaining weight since her “Baywatch” days, she decided to use humor as her weapon against the tabloid attacks.  She teamed up with “Funny or Die” to create a video mocking the societal preoccupation with the female body image.

We don’t often think about humor and conflict together.  Conflict is no laughing matter…or is it?

The average adult laughs 17 times a day.  Laughter is social.  We laugh 30 or 40 times more with people and often at almost nothing than we do when we are alone.  Research has shown that laughter increases heart rate, changes breathing, reduces muscle tension, and provides a boost to the immune system.  When employed skillfully, humor bonds people by creating a shared experience, relieves tensions, and increases the sense of well-being.

Humor is a jolt for the brain because it violates our routine expectations and patterns. Humor creates an element of surprise that captivates the brain.  According to the incongruity theory, humor involves the perception of incongruity or paradox in a joke.  The punch-line violates our expectations of what should follow.  The brain then tries to reconcile the incongruity.  If we get the joke, we laugh.  Humor involves the brain’s reward system, which mainly uses dopamine as its neurotransmitter.  That’s why humor elevates our mood, and positive mood has been found to enhance creative problem solving and flexible yet careful thinking.  Researchers at Northwestern University discovered that people were more likely to solve word puzzles with sudden insight when they were amused, having just seen a short comedy routine.

Cartoonist Robert Mankoff talks to Big Think about the science behind laughter and its importance to both humans and other animals:

Nowadays, we see humor more and more often used in social media campaigns by both brands and detractors.  For example, parody has been effective in social media attacks against  BP, following the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico as the UCBComedy videos below demonstrate.

BP Spills Coffee

BP: Rich Fish

Taco Bell offers a recent example of using humor in social media defense.  After an Alabama law firm filed a class action suit alleging that Taco Bell’s taco meat is less than 35% beef, Taco Bell President Greg Creed appeared in a YouTube video entitled “Of Course we Use Real Beef.”

In an effort to dispel consumer concerns over the ingredients in its seasoned beef, Taco Bell responded with full-page newspaper ads headlined, “Thank you for suing us,” as well as swift Twitter and Facebook campaigns, including links to Stephen Colbert’s parody of the claim on his Comedy Central show, “The Colbert Report.”

What do you make of these videos?  How can humor be effectively used in conflict management?

Related posts:
Year 2010 in Video Review Series: What can these videos teach us about the social brain, conflict management and social media? Part I: From baking pizzas to brewing conflicts

Video Review Series, Part 2: The Effective Video Apology “DOs” and “DON’Ts”

Video Review Series, Part 3: Leveraging Social Media for Crisis Communication

It is not every day that a social media enthusiast gets to live the drama of a social media crisis.  Yesterday, apparently,  I took part in one after posting this comment to the U.S. Figure Skating Facebook fan page:

I was surprised to discover a few hours later that my post was deleted, as were many other similar comments.  They were not rude or inflammatory, so this reaction raised many eyebrows among figure skating fans.

You can see more fans’ posts that were deleted from the U.S. Figure Skating Facebook page here.

Here’s how it all began…

U.S. Figure Skating is the national governing body for the sport of figure skating in the United States. U.S. Figure Skating is a member of the International Skating Union (ISU), the international federation for figure skating, and is a member of the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC).   As 2011 U.S. Figure Skating Championships are about to take place in Greensboro, North Carolina, at the end of January, the controversy is brewing over the Smucker’s Skating Spectacular, the gala exhibition that concludes the National Championships on January 30, 2011.

The U.S. Figure Skating rules ban skaters who are not competing this season at Nationals from skating in the exhibition.  This year, U.S. Figure Skating made an exception for Evan Lysacek who is scheduled to skate in the Spectacular even though he is not competing.  No exception, however, was made for the winner of the 2010 Readers’ Choice Award / Michelle Kwan Trophy, Johnny Weir, who is expected to be presented with the award at the Championships.  He is the only skater other than Michelle Kwan herself to ever receive the Readers’ Choice Award more than once.  Understandably, Johnny Weir’s fans want to see him skate in the exhibition as well, so they began sending their suggestions to U.S. Figure Skating via Twitter and Facebook.

At the time of this writing, any updates on the U.S. Figure Skating  Facebook page are disabled, which suggests that U.S. Figure Skating is not ready to engage in a dialogue with its fans or even simply respond.  The bitter irony is that these comments were made by people who support and care about the sport and try to raise its popularity in the U.S., a mission presumably shared by U.S. Figure Skating.

