In the November 2014 issue of Wired magazine, Clive Thompson discusses the link between critical or negative Tweets and posts and their likelihood of being retweeted, shared, or otherwise disseminated (http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/). Thompson observes, “When I post an acerbic or cranky tweet, it gets recirculated far more widely than do my cheerier notes” (50). Through the idea of “hypercriticism”, Thompson claims readers view critical or negative comments or reviews to be intellectually superior, and thus are given greater credence. His article references a pair of studies which appear to confirm this observation, the second of which (conducted by Brian Gibson of Central Michigan University) also indicates we turn to negativity when we try to impress people or show our intelligence.

What does this mean for social media marketing? A number of things, which good marketers should consider.

First, Thompson’s article indicates negative comments will circulate more quickly and more readily than positive comments. This suggests that the information to which a casual consumer is most likely to be exposed will be negative. Monitoring your corporate identity in social media and having an active presence that engages with the on-line community is one manner to address potentially damaging comments before they spin beyond the company’s ability to engage and control. Even then, the virtual world can disseminate information with a rapidity beyond any organization’s ability to control. In this case, the company’s best strategies are to engage the comment and issue damage control. Recently, Cabella’s (an outdoor sporting goods company) made news in Edmonton, AB because the manager turned away a group of Cadets selling poppies in support of Canadian Veterans’ Groups in advance of Remembrance Day. The story reported in Canadian news agencies triggered a firestorm of negative criticism and was repeated across social media platforms. In response, Cabella’s president of Canadian Operations released a statement explaining the incident as a “misunderstanding”, and provided a $10,000 donation to the Royal Canadian Legion’s Poppy Fund. To communicate its message, Cabela’s took to social media and made their statement on Facebook. The response comments to Cabela’s apology still reflect the venom felt from the initial incident, many posters still requesting disciplinary action including firing or various forms of public shaming for the manager involved in the incident. The apology was shared 3,000 times as of Nov. 9, whereas the original story from the Edmonton Sun was shared 56,000 times and reached a much broader audience. As Douglas Adams wrote, “Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws”. It seems that special law is social media.

Second, those who want to develop reputations as influencers on social media would be well served to focus on critical posts and reviews. As the Cabela’s example shows, people respond to negativity and critical posts. It seems apparent that the fastest way to have one’s posts retweeted and shared is to be critical. Further to this, the studies cited in Thompson’s article indicate we tend to view negative, critical, or mean posts as being more intelligent than positive posters. Neither study explains why we feel this way, but the results are significant. Perhaps society has become skeptical of effusive support posts, suspecting unabashed product-honks of being corporate shills, or unenlightened neophytes enthralled by any shiny object crossing their paths. The cynical comment may trigger feelings of investment – this poster must have taken the time to learn something about this product, or have some expert knowledge better qualifying them to evaluate trends, ideas, products, or anything else they post.

Be cautious, would be influencers! Before rushing out to lambaste everything around you, note that Theresa Amabile’s (director of research for Harvard Business School) study indicated even though we may view the poster as more intelligent, and the post is more likely to be shared, readers tended to view the poster as “less warm and more cruel, not as nice” (50).

Thompson’s article, though not explaining why we so readily share acerbic comments and critical posts, may give us context on why we accept the content of the posts more readily than we do Oprah’s effusive, “Amazing!”s.