What Kanye West Teaches Us About Corporate Social Media

by Chris Hall on September 17, 2009 · Comments

Kanye West Hijacks Taylor Swift
Image by Photo Giddy via Flickr

I realize that the Kanye West / Taylor Swift MTV Video Music Awards situation happened a few days ago, but it has taken me a bit to realize the one big take away that Kanye West teaches us about corporate social media.

If you didn’t have at least 10 Facebook friends let you know about it in your status feed Monday morning, Kanye jumped on stage to announce that Beyonce had the best video of the decade, during Taylor Swift’s reception of the best female video award.

Check it here:

Pretty classless, right?

The thing is, the wikipedia entry for Kanye West states that he did the same thing during the 2006 MTV Europe Music Awards when he felt that his Touch the Sky video should have won the Best Video Award. And he gave a heartfelt apology afterward then, similar to what he did now.

He berated a President. He was berated by a President.

He puts his pants on, one leg at a time, just like everybody else. But, like it or not, once his pants are on… he still makes platinum records.

So What?

Here we have a man mired in self inflicted controversy on a global scale. If you search the term Kanye West MTV Europe Music Awards you get nearly three billion results. This is a man who continually acts in a way that should be counterproductive to his business goals. Yet, they’re not, even though they are heavily documented in social media.

Despite all of the public outcry over the years, Kanye West is still dropping hits, he’s still opening FatBurgers, he is still collaborating with Nike on shoes, he’s still making things that people are willing to buy with full understanding of his antics.

That’s a huge global reach, showcasing negative events that have not affected his bottom line in a negative way.

You Can’t Say That

You’re right, I can’t say unequivocally that Kanye’s bottom line has not been affected by his shenanigans. But I’m working on a case that can. I recently wrote about John Mackey, the outspoken CEO of Whole Foods, in a post called Probability and Impact. Mr. Mackey related his stance on health care reform on his Corporate Blog and that upset some of his clientele enough to threaten a boycott.

The amazing part is that, to date, Mackey’s comments have not hurt his company’s stock price, and I’m waiting for the Whole Foods Q3 financials to come out to see if social media negatively affected his company’s bottom line… I’m guessing that it didn’t, but we’ll have to wait and see.

I’m saying all of this, because there is an unhealthy fear of social media in Corporate America. A fear that employees may say the wrong thing, and therefore should not have a voice to represent the company for which they are employed. I think that this fear needs to be squashed, once and for all.

If Kanye West and John Mackey are going to go off their own respective “deep ends” via social media and not be any worse for the wear, then shouldn’t employers loosen up their collars a bit when it comes to letting their employees have a voice?

What Do You Think?

Do you think that Corporate Bloggers should be able to have a voice? Or will their individual voices tear down the very company that is employing them? Please let me know in the comments below.

  • For better or worse, Kanye got in the news. His brand is out there. What's the quote? "I don't care what the newspapers say about me so long as they spell my name right." I think these days, a great many people say and do a great many horrible, humiliating things just to capture attention. From that attention, however brief, they can monetize and build a brand. Probably cynical, but that's how I see it.

    But publicity stunts have a tendency to go all wrong and turn people off. It's hard to say what will go viral in your favor and what will just make you look like a b4stard. Witness the various stunts PETA has pulled over the years. Most have just succeeded in making PETA look like a bunch of wankers.

    My thing is that at the end of the day, where's the beef? After the hype cycle has run its course, where is the value behind the stunt? Will anyone be listening to Kanye's music in 10-20 years? Does Whole Foods provide good value for my grocery dollar? Does Lindsay Lohan have any talent at all? After the fickle cameras turn in another direction, what happens if you don't bring something people want to the table?
  • That's my point, Ed. Corporations are so afraid that their employees may say something that will affect the bottom line, and if I don't see it in the examples above then I'm just not seeing it at all. To your point, will something that was said today really even matter 10-20 years from now?

    I don't think so, either. Thanks for the comment. :)
  • This also speaks to the difference between alleged outrage and proven actions. People can claim to be "outraged" by Kanye's classless behavior... but they still buy his media by the millions. People can claim that Whole Foods -- or L.L. Bean, KFC or Wal-Mart -- are worth boycotting due to objectionable business practices... but they're still multi-billion dollar corporations.

    In "Starbucked," author Taylor Clark debunks a lot of the supposed facts about Starbucks, including the effects of local protests on their bottom line. Even in extreme liberal, anti-corporate locales like Portland, OR, the same protesters who would be railing against the arrival of Starbucks could be seen drinking lattes there a week later.

    All the social ire in the world couldn't stop people from drinking Starbucks, including the very people who were protesting them. It took an economic hiccup to get people to rethink their coffee consumption habits. But Kanye doesn't produce media that would be directly affected by an economic downturn, either. When you, the person, *are* the brand, nothing can stop you but you.

    No wonder "personal branding" is all the rage...
  • It really makes me wonder about the whole, "You need to join the conversation" social media mantra as the absolute truth it is portrayed to be on-line... If you have an awesome product, I think that being social on-line enhances the experience for both you and your consumer base. That beings said, I don't know that being social on-line:

    A. is a necessity
    B. affects the bottom line positively
    C. affects the bottom line negatively

    Most of the evidence I've seen has been anecdotal, so some hard numbers would be cool, right? :)
  • YFNSM
    It's like the old saying goes: "Any publicity is good publicity." At least in the entertainment world.
  • I'm interested if that axiom transfers over to other worlds as well... :)
  • Being social online certainly isn't a necessity, and although it *can* affect the bottom line for better or for worse, there aren't nearly enough case studies with verifiable numbers to prove social media's impact one way or the other (yet).

    I think the whole "join the conversation" idea was powered by people who were already having conversations online, and expected that everyone else who joined in would do the same. But people who are natural conversants forget that not everyone else is, or wants to be, or is capable of adding value even if they did want to be. Hence, lots of people think that simply agreeing or attacking is enough to qualify them as participants in The Conversation, when what it's really doing is creating white noise that drags down the experience for everyone else.

    Like your mother always told you: if you don't have something relevant to say, don't say anything at all.
  • What if being social online didn't affect the bottom line either way?

    What if, when things are all said and done, people buy products for complicated reasons that intertwine and overlap like: usefulness, convenience, value, friendship, or whatever other reason out there?

    Not saying I believe this, because as you stated there is no proof either way. Just interested in the concept because a lot of weight is put on being social these days... :)
  • If being social online didn't affect the bottom line either way, would anyone still do it? Sure, because it's fun and it feels good. Not everything in life is done for fiscal profit.

    Businesses might not use it much because they're forever finding the most cost-effective ways to maximize profits, and anything that doesn't impact their bottom line is merely a distraction. But whether or not businesses choose to use social media *marketing* doesn't invalidate social media *as a field*.
  • There's a lot of worry in the corporate world about employees misrepresenting a brand via social media. That's the context of my pontification around social media not affecting the bottom line.

    You can let your employees use social media to spread your messages without worry if it doesn't affect the bottom line.

    I can't have it both ways though, as you pointed out. If social media doesn't affect the bottom line, then there is no business reason to do it.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: