Sure you know what you’re doing…
Last week hydro shaving brand Schick launched a Facebook captioning captioning contest involving the above image.
Presumably the company thought: “what could possibly got wrong, asking people on Facebook to caption two men at a urinal smiling at each other?
Some 738 comments later Dr Mumbo is starting to wonder if Schick really knew “what we’re getting into”…
Take for example some of the following posts:
I think it is funny and it seems like the audience think it is funny too with over 700 comments. It is quite clear that you don’t like that kind of humor, but it seems like the fans are quite engaged. This is social media and you can’t control the users comments. That is the name of the game.
Brands can’t control the user’s comments but brands ARE responsible for them (https://mumbrella.com.au/asb-rules-brands-are-responsible-for-all-fan-comments-on-facebook-108037).
Schick even note on their Page: “We’ve created this space for our fans and welcome your participation, however we will delete inappropriate and irrelevant comments.” Obviously the above examples aren’t inappropriate to Schick?
Commenter 1 may or may not be a community manager for the Schick page…..
Whether they are playing the reaction or just don’t have good process in place its not pretty.
But what has two men urinating in a public urinal got to do with shaving?
I’m with @Calm Down…
To manage a social media community, you need to know your audience. You have to be in touch with their tone of voice and sense of humour. You can’t judge and dictate from on high like a parent or school master or you’ll never have any engagement.
Clearly a young, male Schick audience like to make crude sexual jokes and innuendos. I’m sure that’s what they expected, and their audience has engaged highly with the content.
Just because jokes and comments are about gay sex does not inherently make them homophobic, while many of the sexual comments are non-specific in their sexual orientation.
Yes, the first comment f****ts should have been removed with the others that were removed, but given that appears to be the only one you found of that nature, it is most likely an oversight.