It's all in the name

[contemptplation]

Try-hard extraordinaire, Robin Goh the Chief Branding & Communications Office of Singapore Post

In his reaction to Kuan’s post, Robin Goh, Chief Branding and Communications Officer of Singapore Post (SingPost), penned a personally motivated, public response to Kuan. I use personally motivated because Goh does not respond as a professional should. Instead, he acts like a digital marketing intern getting into an online cock fight.

If it’s not a funny matter, it shouldn’t be punny either

Goh claims offense at Kuan’s death wishes against SingPost staff. Yet Goh makes a joke about the same by throwing in a pun - ‘grave’. He then proudly points out pun intended. 

In addition, the pun adds sarcasm/condescension and does not show empathy towards’ the customers issue (which was 3 failed delivery/re-delivery attempts). These are not tones an organization’s representative should be using towards a customer, no matter how insensitive the customer may have been. Especially when the company has failed to adequately provide a service. 

It’s the internet. Stop taking it personally.

Goh’s response to Kuan was emotional. As the Chief, that seems strange. I have experienced the bureaucracy of corp. comms in local organizations in Singapore and Goh’s post is perplexing.

I’m confident Kuan’s comments aren’t the worst that Goh has had to deal with.  Wishing death/hell upon others is akin to saying “fuck you” in a multi-cultural community that the concept of death is a big part of. 

It’s rude, yes. It should not have been said in the first place, yes. But this is an emotional customer. Goh is a professional. He should know better. He should act better. 

Yet, in Kuan’s apology letter dated 13 February, he asks that Goh stop asking friends on his personal Facebook page to share the post. 

Why would Goh be trying to push a post - signed off using his professional designation at SingPost - via his personal page? What’s he trying to gain exposure for? Given the media coverage, it looks like he hoped for it to go viral. Lame!

Wanna be a Grammar Nazi? Make sure you pass your English classes first.

To rub salt on the wound, Goh clarifies that Kuan incorrectly used “staffs”. 

Staff vs staff members is a common error in the Singapore workplace. It’s shares ranks with words like revert. 

There is no value in Goh correcting this beyond trying hard to sound “above” Kuan. In fact, it was that correction that motivated this post because Goh’s post contained more grammatical errors than Kuan’s. This post was really written to capture Goh’s emotional ranks for posterity.

Here are the posts:

And Kuan’s apology the next day, as per the Mothership article:

“Dear all,

I’m the one who got myself embroiled in such unnecessary tussle and would like to take this public. I’m deeply sorry for the strongly worded message made to SingPost, after the said three unsuccessful deliveries. I am guilty of such raucous remarks made online. With great and heartfelt regrets, over what I have posted during this critical trying moment where the world needs love and courage to fight against Coronavirus. I accept full responsibility for my actions.

To my family and friends who know me personally, I am truly remorseful.

Mistake learnt, and I hope forgiveness can be given. I would also like to make a kind and sincere request for Mr Robin, the Group Chief Brand & Communications Officer of SingPost, to stop asking his friends on his personal FB account to share the post. I would like to put things behind me and move on from this saga.”

https://mothership.sg/2020/02/singpost-customer-coronavirus-apology/

[contemptplation]

It seems our brains can't store every detail we experience, so we recall the gist of events — enough to create a story that makes sense to us. Every time we recall a story or tell it to others, we change small bits depending on whether our audience looks fascinated, or bored. Then the next time we retell it, we only remember the last version we told – and the errors compound as in a children’s game of broken telephone. [...] Once our brain has a new version of a story, it forgets and erases the former versions. Even the most sophisticated MRI brain scans can't distinguish between truth and fiction when people believe what they're saying.

The Mirror Mirage on CBC.ca BY JOSH FREED, DIRECTOR  

https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/blog/we-change-our-memories-each-time-we-recall-them-but-that-doesnt-mean-were-l

[contemptplation]

Trusting the opinions of internet-famous strangers

“Stranger danger” feels like a remnant of the past. Nowadays, with open arms, we welcome strangers and their #ads to our ‘private’ digital space - our feeds - on Facebook/Instagram, Twitter and other apps the cool kids use. 

In our feeds, they tell us about their lives, friends, family, pets, health issues, worries, triumphs and more. Their posts are just like those our friends might share (but their posts look better, of course). Their lives become such a regular part of our own that we can’t help but feel like we know them.

When we follow these modern, digital celebrities (’influencers’ .. and meme page admins even!) and take the time to read what they have to say, we become invested enough in their online activity that it feels like we do know them. Some people like to engage and converse with these influencers. Some probably DM these influencers more often than they say “hi” to their own parents. It’s almost like we know them as well as we know our grade school friends who just got engaged over the weekend. Or at least it feels like we do when we’re done swiping through our friends’ photos and thereafter scroll down to the next post by an influencer we follow.

Then comes the sponsored posts; the #ad. 

As we look at creating a more sustainable culture, consumerism is something we need to move away from, not intensify through social media reach. Yet here we are, welcoming a shit ton of #ads with open arms just because an influencer (who we assume we know because of their digital persona) said it’s good and we should try it too. 

We tend to forget that these ‘influencers’ are random joes on the internet who may/may not have the authority to give advice about the products they are pushing or the issues the products are meant to treat. Yet we treat them like subject matter experts because of their nice photos and cute captions. 

We don’t question the ethics of their advertisements because influencers + ads go hand-in-hand; it’s the status quo, eh! But why is it okay for someone - who has no in-depth knowledge of a product or the condition it is meant to treat - to sell a product to thousands and millions of people, and also give advice to their followers and have it accepted as fact. 

(For instance: Insta-famous make-up  “artists” tend to have terrible acne and often push make-up and skincare products. If their skin is in such bad shape despite the resources (free products! spas! oo la la!) they receive, why do people still want to buy products that these acne-ridden influencers swear by and which likely contribute to their bad skin in the first place?)

Why do we even trust these internet-famous randos so much?

Don’t you think it’s time we took a step back and asked ourselves:

1. How does this person use the product? 

One influencer (who stresses her mane with daily shampoo+conditioner washes and heat styling) advertised leave-in conditioner yet washes it off daily because of a self-identified ‘oily scalp’. If she does not use the product as the general public would, how can she give a relevant/safe review of the product? 

2. How frequently has this person used the product? 

Networking influencers receive PR boxes. Lots of PR boxes. However, skin and hair care, unlike makeup and fashion, often require long-term use for results. Similarly, they require regular use for someone to identify negative side effects too (Eg. terrible buildup from the leave-in conditioner). You can’t provide an accurate and ethical opinion of the product if you hardly use the product.

3. Does this person still use the product?

Products are often pushed as amazing or a holy grail item. But if someone was advertising a brand last week and, this week, advertises another brand to treat the same thing, it brings us back to questions 1 and 2.

So, what can we do? Unfollow, duh!

By unfollowing, you stop contributing to their engagement stats which they use as currency to push more sponsored products, so you’re not directly contributing to their ability to push products willy nilly. At the same time, it’s best practice to be as free with unfollows (so as to keep your digital space fresh and relevant) as you are with follows.

A very happy byproduct of unfollowing such influencers is that your feed now has space for content that will bring you joy instead of #ads, sponsored post, #ads.