Never Undermine The Capabilities Of a Hashtag

A big thing as a protest can be mobilised from a couch, you think I am kidding? Then why did the statue of Cecil John Rhodes fall? It is because of the #hashtag that the University of Cape Town's council did not see coming.

#RHODESMUSTFALL

Johannesburg - On the 9th of March 2015, the students of University of Cape Town (UCT) started a protest against the statue of Cecil John Rhodes in the university calling for it to be removed.
First thing is first UCT is a public academic institution in a democratic country, thus equality is very crucial in places like these. As a result, UCT had to find strategic communication in which they can resolve the matter at hand.

This hashtag was disadvantageous to the university because it was actually giving them a bad image. UCT replied to the public through news conferences, their social media pages and also on their website. The problem is that they delayed to do so, and remember the social media users do not sleep. Thus, it gave the Twitter users more chance to mobilise and come up with more stuff to stir up the protest, and the hashtag spread even more to an extent that other institutions stood in solidarity with the protesting students.

This video shows the police trying to stop the students that are protesting, little do they know that when they do that it makes things even worse because people are getting more furious when they see such videos on social media. UCT had to be reasonable on why they should keep the statue.

Students where sharing the activities that took place in the institution on social media, what UCT should have done is to also engage in the Hashtag, in a polite and a positive manner. In that way, they would have controlled the issue to some extent.

Click here to view the tweets about #RhodesMustFall

Of course people reacted in different ways to the issue, the thing about social media is that once you post something, it is not possible to retract your words. Notable people, lecturers, even political figures were having opinions about this matter. When too many people have opinions there are disagreements. In this case, the disagreements led to racial issues. Again, UCT's procrastination to respond and engaging on social media, came back bite them and they were seen as a racist institution.

The Evolution of the Rhodes Statue at UCT, remember, social media gave this movement such great exposure.

Are The Big Brands Always A Target? Think Woolworths...

Every brand makes a promise to their customers, quality of products, low prices or better yet being the only one in a million of that kind. Thus customers always expect the best from their brands, so brands must always be on top of their game.

#BOYCOTTWOOLWORTHS

Woolworths is one of those brands that promise a lot to their customers, quality and organic food products. They value fairness, integrity and always doing things the right way.

However, there is an organisation called BDS (Boycott. Divestment. Sanctions ), they pointed out that Woolworths does not live up to its values and what they promise their customers. As a result, people will then have to boycott Woolies because they are doing business with Israel. Reason being that of the Israel-Apartheid, being so, it means Woolworths disappointed customers, they did not value the 'integrity' that they talk about.                                                                                  

Thereafter, the word about boycotting Woolies spread on different social media platforms, mostly on Twitter with the hashtag #BoycottWoolworths. Almost every Twitter user was in support of boycotting Woolies, even the notable people who happen to be influential. The protests were organised to make more awareness, the same protests were organised using social media. Brands must always act responsibly in social media, use a polite manner and engage with their customers.

  Anwar Prince ‏@AnwarPrince14  30 Nov 2015

@IOL #BoycottWoolworths #BoycottApartheidISrael 

#Freedom4Palestine #BDS

https://twitter.com/AnwarPrince14/status/671238172190375936

The following video shows a protest that took place in Maponya Mall, Soweto in showing awareness BoycottingWoolworths

In these type of cases, brands need to act in a polite and a responsible manner. However, Woolworths instead took the 'legal route' against BDS which worked as a disadvantages to their side. When a brand is facing a crisis, then the issue hits the social media, as a brand do not be against the users of the social media platforms because the matter is going to be worse, and you are also showing irresponsibility. 

It would have been advantageous if Woolworths turned their campaign into something that would make everyone happy. Take Reddit for example, remember how they turned the Fathead Poster crisis into an opportunity? Woolworths could have cut ties with the business in Israel, and at the same time launch their own #hashtag that will take the company level. That way, they would be empowering their customers because it would show that they care about their (customers) concerns and opinions. It would have changed how people were thinking about Woolworths and they would have got free publicity without having to pay for it.

That way they would have used social media strategically to market their organisation, and they would have created brand loyalty with their customers and possibly create new customer and other business opportunities as well.
Social media is a big thing, it comes with big problems so brands should be big enough to solve these problems.