Social Media, WOM, Negative Publicity and the 2015 Primetime Emmys

This past Sunday was the 2015 Primetime Emmy Awards, in which all actors, actresses, directors and producers put on their custom designer gowns and tuxedos in hopes of receiving the coveted Emmy Award. Andy Samberg, cast member of Saturday Night Live, hosted and he was reported to have the best opening musical number the award show has seen in decades. But, Samberg made plenty unsatisfied and, with the help of Twitter and Facebook, these negative emotions of the 67th Primetime Emmy's was spreading like wildfire.

Time Magazine coined the term "the spoiler awards" because Samberg revealed the endings to the series finales of shows like Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, and Two and a Half Men. Twitter and Facebook were not happy, and with its power, it let everyone know how poorly the award show was (See below). With that being said, this year's Emmys drew the smallest audience on record. To put it into numbers, the audience was brought down nearly 4 million less than last year, which is about 20%! So, how does this relate back to marketing? Well, it showcases the power of social media. I'm not saying that social media caused the lack in ratings, but they do have a correlation. Twitter was negatively sharing information and there was also a decrease in ratings. It definitely could be a potential reasoning.

Social media directly relates to word-of-mouth (WOM). In the Emmys case, negative WOM could have potentially destroyed their ratings. So, your company/brand is experiencing negative WOM. How does the brand/company manage that? How can it be spun into positive WOM? Professor Costanzo covered a chapter on Public Relations and Publicity. Specifically, we spoke about how companies can manage negative publicity. They can either own up to it, deny it, avoid it, etc. Halfway through the show is when Twitter seemed to blow up and start bashing the Emmys. So, what did they do? What could the Emmys do to save their reputation as a great award show and not the "spoiler awards?"

The team of the Primetime Emmys caught wind of the rage going on the Twittersphere, so they adapted, changed Samberg's monologue, and owned up to their mistake. This showcases a concept I learned in Professor Costanzo's class, specifically when managing negative publicity. Samberg's new monologue shed some light on his "spoiler" monologue, hoping to please angered viewers. A key concept about Public Relations and Publicity is that you never really know how consumers will react to your ideas. In the case of the 67th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards, things went south within the first ten minutes, but they tried to salvage what they could. In my opinion, what they did was the best they could do. If they had avoided it, I think viewers would have been more enraged.