The fact that rumours, exaggerations, incorrect information, etc. are present on the social web is all the more reason why a brand should participate in the conversation.

As I was reading your post, the thought occurred to me that the phenomenon is not much different from regular word of mouth conversations amoungst customers that has been going on for centuries. Customers have always described things as they see them, factual or not. Now, because these conversations can spread online, brands have the opportunity to join in.

Marcel

Any business, especially those of Delta’s size should be monitoring social media. But it is not just monitoring that is important but engaging. Had they been watching they would have tracked the trajectory and velocity of the comments and been able to respond accurately.

“Yes it happened we made someone crawl off a plane, the person responsible for letting this happen has been fired”

“no it did not happen, and the lady in question says so (because we reached out and found her”

Either way it shows that the company is responsive, yes it damages the brand because of the negative sentiment, but the responsiveness of Delta (if they had done it) would have reduced the impact.

Radian6 is a perfect tool for situations such as this a “PR Crisis!” Radian6 would have given Delta the ability to track the speed and direction of the comments, drill down to the specifics and deal with it.

Furthermore – let’s say Delta really WAS monitoring things and contacted Consumerist and said “this never happened.” First, they’d have to PROVE it didn’t happen, otherwise they’d get more negative accusations. Second, on the hypothetical that they could prove it, the damage is already done. Not nearly enough people will remember the Consumerist retracting or even deleting the original article.

The burden right now is on the blogger/reporter/tweeter to fact check as much as possible. Maybe the Consumerist SHOULD have confirmed the story from a second source – another passenger, etc? The path you are following is basically giving anyone who publishes content a free ride on the lazy train.

Should companies be monitoring this stuff online? Yes, you are certainly right about that. But I do not agree that it is okay to condone laziness or a lack of fact-checking in any way, and it should not be tolerated or pandered to at all.

Strong enough opinion? :)