Björn Ivens: We found three groups of triggers and identified a number of amplifying factors. Firstly, unethical behavior by an organization, secondly, problems in the core business and thirdly, errors in communication. These triggers do not necessarily lead to a shitstorm. However, if such a problem occurs together with one of the amplifying factors - for example, the company reacting in an arrogant or power-wielding manner, which we call the Robin Hood effect - then the likelihood of the whole thing developing into a shitstorm increases. Usually, as the shitstorm progresses, the number of comments increases and the tone becomes harsher - often aggressive and offensive. How long a shitstorm lasts depends primarily on the company's reaction.
that increase or decrease the likelihood of a collaborative brand facebook data attack? Have you found any particularly good or particularly bad examples?
Nadine Kammerlander: Of course, some companies are at an increased risk of a shitstorm. The examples we found are predominantly B2C companies. However, it hardly matters whether the brand is well-known or whether the company is large or small. What is important is how the company reacts to possible "mistakes" - which can happen to any company.
Philipp A. Rauschnabel: If companies train their employees at all levels (i.e. even at the lowest levels of the hierarchy), if they always know what is being said about them through good social media monitoring and if those responsible for social media know how to communicate in crisis situations, the risk of a shitstorm can be significantly reduced. But that also means that companies have to devote resources to it. For example, employees have to have the channels on their radar even at weekends or in the evenings, as shitstorms can develop in a very short space of time.