01/25/2011 UPDATE – US Figure Skating changed its Facebook fan page settings back to enable the “US Figure Skating + Others” tab where fans can post their updates.  At least, US Figure Skating no longer feels the need to hide our opinions, perhaps, because at this stage, when the Championships are under way, it is too late to change anything anyways.  It’s just talk, isn’t it?

How hard could it be to undo bad publicity?

In one of the questionnaires relayed to 160 Israeli directors as part of the study conducted by the Faculty of Management at the Tel Aviv University, the participants were asked to recall information on Israeli companies that was reported in the press.  The research revealed that the directors tended to remember the negative news published in the media regarding these companies, but that it was harder for them to think of positive news about the same enterprises.  In addition, bad news traveled fast.  The number of people who received word of a negative report in the media was almost five times greater than that of people who were informed of positive reports.

People remember bad news published in the media more easily.  This may be an example of the brain’s negativity bias.  Events that trigger negative emotions increase activity in the emotion-processing areas of the brain, such as the orbitofrontal cortex and the amygdala. These emotionally charged memories are preserved in greater detail than happy or more neutral memories, but they may also be subject to distortion.  This mechanism for the preservation of bad memories may have evolved to protect us against future negative events.

While we may not want to deliver bad news, it’s worthwhile to remember that people would rather know the worst than fear the worst.  Daniel Gilbert, who is professor of psychology at Harvard University and the author of “Stumbling on Happiness,” writes:

“Consider an experiment by researchers at Maastricht University in the Netherlands who gave subjects a series of 20 electric shocks. Some subjects knew they would receive an intense shock on every trial. Others knew they would receive 17 mild shocks and 3 intense shocks, but they didn’t know on which of the 20 trials the intense shocks would come. The results showed that subjects who thought there was a small chance of receiving an intense shock were more afraid — they sweated more profusely, their hearts beat faster — than subjects who knew for sure that they’d receive an intense shock.

“That’s because people feel worse when something bad might occur than when something bad will occur.”

The following case studies of the “Year 2010 in Review” series show how companies and organizations can harness the power of social media to deal with bad news and counteract bad publicity.

The first example comes from Visit Florida tourism organization that proactively used social media in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill to provide real-time information about the state of Florida beaches. Its website  http://www.visitflorida.com/floridalive aggregated updates from local twitter feeds, webcams, photo reports to tell the eyewitness story of what hundreds of miles of Florida coastline looked like.  This is its commercial that invited people to visit the Florida Live website for the current updates.

The second case study is Destination Hotels & Resort’s Wild Dunes property in Charleston, S.C., which faced serious problems with beach erosion in 2008 and saved its peak season with a social media campaign.  Through optimized press releases,  YouTube videos by the golf pro, photos, and a dialogue about Isle of Palms on TripAdvisort, the campaign strengthened relationships with customers and brought more business despite a serious image problem.  You can now read about the beach nourishment project and see the before and after images of the beach in the photo gallery and more photos and videos on the Wild Dunes Resort Facebook page.

Here are a few take-aways on social media and crisis communication:

1. Don’t hide from the bad news.  Use social media as a platform to engage the public and reduce the uncertainty.
2. Anticipate the questions and concerns of the public and address them in your social media campaign.
3. Gather as much information as possible to better understand the situation and don’t be afraid to enlist the help of others.
4. Be prepared to respond to questions and deal with strong reactions.
5. Stay flexible and adjust your course as needed.   Consider “what if” scenarios and develop contingency plans.
6. Update the public on the efforts to solve the problem and turn your challenges into  opportunities to strengthen the relationships with your customers and reinforce the values of your brand.

How would you leverage social media for crisis communication?

