Last week, I gave the McDonald’s corporate responsibility blog a rave review. I stand by that review for the most part, in the face of growing criticism over the inordinately long wait time between when a comment is submitted and when it is posted.
About a week ago, blogger Matt Fried posted a comment on a post by McDonald’s Vice President Bob Langert about McDonalds’ decision to give away miniature Humvees in children’s happy meals:
I polled my staff who have or had children. One of them said her children enjoy the little Hummer replicas as toys, just as many kids like toy trucks, regardless of make or model. She drives a MiniCooper, walks with her children to get groceries, bicycles with them on weekends, etc. Another said her grandchildren absolutely love the toy Hummers–that they’re fun.
Of course, there’s nothing scientific about this poll, but I think it makes an important point. Looked at through children’s eyes, the miniature Hummers are just toys, not vehicle recommendations or a source of consumer messages about natural resource conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.
Thanks for your comments. We welcome the dialogue.
After a considerable wait, Fried’s comment has still not appeared on the site despite the fact that it was ostensibly constructive.
McDonald’s comment policy current reads as follows:
McDonald’s owns this site. As a result, from time to time, McDonald’s may monitor comments to or the contents of this site to ensure adherence to all applicable policies and procedures. McDonald’s shall have the right not to post or to remove in its sole discretion any content or comments that it considers violative of these Terms of Use or any other policies. McDonald’s may post some or all of the comments and other content it receives in original form or in any form acceptable to McDonald’s. McDonald’s may, but will not always, reply to comments and other content submitted to this site.
Mack Collier criticizes McDonald’s in a post saying that if companies can’t play by the blogosphere’s rules about comments–publish everything critical if it is constructive–they shouldn’t join the conversation.
I have to disagree in part. McDonald’s stated policy is reasonable, although it could be better articulated. For example, McDonald’s could offer commenters some guidelines for making their comments adhere to to “all applicable policies and procedures.” They could elucidate those policies and procedures further so that commenters can at least know what to expect, even if they ultimately disagree with the policy.
The bottom line is that companies need to either play by the standard rules or explain why they choose not to do so. When a company shuts down or doesn’t post a constructive comment that is critical of the their practices, the commenter is liable to take the conversation elsewhere–most likely to his own blog, where the company has no control over what is said.
Not only does the comment issue become a subject of much piling-on in the blogosphere. It also draws attention to the original practice that the commenter was critical of. That’s something any company would like to avoid.
For this reason, it’s usually the best strategy to play by the blogosphere’s rules when moderating comments. But if you choose not to, you should explain your reason prominently and offer compelling support for that policy. People may disagree and even criticize you, but it will diffuse the debate somewhat and keep your company from being the subject of a blog mob.
We’ll be discussing strategies for entering the blogosphere, as well as comment moderation best practices at our upcoming Blog Business Summit conference.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Darren 09.11.06 at 3:07 pm
I, too, left a comment which took at least 48 hours to get posted. That’s too long, if you ask me.
From a marketing perspective, this was the part of Mr. Langert’s post that struck me as hilarious:
“So I polled my staff who have or had children. One of them said her children enjoy the little Hummer replicas as toys, just as many kids like toy trucks, regardless of make or model. She drives a MiniCooper, walks with her children to get groceries, bicycles with them on weekends, etc. Another said her grandchildren absolutely love the toy Hummers–that they’re fun.”
That means either:
1) He’s lying. McDonalds surely had a bunch of focus groups test out this toy, and adult responses to it.
2) He’s a fool, and thinks that asking some gals around the office is adequate market research for launching a toy that’s based on a controversial vechile.
Teresa Valdez Klein 09.11.06 at 3:54 pm
Darren: I do check the comment queue several times a day during the week, but on weekends I disconnect from my computer and do things that involve the physical world. This preserves my sanity.
I’m sorry that you had to wait 48 hours for your comment to be posted, if that happened during the week, it was a real error on my part and I do apologize.
Teresa Valdez Klein 09.11.06 at 4:57 pm
Darren: After reading your comment again, I realized that you weren’t talking about this blog, you were talking about McDonald’s. Silly me!
Oh lordy. Look what Mondays will do to you.
Jake 09.12.06 at 7:16 pm
OK, so first off, I hate the idea that there’s a “standard rule set” that we bloggers (not those bloggers) get to decide on what it is. “Standard” is not “standard” simply because we say it’s so.
But here’s the sad truth of the McDonald’s blog - poor upfront planning has yielded a ton of negative press about issues far larger than what the reality is. According to the VP running the blog, they got backed up on comment moderation. My guess is that they either didn’t have a moderation plan in place at all or they woefully underestimated the response. Either way, it’s a lack of solid game plan. They’ve begun moderating finally and are showing that they’re accepting quite a bit through, which is good.
Oh, and Darren, you misunderstand how toys are put into happy meals. Toys are advertising deals where the toy maker pays for the models as well as the priviledge of having it in happy meals.