• About
  • Consulting
  • Coaching
  • Trend Reports
  • Speaking
  • Blog
  • Podcast
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Case Studies
  • Was Target lucky–or strategic–with its Troll posts?
Monday, August 17, 2015 / Published in Case Studies, Online marketing strategy

Was Target lucky–or strategic–with its Troll posts?

ICYMI, last week, Target was at it again: Back in the news feed.

This time, they were taking some heat for its decision to label toys in a more gender-neutral way. That is, until Mike Melgaard started chirping in. This AdWeek post tells the full story. In short, Melgaard was “trolling” Target–but only for a short time (when it was put to a stop, apparently).

One day later, Target made the following post on Facebook:

Target FB Trolls

Brilliant, right?

Here’s Target, a Fortune 100 company, having a little fun with itself, acknowledging a huge issue it had on the internet just 24 hours ago!

New social media real-time marketing case study!

Except, maybe it wasn’t so savvy and skillful.

Maybe it was just luck.

As Danny Olson of Weber Shandwick fame, aptly pointed out in a Facebook posts where I had shared the AdWeek article, Target had been promoting the trolls for several days before the Melgaard incident. In fact, they had made several posts on Twitter and Instagram earlier in the week:

Target IG Trolls 2

 

Target Twitter Trolls 2

Meanwhile, everyone (again, including AdWeek–and myself, I might add), was lauding them for their smart move.

But, was it really smart, or was it just serendipitious timing?

Most likely, it was the latter.

But here’s my position. Let’s say this troll content was planned out months in advance. Let’s say it had been in their editorial calendar for more than a couple weeks.

Then, Melgaard happens earlier in the week (Sun-Mon, from what I can tell). The troll content is just staring at them in the edit calendar. Posts for Tues-Thurs. this week. Do they take the posts down, eliminating all risk of continuing the troll-like behavior they were seeing on Facebook (and effectively keeping the story in the news feed)? Or, do they keep the posts up and have a little fun with this? Almost a nod to Melgaard’s trolling attempts?

They could have easily done the former. I would argue many brands would have taken that stance. And, I probably wouldn’t have faulted them for it. Risk mitigation 101. Not always the best course, but limiting risk for a big company like Target sometimes wins the conversation.

But, they didn’t do that. They kept it up. And, I think they should be applauded for that–just a bit. Look, I’m not ready to crown them king of social media, but a tip of the cap, I think is well within the bounds of what’s allowed here.

So, did Target get lucky or were they strategic with their troll posts last week? I think it was a little bit of both.

 

 

 

  • Tweet
Tagged under: target social media, Target social media case study

What you can read next

Working in PR for Klout: An interview with Lynn Fox
8 digital strategies to tell your CSR story more effectively
Why Seinfeld’s “do the opposite” theory is perfect for social media

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

Subscribe to Talking Points

Talking Points

Hire Arik

Contact

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

ach-sidebar-work-with-arik

Book Arik to Speak

Contact

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

ach-sidebar-book-arik

Contact Arik

arik@arikhanson.com
612.875.2979

TOP

Sign up for the Talking Points e-newsletter

Get local jobs, events and PR, comms and social media news and info delivered straight to your inbox each Friday

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time
Thanks for subscribing!