- visualalliance: @ehartsu Thanks Erin! We received your resume and are currently reviewing. Enjoy the weekend! #SMJobs May 18, 2012
- visualalliance: @Shoutlet Big day for #Facebook, which has been key to the shift toward social. New post from CEO @jasondweaver: http://t.co/vrck0LGK May 18, 2012
- visualalliance: RT @JoeTampa: #Tampa #SocialMedia #Job available! Please RT http://t.co/7CUZgMs1 #SMJobs May 16, 2012
- visualalliance: @katetrusk Thanks for the RT Kate! Cheers! May 6, 2012
- visualalliance: Sweet! #GoogleAnalytics now includes backlink URLs in new social reports! http://t.co/hHsHTEcI via @sengineland May 6, 2012
Chipotle, Facebook and Social Media Damage Control
What Does a Chipotle Facebook Page and a Cat Have in Common?
Drum roll please… controversy.
Allfacebook.com posted a story earlier about the Melrose Place-like drama that’s taken place over this past week involving a Chipotle employee’s personal Facebook Page, the Chipotle Facebook Page and a cat that possibly met an untimely demise.
Here’s the 411 broken down:
- After 11 pm on Dec. 9, a status update was uploaded via an Adroid application to a Chipotle employee’s account.
- The status update read, “Soo I just ran over a white cat on my way home…oops!!! Not my fault!”
- Her friends promptly began to comment on her page.
- 9 minutes later, the employee made her first reply back to a friend who “Liked” her status.
- More replies from the employee’s account followed and one of her replies indicated her dislike of cats.
- About 24 hours passed with countless posts to the Chipotle Facebook Page, corporate finally made a response. By then, the comment strand was viral and thriving.
- Comments were posted like rapid-fire to the Chipotle Facebook Page by animal lovers, as well as rational and irrational people demanding the employee’s termination.
- The message strand was taken down by the employee and soon-after a response from corporate was placed on Chipotle’s Facebook page.
- Chipotle’s Facebook Admin posted a message stating they were aware of the employee’s status message and that the account had been compromised and the offensive message was not posted by her.
- Soon after, the employee made a similar comment saying the resulting status update on her personal page was posted by a hacker.
Here is where there are some problems with this spin:
Chipotle had over 24 hours worth of comments posted on its Facebook Page from outraged patrons to respond to, and they failed to do so in a timely manner. Second, they slightly underestimated the savvy of their patrons and the power of the Internet. Here is what they posted on their discussion board about 5 hours ago:
Chipotle Mexican Grill
“We’ve been looking into this and it sounds like the cat post is not legitimate and may have been the result of a hack or an unauthorized use of someones personal account. If you still want to talk about all of this, please keep the language to PG or we’ll have to remove posts.”
5 hours ago · Report
Even though the employee’s message and its ensuing comments strand were deleted – snapshots had already been taken, saved and posted online for the world to remember.
As one Allfacebook.com commentor mentioned, if you looked at the employee’s wall posts, they agreed with another poster about the hacker story being false due to a Dec. 4th post by the employee insulting Chipotle customers. They also provided the link to the employee’s wall, however it looks like the employee’s personal Facebook Page has since been deactivated.
You may still be wondering why this is such a huge issue… Here’s why:
For close to 24 hours, the Chipotle Facebook page was assaulted by angry visitors demanding action be taken. Comment after comment, and not a hint of an admin response until the onslaught was in full swing. Situations such as these although rare are dangerous territory for a company’s reputation, because sends out the impression that there is a lack of concern as to what the public thinks. The loosely spun story involving a hacker, just added insult to an already festering injury.
They Should’ve Brought In a P[R]o
Over the next few hours since Chipotle’s admin last posted to the discussion board, which they created and titled “Cat,” they made two more posts stating:
“The statement of the cat sounds like it was not legitimate. If you would like to keep talking about it, please move to the discussion tab, and lets keep the language PG or we’ll have to take it down. Remember, our facebook wall is intended for broad-ranging discussion about Chipotle. -The Managment”
Two hours later:
“It doesn’t appear that there is anything to this cat story, though we have set up a discussion tab if you want to keep talking about it. Otherwise, we’d like to keep the wall for broader discussions about Chipotle. Thanks.”
