Case Study: Mark Esterhuysen - Unintentional Brand Ambassadors

Gleaning Social Insights from Your Brand's Online Conversation

Objective: Understand the mindset of your market and how they react to specific events in their environment.

• Who are they? 
• What are their values and beliefs? 
  
• How strongly will they organize around/toward a particular need?
  

Case: Last week Mark Esterhuysen, night-shift radio presenter for 702 Radio voiced a particularly impassioned and political rant on-air.  Strong language and poor choice of opinion (relative to the brand) resulted in his being fired, which cost the company a significant amount of negative publicity.

Online conversation about Esterhuysen gathered speed and went viral, amassing 4 384 mentions in only 5 days across social media and the internet at large.  

For better context, South African Banking brands on average would only receive as many mentions in 2 months.

Based on the influence of each speaker in this conversation, approximately 6 172 750 people had the Opportunity-To-See (OTS) and be reached by the Esterhuysen on-air rant saga. 

Companies spend millions on investing in brand ambassadors who are congruent with the values and following of their brands. 

Let’s call these intended brand ambassadors – those influencers who have been legitimately empowered by the brand to represent it (de jure, for the legally or politically minded).

These individuals are generally sought out after careful scrutiny for them being an appropriate co-branding match for not only the child brand but the parent company as well.

So what happens if someone who not only is in complete disjoint with your brand’s personality and values, also becomes famously associated with your brand either because they crossed the line or they were publicly dissatisfied with their brand experience?

The converse character is then an unintentional brand ambassador that is unintentionally afforded a degree of authority or notoriety because of a specific event that connects them to your brand (de facto, for the legally or politically minded).

This implies that as many people heard about the story and considering that 567/702/Eye Witness News/Primedia’s brands were so inextricably tied to the incident itself, that those brands would have suffered in a considerable loss in brand equity value.

Moreover, if your de facto brand ambassador is someone who either does not fit your brand or does not have your brand’s interests at heart, your brand’s equity will be the one to compensate for it.

In the case of Esterhuysen, the 567/702 stations comprise a relatively liberal, democratic and slightly right-of-centre brand. 

At face value, Esterhuysen’s late night opinion could undoubtedly be associated with anarchistic and somewhat further right values.  It was the strength and vulgarity thereof which made both the story and the audio segment go viral.

The traditional PR belief generally states that all publicity is good publicity.  The same may not always be true in digital. Negative PR that goes viral will cost you a fortune in damage control.

However, for more context, had Primedia paid for this negative coverage, it would have cost the company an Advert Value Equivalent (AVE) of nearly R 1.5 million. R1.5 million, which undoubtedly could have been much more wisely invested.

So, exactly who was speaking? 

Mostly consumers, which generated 91% of all conversation about the Esterhuysen case, with enterprises and the press contributing to a lesser extent each with a 4% and 5% share.

And what did they think?

BrandsEye noted vehemently strong support for Mark Esterhuysen from 11.8% of authors involved.

These tended to come from more easily influenced and/or younger personalities as well as from those:

• With particularly far-right values
• With even further left-of-centre as well
  
• Or those disillusioned with the current system and its leadership 
  
• Who, by definition, would not consume 567/702 media as it does not meet their political values
  
• Who, then likely found out about the story via viral media and its overall hype
  

Most people (71%) however, either spoke about the story neutrally or merely shared it with their respective networks for its shock factor.

BrandsEye also noted negativity towards the incident from 16.2% of authors.

This sentiment tended to come from somewhat older, working individuals who were:

• Generally disapproving of the outburst
  
• Expressed overall irritation with/apathy towards youthful ignorance
  
• More likely to be 567/702 listeners – as they displayed more loyalty to the brand
  

Interestingly enough, both supporters and protesters of the case were less concerned with him and more with the example he showed either for or against their own values.

Interestingly enough, off the back of 1000s of Tweets and statuses, with Youtube views close to 200 000, this story not only reached but trended in overseas shores, particularly from Commonwealth countries – which have become hubs for many South Africans abroad. 

With the UK and Australia which each drove 4% thereof and Canada with 3% of the total share, mostly focusing on more political sentiment and the subject matter of Esterhuysen’s rant.

Going forward, the situation wasn’t stitched up as well as it could have been as Esterhysen didn’t quite apologise rather than loftily affirming his anarchistic values in a personal blog post.

What can be learnt?

Every brand has a defined community which chooses to consume that brand’s media and services because that brand is aligned to their own values.

• 567/702 Listeners listen to those stations because its relatively liberal brand values match their own.

When brand failure takes place, the brand risks alienating its community for failing to live up to its promise of value.  Value then, implies both how much a brand experience is worth to a consumer and what they expect of that brand.

• Expecting relatively liberal, if not slightly right-of-centre content – it is no surprise when the 567/702 community reacted so negatively

A smarter hire is a staff member whose values are aligned to those of their employer’s. Loyalty is cultivated by natural value alignment: out of their own accord they will actively promote and uphold those brand values to their networks.

• Even if Mark Esterhuysen worked the graveyard shift, his opinion created enough controversy to get the attention of a vast and international audience. In terms of internal marketing, this makes it critical for every consumer touch-point from CEO to janitor to be positively influenced by the brand’s values.

Always quality over quantity: A brand’s community size is irrelevant if the market’s values are not aligned to those of the brand. 

• So purchasing community following or seeding content to the wrong market is risky because the consumer community will protect and promote the brand’s values of their own accord.