Related posts:
Year 2010 in Video Review Series: What can these videos teach us about the social brain, conflict management and social media? Part I: From baking pizzas to brewing conflicts

Video Review Series, Part 2: The Effective Video Apology “DOs” and “DON’Ts”

Video Review Series, Part 4: Humor in Conflict Is No Laughing Matter

“The only way to put out a social media fire is with social media water,” says Ramon DeLeon, managing partner of several Chicago-area Domino’s Pizzas stores, and he should know, as his video apology campaign back in 2009 was hailed as a big success by social media gurus.  My 2010 video apology review wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t mention this benchmark case first.  It all started when Amy Korin decided to order a Domino’s pizza.  After waiting for over an hour for her pizza to be delivered, she discovered that the pizza wasn’t what she ordered.  When she complained about it on Twitter, Ramon DeLeon took notice.  He contacted her immediately, informing her that the new pizza was on its way and promising to make up for the mistake.  And make up is what he did.  The following morning Amy Korin received his tweet with a link to his personal YouTube apology to her.   Duly impressed,  she forwarded the link to a few people.  And before anybody could say “pizza,” the video started spreading around the Internet and quickly became hotter than a wood-burning pizza oven.  Many good things happened to Ramon DeLeon’s business since then. And here’s Ramon DeLeon’s famous apology video:

Ramon DeLeon knows not only how to make pizzas, but also how to turn lemons into lemonade.  He understands that social media presents a great platform to transform a problem into something positive if it is done right.  By turning one unhappy customer into a loyal customer via a social media conversation, he was able to build relationships with many more potential customers who witnessed that conversation.  But it all began with a human connection and an honest desire to make it right.  Here’s how Ramon DeLeon explains the appeal of social media during an interview at SXSW 2010.

We have seen many public video apologies since then.  Some of them were successful, others  – not so much.  Apology is an intricate interaction, and unfortunately, our own brains can make things more difficult.  In her book, A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, Cordelia Fine describes our brains’ propensity to justify our own bad behavior as a mistake, unavoidable or beyond our control.  However, we are quick to assume bad intentions in others when they act badly.  In addition, apologies directly bear on our sense of fairness and social standing.  The perception of fairness and improved status are rewards to the brain, which is sensitive to how we are treated and viewed by others.  Unfair treatment is a threat to the brain that triggers a stress response and often a strong emotional reaction.

The 2010 video apology examples below all involve someone apologizing on behalf of a corporation.  This presents a unique challenge in itself.  Social media apology is different from a corporate press release.  When people want to assign blame or litigate, they will chose a corporate entity.  When they feel frustrated, angry, disrespected and want to yell at someone, they will choose a person.  To release an emotional burden, we need a human connection.  Corporate entities don’t feel, people do.  Businesses struggle with this conundrum in social media: how can a large corporation appear human?

For years, lawyers have advised businesses not to apologize because it could be treated as an admission of the liability in a courtroom.  There is growing empirical evidence, however, that challenges this notion.  A recent study[PDF] suggests that apologies can help opponents reach legal settlements, especially in employment disputes, because they give the wronged party a sense of justice and satisfaction, resulting in faster settlements and lower demands for damages.  The nature of the apology makes a difference.  Apologies that accepted responsibility were the most effective in the experiment because participants reported that they gained respect for their counterparts.  Emotions play a big role when people decide what course of action they should take against the wrong-doer.

So, what makes an apology effective in re-establishing the sense of fairness, goodwill and respect?  Here are some apology “DOs”:

• Be sincere;
• Show humility;
• Show remorse;
• Acknowledge the damage done and the pain caused;
• Accept responsibility;
• Provide an explanation if you have one;
• Commit to a course of action that remedies the problem and prevents it from happening again;
• Ask for cooperation and, if appropriate, enlist help in remedying the situation;
• Keep your promises and do what you said you would do.

And the apology “DON’Ts”:

• Don’t lie;
• Don’t shift the blame;
• Don’t say you are sorry when you are really not;
• Don’t make excuses or justify your actions;
• Don’t detract attention from real issues;
• Don’t say one thing and do the opposite;
• Don’t count on or demand forgiveness.

As you watch these video apologies, which do you feel were successful and why?  Which ones failed and why?  What else do we need to know about the art and science of effective apology?

1.  BP’s CEO Tony Hayward issues a formal apology to address the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico:

Earlier, Tony Hayward told Britain’s newspaper The Guardian:  “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”

2.  Lexus General Manager Mark Templin’s delivers his video message regarding the voluntary recall of the 2010 GX 460:

3.  Toyota Motor Sales President & COO Jim Lentz tells customers about the company’s solution to fix the sticking pedal situation in recalled Toyota vehicles.

Related posts:
Year 2010 in Video Review Series: What can these videos teach us about the social brain, conflict management and social media? Part I: From baking pizzas to brewing conflicts

Video Review Series, Part 3: Leveraging Social Media for Crisis Communication

Video Review Series, Part 4: Humor in Conflict Is No Laughing Matter