[Note: I had to confirm these quotes via DigitalMarketinggirl.wordpress.com, because the Chipotle Facebook page was under a constant barrage of new messages. And after clicking, "older posts" for 30 minutes, I gave up and thank Digital Marketing Girl for having the information confirmed.]
The Questions Are Still Unanswered
It’s completely reasonable to agree that Chipotle cannot control what their employees post. But, what they can control is what is posted on their corporate page and how long it will take to respond, especially in a crisis situation. Furthermore, why continue to allow responses to be posted on an issue that should be handled at store-level?
Here’s another thing I don’t understand – the Facebook Administrator for Chipotle has the power to change the settings of the page until the controversy dies down. In other words, they can control how posts will go up. Plus, I can’t help but ask why are they are missing the crucial toggle keys that allow visitors to view comments by the admin, others and admin + others. Wouldn’t this function enable upset visitors the ability to read direct messages from corporate rather than those of upset and more than likely misinformed page visitors?
Sadly, I can keep going on about where Chipotle swerved off the beaten path of good PR and wound up in Crooked Damage Controlville, but I won’t. Instead I’ll leave you with the link to view the original chat strand from the employee as posted by Allfacebook.com, click here.
This is going to be yet another “to be continued” pieces …
I’d like to get your opinions, comments or anything you’d like to tell us regarding the Chipotle Cat Controversy. I understand anything involving animal cruelty is a touchy subject, with that said, let’s keep it clean and respectful for everyone.
Great post, Jaime! I think another huge mistake they made was acknowledging it far too much. They were reposting the same status about the cat every hour to two; once reposting within five minutes. I hadn’t even heard anything about it until I saw the two updates right in a row.
It definitely sounds like an inexperienced Manager failing to understand the best way to mitigate the situation. The first thing that should have been done was, as you suggested, change the default view to only posts by the company. That way, one statement about the issue would have been seen at the top of the page for those who did know about it, without bringing even more attention to the internet masses.
Then there’s the whole “hacking” issue. “Hackers” seem to be the fall-back excuse du jour for when a company’s online brand spirals out of control (see: Cooks Source). I do not think that means what they think it means.
A “Chipotle Hates Cats” page has even surfaced on Facebook and has exploded with more people ‘liking’ it rapidly!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chipotle-Hates-Cats-Jocelyn-Rivas-done-goofed/131568376902991?v=wall
I could really go for a Purrito about now.
Meeeeeeeeee too, minus the purrrrr. And minus the tortilla. Carbs, y’know?
Sadly, that is the end result when stuff like this hits the news. Thank you for sharing the link Kitty. This situation is the epitome of why Facebook needs a dislike button! Do you agree?
I’m interested to see how this will pan out and if it’ll remain Internet-side or hit mainstream national news.
Crystal, thanks! About what seems to be going on with the handling of the situation — I couldn’t agree any more with you than I do right now.
As I scanned Chipotle’s Facebook and Twitter profiles, I saw several areas the team at Visual Alliance Media could help them improve upon. It could be as simple as providing social media strategy lessons, optimizing their profiles and giving a crash course in damage control.
The bright side of this is, eventually they will get the situation under control and hopefully learn a valuable lesson from it. And hopefully share the wealth of knowledge learned, to help other entities not fall into the same pitfall.
I think it is worth mentioning that the store manager in question also posted on her public facebook profile – which lists Chipotle as her employer – something to the effect of “all the stupid people are coming to chipotle today”. If I were the company, that would be a fireable offense. The cat death/laughing about it makes her a bitch, yes, but the fact that she lists herself as an employee and then dumps on the customers in public is a big no-no. She should’ve either:
1) Made her page private
2) Not linked to her employer
Also, the “omghacked” thing is laughable. Who would really believe that? Hackers spam when they access a facebook account.. they don’t carry on conversations in english and spanish with your friends on your wall.
12/13/10 was a terrible day/learning experience for poor Ms. Rivas.
I believe that was the Dec 4, post from the employee in question.
I think she needs a crash course in social media etiquette. At the time I wrote the article, I couldn’t confirm the type of employee she was. IF she is in fact a store manager … I would agree, she needs to lose her job. She should be using her Facebook for community outreach not bashing.
No one was buying the hacked stature that both she and the company were taking. Which I think is the fuel that fanned the fire into the situation it is now.
I’m really interested to see how this will play out. I think Ms. Rivas should also make a point of making amends, she’s no longer a private citizen, and volunteer at a shelter or rescue [albeit supervised].
