Last Sunday, I was going to Mt. Buller for the first time. This is my first time I've seen snow - LOL. I was taking a travel agency to got there. I got there at Sunday, while my friends already been there since Saturday. We planned to go back together in Sunday using the same travel agency. The journey back home turned out to be a disaster. My friends was told to wait at the wrong place by the travel agency. And this caused them to spent more money for the taxi for nothing. They started to yelled and complained to the tour guide about this. Later after that, they told me that they planned to post in Facebook of this tragedy and want to make the negative of the travel agency to be publicly known.
After hearing this one, I began to wondering. Is it OK to post about the badness of a brand publicly in Facebook? I mean, everyone can have a public opinion about a brand in Facebook but on the other hand, the brand itself can sue back the customer based on the fact that the customers tried to make a bad reputation about the brand. For example, the Prita Mulyasari case in my country. This is the case that famous in Indonesia in 2009. This case already makes some group of supporters that support her against Omni International Hospital. How do you people think about this?
Without wanting to turn this into a lesson in Australian defamation law, I think it all comes down to one thing... are you reporting the facts as they occurred, or are you "bending" the truth beyond what really happened.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new. For years, consumers have been talking about their experiences with brands, both good and bad. Word-of-mouth predates the technologies that support it today. So what's different now? Why should social media be any different to traditional WoM?
OMG this is unbelievable! Can't believe Prita remains in prison?! I might have to join her facebook support group.
ReplyDeleteI agree that SM should not be treated any differently to any other form of WoM. Nor should it be treated any differently to any other form of media where opinions are raised. I was watching AM Agenda on sky news the other morning and this was just after the News of the world scandal came about and our PM said that Murdoch and Co had some questions to answer. It was quite interesting to watch the debate unfold between the two major communications ministers where the argument was going on about how some news companies favouring one political party and mad mouthing the other. The argument came to an end as time was running out but it basically ended saying that some papers have their opinions (which they are completely entitled to raise), no matter how "bad" or "good" it is for either political party. Sure not SM, but certainly an opinion.
ReplyDeleteRoss