You are on page 1of 4






Nestle is the ultimate case of corporate crisis miscommunication on social networks. In this
post we will explain its origin from this disaster as 2.0 was created and how it could have been
Surprising that multinational companies investing heavily in its Marketing strategies are not
even aware of the change that social media has meant for corporate communication and the
risks of intervening in these media without knowing and respecting the commonly accepted
rules of etiquette for their users.

It all began on March 17 when Greenpeace published a report that said that Nestl uses palm
oil from Indonesia to develop its products and its supplier, Sinar Mas, violates Indonesian law
deforesting the jungle and destroying the habitat of protected species such as orangutans.
Nestle responded by denying the charges and saying that your provider is Cargill, but
environmentalists who claim that Sinar Mas is, in turn, Cargill provider, launched a campaign
on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook inviting web surfers to use a logo Kit-Kat modified with
the word "killer".
On March 18 the Swiss multinational
managed to withdraw the Youtube
video alleging misuse of their
trademark and posted on his
Facebook page in an entry that said
their fans that if they published any
change in your logo erased
A most fans do not like the censorship
imposed by Nestle, instead of dealing
with complaints and questions of his
followers replied that both the logo
and Facebook page are owned by the
company, so that only sets Nestle
participation rules and if someone is not satisfied is free to stop being a fan.

This attitude has led to a global offensive against the Swiss company, both anti-Nestle Boycott
groups like Nestle, Can this orang-utan get more fans than Nestle? NESTL or "KillerMurderer" as its own Facebook page, which broadcast listings for other products published
and overcome crisis communication on infant feeding products.
After two days under the rain and several releases on its website, a representative of Nestle
tried unsuccessfully to calm down implying that the reaction of the public was
disproportionate and not censored everything to allow only positive comments. Finally, he
tried to turn back and apologized for the mistakes and bad ways, announcing that they would
stop eliminate post of fans, though it seems that the situation has calmed down.
Regardless of the veracity of the reviews received (which is unknown), Nestle reacted late and
wrong, not knowing tailor your message to the etiquette followed in social networks.

Nor could recognize changing its logo (common practice on the Internet) a consolidation of its
global branding. Although in this case it was used with negative connotations, which modify
Internet and spreading a logo is available to very few brands (Nike, Puma, Google, Coca Cola,
etc). If this crisis had been managed properly, without trying to silence their fans or to deny
adapt the corporate logo, Nestle could have laid the foundation for future success.
No one argues today that have a presence where your audience, and Facebook, is the basis of a
strategy for Social Media. This implies that the public, if you think your brand and your
content interesting or useful, who choose to participate and enrich your
becoming a fan page. On this basis it is clear that disrespect saying that
space is not theirs and censoring their participation will not get to build
confidence in your audience and your brand to a positive climate.
On the other hand, one of the objectives of any social media strategy is to build stable and
lasting relationships with our target audience. To achieve honesty is one of the key elements
and use the corporate language in these social media does not help. Corporate users reject
messages and require a personal and humane treatment, so acknowledge mistakes and
apologize when necessary is usually highly valued by users and good for business.