I would just like to say that the Chipotle team is STILL blocking users from commenting, denying access to the page, and doing their best to cover their asses, WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THERE IS JUSTICE.
Trolan, I am not trying to make light of this in any way…
I am interested to know what kind of justice you would like and which action is it associated with?
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
We are legion.
LOLOLOLOLOL
The cat hating lady in question is obviously not a very nice person, let me put it that way.
One or two of the things said in the discussion above, however, disturbed me a little. How a business uses its social media channels is one thing, and that’s what the original post is about. But what should be expected or demanded from an employee regarding his/her use of his/her own Facebook, Flickr etc.?
“Don’t use it to make fun of how you killed a cat” seems a fairly obvious recommendation. Beyond that, JL’s suggestions above seem reasonable enough: if you want to use your Facebook for your personal communication with your own friends, you should either set your profile to private or not link to your employer. At least if you think you’re going to say controversial stuff.
I don’t think your employer should be able to demand you to do so – as long as no dead cats or the like are involved in your posts, at least – but it certainly seems smart. I name my employer on my Facebook and my profile is public, but my wall is not, and nobody but my friends gets to see my random thoughts.
Jaime, you go further though, and write that as a store manager, this lady “should be using her Facebook for community outreach not bashing”. That made me scratch my head – but maybe I just misunderstood your point? Are you arguing that a mid-level employee should use her personal Facebook account to boost the business and network of her employer?
I mean, if someone wants to do community outreach for her employer on her Facebook, more power to him (though it might annoy me if I am his FB friend). But the idea that your employer could expect or require you to use your own Facebook for their benefit is a little creepy to me. That’s like an employer expecting you to say good stuff about them and otherwise be at your best behaviour when you throw a BBQ, or go out on the town. As far as I’m concerned, as long as I don’t get into trouble with the law (or brag about killiing cats), what I do in my spare time should be none of my boss’s business – and I certainly wouldn’t want to be told to use my Facebook to do community outreach for the company.
But again, maybe I misunderstand and that’s not what you were suggesting anyhow.
You also write that “Ms. Rivas should make a point of making amends, she’s no longer a private citizen.” If anyone helps out at an animal shelter that’s great of course, and maybe she’d learn something valuable about animals and caring. But what exactly do you mean that “she’s no longer a private citizen”? And at what point does one stop being a private citizen? Does anyone who gets caught in a media storm or an Internet dust-up lose their status as a private citizen? And what does losing that status entail? Loss to one’s right to privacy? To what extent?
Again, it would certainly be cool if she made amends that way because, well, it would be nice, and besides, who wants to be the target of continued revulsion? But of course, legally speaking she still is a private citizen, and unless she is prosecuted for animal cruelty, she certainly has the right to just try to duck the attention and ride out the storm instead. We place higher standards on people in public office and accord them less privacy because of their representative office, for sure. And society has also become used to perceiving moviestars and rockstars and their personal lives as some kind of public property. But does any random store manager lose their status of being just another private citizen as soon as the media glare catches them? And what social duties are supposed to come with this loss?
It’s a relevant question because we have seen that in the new networked online world, any random Jill or Jack can suddenly become the object of countrywide outrage or derision in a viral instant. Can they really be expected to meet the same standards of openness and accountability as elected officials or even celebrities are (ie if a movie star does something offensive, their PR people sends them on Oprah to apologize)? Or shouldn’t the potential of the Internet to sweep anyone into a minute of fame or notoriority make us, if anything, more concerned about protecting the privacy of, well, private citizens? (Even if they are really unsympathetic?)
Nimh, thank you for giving such an insightful response. I love a challenge! And I am going to attempt to address each of your comments/questions from top to bottom. Some of my opinions may mirror some of the other comments you wrote about. – Jai
The cat hating lady in question is obviously not a very nice person, let me put it that way.
I’ve had a little over 24 hours since diving into this subject matter. Although I’ve been personally informed of and researched the growing hacking issue circulating Facebook the past few weeks, I do not feel that this woman was the victim of such an attack. With that said, one thing about this situation that I still find unsettling is that we don’t know if she did in fact run over a cat.
