The Streisand Effect
The effect is named after singer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to sue the “California Coastal Records Project” for inadvertently including photos of her cliffside Malibu mansion in her online archive of the California coast was not only ridiculed and dismissed in court, but also a tsunami of negative publicity, culminating in the images being viewed by more than 400,000 people. The world learned an important lesson that day: try to stifle information and you can bet it will spread like wildfire.
From WikiLeaks and Pirate Bay to various silence campaigns by celebrities and athletes to cover up their not-so-admirable deeds and, very recently, the #Twitterisblockedin Top trending topic in Turkey Hot on the heels of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s promise to ‘eradicate Twitter’, the Streisand effect has made its presence felt in various spheres of life. In a well-documented story, the UK’s Argyll and Bute Council banned a blog written by a 9-year-old girl who, as part of her school project, wrote about her experiences with dinner in her school canteen and the grade food nutrition. In its press release, the council said the ban was put in place to allay catering staff’s fear of losing their jobs as a result of the girl’s candid account on her blog. The criticism that followed forced the council to retract the ban and reverse its position entirely.
Attempts to shut down a parody website linking conservative media mogul Glenn Beck to the 1990 rape and murder of a young girl caused a ripple effect of negative publicity. It has now taken two forms: as a popular meme that has been covered by well-known sites like Gawker and MediaBistro, and a Facebook page with lots of jokes and entertaining opinions. In a classic case of the Streisand effect, the celebrity has been defeated by the people. In many notable examples of the effect, altercations have occurred between the rich, powerful, famous, and a diverse audience of Internet users. But the effect can also manifest itself in our daily lives, at work or in social groups.
The Streisand effect in social conversations
Online discussions, either on forums gold us social media pages, they often arouse emotions and provoke differences of opinion. In this context, companies must be aware of the possibility of the Streisand effect and have a code of conduct to deal with volatile online social conversations. Participating in conversations, whether they are off the mark or factual, is an important first step. It makes companies appear more open-minded on the subject at hand and encourages other participants to pause, reflect and give companies a chance to make their case.
Banning or closing a discussion can have the reverse consequences. The ban itself can become the story and divert attention from the original discussion, which could have been resolved amicably. Expressing a response solely through a press release can make companies seem distant and cold. A press release accompanied by an appropriate response on social media can go a long way in addressing the situation. Vitriol, innuendo, and differences of opinion are an integral part of social media conversations, and one of the drawbacks of real-time communication, where we sometimes tend to say things we may later regret. There is no way to stop hate speech on social media, but there are plenty of ways to keep the Streisand effect at bay and find a productive solution that keeps all parties happy.
Influence on employee engagement
A supervisor rewards one of his team members with a gift card to a local steakhouse. The team member turns out to be a vegetarian, a well-known fact among her co-workers, or at least that’s what he believed until he received a gift card that he has little use for. The Streisand effect that is creeping in is the perception that bosses don’t know enough about their employees or haven’t put in the effort to do so. The effect can also be felt in recognition programs where only team leaders or managers are rewarded for meeting time-sensitive and critical deadlines, while team members feel unappreciated. The presence of such a program has an opposite and demotivating effect on employees.
In conclusion, the “let it be” mentality may be the best option when it comes to potentially harmful information found online. If someone were to post something negative about you or your business online and you don’t respond, you’ll draw less attention to the issue and therefore minimize its impact. Why? Because Google indexes the internet and will rate fresh content and what appears to be more popular (content that shows engagement) higher than static content.