So after a flurry of tweets, publicly and in private direct messages, with them today (before they maturely decided to block me), I realized there is an even bigger issue here. Making a mistake is one thing. Sure, that can be terribly damaging. What is really crucial is how you respond to it.

I have seen companies turn a PR nightmare around to actually create loyal fans. It can be done. People remember the response, when done properly, more than they remember the mistake.

I have also seen companies respond poorly, which has a way of making the situation fester. It becomes like a virus, continuing to spread until it can no longer be controlled. This is how PETA has responded.

They have repeatedly been defensive. They repeatedly say what they did wasn’t spam. They repeatedly say what they did was justified because they had a message to get out. Anytime they apologize, it is followed with a “but.” But we got lots of clicks. But we needed to spread the word. But, but, but…

They repeatedly hurt the exact message they are trying to spread by their response to this controversy.

This is exactly why you must hire someone who gets social media to run your social media. I can’t stress this enough! Just because someone is in marketing does not mean they will “get” Twitter. You need someone who’s been immersed in social media spaces, preferably for years. You need someone who understands the rules of engagement, and even more importantly understands the importance of responding properly and responding immediately.

Twitter, more than probably any other space, can damage a reputation in as little as minutes. Do you want someone who doesn’t get it at your social media front line?

How should they have responded? Simple. They should have admitted their mistake. They should have apologized (minus the buts). They should have promised not to spam anymore.

Instead, they not only claim to be justified, but they moved the spamming to Facebook.

This was done after some moms replied that they didn’t care for the methodology of spamming used on Twitter, and after Allie Sullivan did a blog post about it. A Google search showed that Emily Nash is a youth coordinator for PETA, according to her LinkedIn profile.

And again, when @bostonmamas called them on it, PETA still defended their methods:

I really am trying to help them. I really would like to see them do it right. I love animals. Responding properly now will help them spread their message instead of badly damaging their brand and eclipsing their message. If they are bent on ignoring what several people who do get social media are saying, then I hope this will serve as a case study in what not to do for other non-profits and companies in social media spaces.

I think @technosailor put it best:

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Now let me be very clear. I am not making any sort of statement about the message itself. I love animals, and I always have.

The message was lost when they decided to use spam tactics to spread it. My Asheville social media friend Allie Sullivan said it very well in her post, PETA Spam Wednesday: What Not to Do. They @ed dozens of moms the same message repeated over and over. That is spam. Period.

Their argument was that the message was important, so that was their excuse for ignoring all sense of etiquette and courteous behavior. I might not have even felt compelled to blog about this, in fact, but it seemed clear that several social media moms telling PETA their behavior wasn’t appropriate was insufficient. Their tweets repeatedly defended their behavior based on the fact they felt their message was important. If that were the case, everyone could use that justification.

Here are the replies when I retweeted Allie’s link to her post about the PETA tweets:

It seemed pretty clear that they felt their tactics were justified. Here are a few more tweets:

But I will argue that is not justified.

Social media spaces like Twitter have a way of being community driven so that what really is important to the community bubbles to the top. Proof of that lies in the #prayersforanissa tweets, and the way Twitter moms saved baby #jaeli.

When you try to manipulate the social network to force people to hear your voice, you are misusing it.

It seems very clear that there was an orchestrated effort to specifically target influential moms on Twitter. But using their tactics backfired. Even if you dismiss all other issues here, if you are trying to get buzz on Twitter you don’t want to do it in a manner that results in a nasty backlash. From exactly the influencers you want on your side. Sure, they got clicks. But they also created just as much negative buzz as positive.

They completely tainted the message by using lowly tactics to push it.

Here is just a sampling of the responses they got from moms targeted. (Just for information, in the middle of this they changed their Twitter name from @officialpeta to @peta so this is the same account. Again, not too wise timing in the middle of all of this.)

This is not the kind of buzz you want about your brand, especially as a non-profit with a cause:

You usually don’t want influential moms hurling f-bombs your way.

And of course, sage advice from Lucretia Pruitt, aka @geekmommy:

Here’s the thing. Either PETA (with thousands of followers, so clearly not a newbie on Twitter) knew what they were doing was spam or they didn’t. If they didn’t, they need to put someone in charge of their Twitter account who knows the rules of engagement or hire a consultant to do it or train that person. I would say they should get it, but even after several moms called them on it, they were defensive.

This is a major social media fail.

It also drives me nuts how many organizations and companies target moms without bothering to hire a mom as a consultant first. JUST DO IT! If you find it’s important enough to be on Twitter, to be engaging moms, then it’s important enough to throw a few bucks at hiring a consultant before you ruin your reputation. And on Twitter, it usually means ruining your reputation to thousands of people in one fell swoop.

They also argued that they normally do engage on Twitter, and this was the exception. But I can tell you they were not even following me when they tweeted me, so they hadn’t been engaging with me. They could have done it better by sending a few non-automated DMs to moms they regularly tweet with, moms they have developed a relationship with. Or do what is standard. Tweet it and ask people to retweet it.

You put it in the public stream. You don’t @ dozens of people the same tweet to force them to read it in their replies tab. That is just obnoxious. As I said, it is a tactic that is commonly used by porn tweeters and get-rich-quick tweeters. And that is yet another reason not to do it. How bad would it have been for PETA if several moms reported their account as spam and it got deleted? Yeah, not good. For PETA or for the elephants they are trying to help.