To play devil’s advocate, for all we know, she could be the typical Facebook ventor/sarcastic soul who made a poor choice in words which led to the eventual avalanche. I can without doubt say this, Miss Rivas made two poor decisions: (1)Having a public (not closed) profile on Facebook that links to her corporate employer. (2)Posting before thinking; this is something that almost every person I know has done before.
One or two of the things said in the discussion above, however, disturbed me a little. How a business uses its social media channels is one thing, and that’s what the original post is about. But what should be expected or demanded from an employee regarding his/her use of his/her own Facebook, Flickr etc.?
I’m not aware of Chipotle’s clauses for employees and/or management. However in my pre-college life, I worked for a few service-industry corporations and they did have morality clauses. Anything that could bring controversy/shame to the company could subject the employee to anything from being written up to suspension and even termination.
Take Florida for example, it’s a right to hire [fire] state, because of this I have always tried to be cognoscente of my online presence; even before I joined the industry. To play devil’s advocate, I understand that I am me and not everyone thinks like I do or shares the same opinion.
Now that I got all that out of the way… What should be expected of an employee? Well, I can’t see it being unreasonable to expect an employee to not bash/insult the patrons that keep their restaurant in business [Miss Rivas’ Dec. 4 post]. And if they do feel that they can’t help themselves, do not link to your employer and do not have an open profile.
“Don’t use it to make fun of how you killed a cat” seems a fairly obvious recommendation. Beyond that, JL’s suggestions above seem reasonable enough: if you want to use your Facebook for your personal communication with your own friends, you should either set your profile to private or not link to your employer. At least if you think you’re going to say controversial stuff.
Looks like you and I agree. On to the next!
I don’t think your employer should be able to demand you to do so – as long as no dead cats or the like are involved in your posts, at least – but it certainly seems smart. I name my employer on my Facebook and my profile is public, but my wall is not, and nobody but my friends gets to see my random thoughts.
Yes, I agree with you an employer cannot enforce what you do with your online presence unless you work in national security. Again, I want to emphasize that they can however dictate that your actions may have consequences via a morality clause. Each of the following can constitute as breaks in the clause: Embarrassing your employer, causing a wide-spread controversy and insulting your patrons. I know it’s a sticky area to tread on, but the patron bashing is probably the most enforceable offense. I completely agree with you on how you have your profile set up. More people should follow your lead!
Jaime, you go further though, and write that as a store manager, this lady “should be using her Facebook for community outreach not bashing”. That made me scratch my head – but maybe I just misunderstood your point? Are you arguing that a mid-level employee should use her personal Facebook account to boost the business and network of her employer?
I mean, if someone wants to do community outreach for her employer on her Facebook, more power to him (though it might annoy me if I am his FB friend). But the idea that your employer could expect or require you to use your own Facebook for their benefit is a little creepy to me. That’s like an employer expecting you to say good stuff about them and otherwise be at your best behaviour when you throw a BBQ, or go out on the town. As far as I’m concerned, as long as I don’t get into trouble with the law (or brag about killiing cats), what I do in my spare time should be none of my boss’s business – and I certainly wouldn’t want to be told to use my Facebook to do community outreach for the company.
But again, maybe I misunderstand and that’s not what you were suggesting anyhow.
Apologies in leaving that statement vague. I didn’t mean that Miss Rivas should use her personal account to reach out to patrons – but that via her FB account create a fan page and be an admin.
When you are a store manager for a food chain, it could be expected for you to have to:
• Meet/beat a revenue goal
• Maintain/Improve customer response ratings
• Perform your own store marketing in the community to drive catering and philanthropy activities. This is why you usually see those survey cards or 800 numbers posted by registers with the message saying, “Tell us how we are doing!”
A Facebook Page acts as your own 800 number that opens up a direct line of communication between you and the community you serve. It’s also an easy, affordable and savvy way to grow business and stay in touch with patrons.
You also write that “Ms. Rivas should make a point of making amends, she’s no longer a private citizen.” If anyone helps out at an animal shelter that’s great of course, and maybe she’d learn something valuable about animals and caring. But what exactly do you mean that “she’s no longer a private citizen”? And at what point does one stop being a private citizen? Does anyone who gets caught in a media storm or an Internet dust-up lose their status as a private citizen? And what does losing that status entail? Loss to one’s right to privacy? To what extent?
The volunteering at a shelter is a suggestion from a damage control PR stance – make nice, learn a lesson and do some good at the same time. By no means am I condoning the loss of one’s right to privacy once they become “known.” Personally I think it stinks.
