Vichy Case - Information Systems

What would you have done in Vichy’s shoes once the problem started? Would you have used the blog or not?

First of all, I would have tried to totally understand the problem. Vichy basically made the mistake of playing a game without following the rules: they demonstrated lack of transparency in communication and limited the interaction with bloggers, apparently using censorship too. They started by offering to customers the idea of having a genuine dialogue about the products, according to the first thesis of Cluetrain manifesto “Markets are conversations”, but in the end they “betrayed” customers by using the blog as a kind of advertising campaign.

Giving the gravity of the mistake and the echo in both the blogosphere and other media channels (i.e. newspaper), I would have closed the “flog “ and apologized to customers in Vichy’s name, since the whole Vichy credibility was at risk and the only product manager’s note was not enough. In doing it, I would have used both the blog itself and the traditional communication methods. On one hand, I would have used the blog because it was the quickest and most effective method to apologize to bloggers, and I would have done it by substituting the blog with a page of Vichy apologies. On the other hand, I would have used the traditional communication methods by appearing in an article in the same newspaper which showed the story before, or at least a comparable one.

Finally, I would have probably created a new blog in order to fully exploit the useful advantages of this communication tool. In doing it, I would have followed the common rule of blogosphere and, in order to re-launch Vichy credibility on the web, I would have tried to involve even more the bloggers by offering them the opportunity to test samples and interact through public feedbacks on the blog.