Commentary
Social Media Doesn't Matter When Your Boss Sucks
- by Erik Sass , Staff Writer @eriksass1, April 6, 2011
I've said it before, and now the GoDaddy debacle gives occasion to say it again. Social media is great, but even the most innovative social media strategy is futile when your company's top management is stupid, malicious, or both.
I have absolutely no idea why GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons thought it was a good idea to post video of his elephant hunt in Zimbabwe on Twitter. Maybe he figured "there's no such thing as bad publicity." His public appearances do tend to have a blustery feel to them. But wow, what a catastrophically bad idea: people love these large, intelligent mammals, which are cute (from a safe distance), especially when the baby elephant holds the mother elephant's tail etc. So by all means, Bob, go ahead and post a video of you shooting a beloved animal that is, frankly, probably worth more than you from the perspective of biological diversity.
Of course, public figures can sometimes get away with doing something stupid or insensitive, provided they're already well-liked: typically you just apologize abundantly, give some money to some charitable concern, and then retreat from the public eye until everyone forgets. But Parsons hadn't exactly accumulated a large store of popular goodwill to draw on: before this his company was known to the public chiefly for its stupid TV ads, whose most salient characteristic was that they were degrading to women. Then, he shoots Babar. I believe two words neatly sum up this sequence of events: PR FAIL.
To give both sides of the story, Parsons did offer a rather thin rationale to offer for shooting an elephant: it was a "rogue" elephant, you see, which had trampled local villagers' crops and thus had it coming, presumably with some kind of official government sanction. However this is dubious at best, since it took place in Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe's bankrupt regime would gladly sell a rich foreigner the right to shoot an elephant in exchange for some hard currency. The whole thing is very shady, and people on Twitter weren't buying it.
Even if the whole thing had been above board -- a legitimate culling of a dangerous elephant, which does happen -- I'm still mystified by the decision to post it online. I have a lot of hunters in my family (mostly shootin' ducks'n'deer) and I respect the skill involved, as well as the ethos of killing what you eat. But hunting small game stateside is quite different from hunting endangered species in Africa.
The most remarkable part is that Parsons refuses to back down, even as competitors swooped in to pick up disgruntled GoDaddy customers. I understand why he isn't backing down: as one might expect of someone who likes shooting elephants, he is too proud to admit that he made a mistake, even when it threatens his business. In conclusion: what an idiot.
Erik Sass is editor of Publishers Daily. You can reach Erik at eriksass@gmail.com.
Social Media, the Elephant in the room, literally.
And who believes it is a rogue elephant when he is posing next to it? Yes, an idiot.
Based on his past and present actions, he deserves to be ostracized - from the world. What a monumental disgrace, in every sense of the word. CEO narcissism strikes again.
Shooting a defenseless, slow moving animal sure takes a lot of skill and courage there Bob. A "rouge" elephant? Maybe if man wasn't encroaching on their habitat there wouldn't be an issue with the elephant trampling crops.
Parsons refusing to back down is not something we haven't seen before. The President of Tunisia refused to quit until he was forced out. Ditto Mubarak of Egypt and of course Mr Jokester himself, Gaddafy.
Granted Parsons is not on the same level as these other goons but that's usually the case with people who either have power or plenty of money and when stripped of that, then you get to see how humble they become.
Let's what happens as disgruntled customers leave in droves. I bet you an apology will be swift and like you said, a donation towards some cause will be made (but we all know that's tax deductible so it's still a win-win situation for him).
Anyhow, how many "normal" people do we know who wear letters like CEO, CFO, etc.? Perhaps they should be declared rouge?
It seems that some of my client's sites that are hosted on GoDaddy.com are running much slower (if loading at all) right now. Coincidence? Maybe... or maybe someone hacked in retaliation. Us customers cannot have the liability of a CEO acting this way. Too risky for our small businesses.
While I'd agree on the elephant shooting being bad PR and a mistaken expression of what it means to be "conservative" in America today, the market of male geeks he's after would definitely appreciate the anti-feminist aspect of showing the attractive women in ads, retro style. He wouldn't lose male customers for that. His market dislikes political correctness. But geeks actually buy based on performance and specs.
A real critique of Parsons as a CEO would be that he has too many clueless VPs (it's top heavy there). He needs to cull his management team and find competent, forward looking people who aren't resting on the idea that men who appreciate the women in the ads will buy services for that reason (or because his services are the cheapest).
Defenseless? Hardly - more people are killed by elephants each year than shark attacks. But I digress - the issue here is Godaddy is cheap. I was about to switch my 16 domains after seeing this article, but it's cheaper to sit tight with my current registration(s). As they come up for renewal, I will look elsewhere, however. Oh yeh, the ads are sexist too, but what are you going to do?
In the interest of factual commentary, Mr. Parsons was not "hunting endangered species in Africa." Elephants are not endangered. In fact, in many countries their populations have outgrown the carrying capacity of their habitat BECAUSE their herds have been so well protected by the respective tribes from poachers. Tribes make a LOT of money by selling elephant hunts, money that helps them sustain their existence. And after the animal is killed, they literally harvest the beast from tusk to tail to feed and provide sustenance for their tribe. Do your research.
Bash his business practices (say what you will about his Superbowl ads but all of you are still talking about them~measure THAT free media) and bash his use of the medium as harmful to the GoDaddy.com brand if you will, but get off the emotional trip about 'shooting a defenseless, slow moving animal'.
@Jerry: except for the comment about "a mistaken expression of what it means to be "conservative" in America today" (conjecture and unsupported, surely up for dispute with the millions of liberals who hunt to put meat in their family freezers every year), I agree with you.
@Darrin: thanks for pointing out the elephant/shark kill ratio. It's simply amazing that people have this image of them as these sweet, kind, touching creatures. They literally kill recklessly in Africa on a daily basis (see prior comment about over-populating their habitat)
Respectfully submitted :)
No, not really: YOU should do your research. Yes, it's true that wildlife management policies can return elephant populations to natural levels -- meaning, levels which can be sustained by the species in equilibrium with its environment, presuming little human interference -- and they have in fact succeeded in doing this in countries across Africa. But Zimbabwe is NOT one of those countries. Where other African countries with large elephant populations submit to semi-regular aerial audits by helicopters, Zimbabwe hasn't submitted to an aerial audit since 2000. Currently the government of Zimbabwe estimates the elephant population at 100,000+... but conservationist groups (admittedly operating with limited data) put it at less than 50,000. The fact is we just don't know, even to the limited extent that aerial surveys allow. And that's the whole point: the reason there have been no audits, and the population estimates are based on conjecture, is because -- as pretty much everyone acknowledges -- the country is run by an evil, venal, totally corrupt dictator. Doesn't that cast the least bit of suspicion on the whole affair, in especially if you are concede that the regime is desperate for foreign currency?
BTW, African elephants are still classified as "endangered" under the the U.S. Endangered Species Act as well as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. They are also classified as either "endangered" or "threatened" in most African countries under the Convention for International Trade of Endangered Species. The in-country classifications are open to argument because elephants are migratory animals which cross national borders, making it harder to measure populations -- especially when some countries don't agree to aerial surveys.
Parsons is as corrupt as Zimbabwe. He should be treated as such, a dictator who is a thief and a murderer. Other countries also have a one time put your gun down for those killing animals or your dead. The people know that the animals keeps tourism as well and tourism is literally their life. If anyone doubts it, they need to go to Kenya, Tanzania, Swaziland, Botswana (the most prosperous country on the continent and the least corrupt) and South Africa, spend some time at the conservation lodges, do game rides with their camera and speak with the guides and people. Afterall, some people still believe the sun revolves around the earth.