Again, it would certainly be cool if she made amends that way because, well, it would be nice, and besides, who wants to be the target of continued revulsion? But of course, legally speaking she still is a private citizen, and unless she is prosecuted for animal cruelty, she certainly has the right to just try to duck the attention and ride out the storm instead. We place higher standards on people in public office and accord them less privacy because of their representative office, for sure. And society has also become used to perceiving moviestars and rockstars and their personal lives as some kind of public property. But does any random store manager lose their status of being just another private citizen as soon as the media glare catches them? And what social duties are supposed to come with this loss?
I wasn’t using the terms public/private citizen in the legal vein of libel or slander. Nor am I picking on a store manager losing their status. The situation would be the same no matter what her job was and who she worked for – i.e., county school bus driver, janitor, executive chef for a five-star restaurant.
Remember Richard Jewell? He was the security guard who discovered a pipe bomb and evacuated Olympic park visitors before it exploded. Police had to eliminate all suspects. As the person who found the bomb, Jewell had to be investigated and ultimately faced “trial by media,” thereby making him an unwilling yet public citizen. I can’t even imagine what horrors would have befallen Jewell had the Internet and Social Networking been as advanced then as it is now.
For the foreseeable future she will not be a typical private citizen in the sense that she isn’t anonymous to those she didn’t already know personally, which in my opinion makes her a public citizen. As long as her name is being mentioned in the media, in any form, she can’t be a “private citizen.” She can go back to being a private citizen when the scrutiny lifts.
It’s a relevant question because we have seen that in the new networked online world, any random Jill or Jack can suddenly become the object of countrywide outrage or derision in a viral instant. Can they really be expected to meet the same standards of openness and accountability as elected officials or even celebrities are (ie if a movie star does something offensive, their PR people sends them on Oprah to apologize)? Or shouldn’t the potential of the Internet to sweep anyone into a minute of fame or notoriority make us, if anything, more concerned about protecting the privacy of, well, private citizens? (Even if they are really unsympathetic?)
It’s so easy to say that the answer to avoid all this is, “Don’t be stupid and don’t do anything stupid.” But that of course is easier said than done. We are all human and we make mistakes.
Again, my responses to her not being a private citizen are because once her profile went viral – regardless of deleting the account – she is now known world-wide. The company has decided for the time being to stand behind her and maintain the hacker storyline, but that has fueled the drama.
Is it fair that the callous comments cause ire to be directed at Chipotle? No, absolutely not. Furthermore, the outrage being directed at Chipotle is mainly due to a mob mentality.
I have no doubt that Chipotle fans and the company itself will rally. For instance, as of 4 and 4:30 today, one of my managers noticed a 30 person spike for the Chipotle FB page. Also, Chipotle has finally taken control of their page and are filtering [you have to do this in situations such as these] comments posted to the wall.
I’ll leave my post on this last note. I find it curious that no one has commented in regard to protecting Miss Rivas’ 1st Amendment Right to free speech, which I can only chalk up to the fact that a cat may or may not have been run over by someone who admittedly felt no remorse and ‘fessed up to disliking the species altogether.
Thanks for the challenge Nimh! – Jai
[...] offer has little to do with the specifics of the situation, which have been rehashed on a number of posts, some quite astutely. It’s simple: If you’re going to have a Facebook page, be aware [...]
Jaime, thank you very much for your in-depth response.
I think we agree on a lot of things – all the parts about utilizing common sense, for one; and I’m also glad that it turns out I had misinterpreted (or rather, overinterpreted) your comment about her no longer being a “private citizen”.
On the underlying, more philosophical questions (to what extent does one owe one’s employer things in one’s private time or capacity?), I think we may still differ on some issues, but obviously we agree more than we disagree – and really, I appreciated your extended and informative response!
I aim to please!
Unless it’s in someone’s job description, I don’t think anyone owes their employer any more than required. It’s up to that individual to excel and succeed, and to choose how they do it. As a store manager that aims to meet a sale and catering goal, Facebook is an excellent way to reach out to the community. This, could be done as part of the manager’s daily work-time duties.
As for when they are not at work… most managers do not work in their off time, this is true. Nor should they have to. However, bashing clientele/guests is bad business sense when you have an open profile. If you stand too close to the fire, you will get burned. She got burned, and then some.