You've probably heard of this organisation. But if you haven't, and you've been living under a rock, that is completely a-okay, I will fill you in. In 2013, this restaurant was featured on the popular Tv Show, Kitchen Nightmares, you know the show with crazy Gordon Ramsey? This couple actually caused Ramsey to walk off set, which is saying something given Ramsey's resilient, tough and somewhat scary persona. To set the context for you even deeper, Amy and Samy Bouzaglo are the owners of this Bakery and Bistro. After this episode was aired, an extreme outpour of criticism was released from fans and viewers onto the restaurant's Facebook page, as well as social sites such as Reddit and Yelp. These comments focused on the horrible and completely unethical way the couple treated and continue to treat their employees and customers. Now, it's important to note that this couple then went onto Dr. Phil (I actually watched this! I laughed. I'm a bad person, I know) to explain that it was just a TV show and they were acting to make their presence more aware (no such thing as bad publicity, right?). However, from the response that these business owners gave to the comments made on their social media page, it appears that they were, in fact, not acting at all.
I must admit I have never watched the show nor this series, but the reasons I was so engaged with this story are as follows:
1. I've been waitressing in a restaurant for five years
2. The unethical social media meltdown witnessed from these business owners made me grab my popcorn
If you so desire to take a look at the unethical social space that I am referring to before you continue to read this post, please have a quick look at their Facebook Page. It's worth it, I promise. But now, onto the serious stuff.
The misuse of Social Technology
It is common sense to know how to treat your customers, no matter what industry one is in or what enterprise one is involved. Whether you are in retail, hospitality or construction, one MUST be ethical - reputation is an extremely important thing. The same applies when using social technologies. As most organisations use it as a platform to connecting and engaging with current and potential customers, the same correct, ethical and responsible behaviour needs to be conducted. Again, it's just plain common sense.
Delving deeper now though, I would like to focus on Rogerson's 8 Ethical Principles (Figure 1, Pg. 3) to unpack this organisations misuse of Social Technology and the consequence it has had on the individuals and the organisation.
The 8 Ethical Principles are:
1. Honour
2. Honesty
3. Bias
4. Professional Adequacy
5. Due Care
6. Fairness
7. Consideration of Social Cost
8. Effective and Efficient Action
These principles are meant to be put in place prior to an organisation taking an action. It is evident with this case study, however, that these principles were not taken into consideration. Below are examples of the unethical actions made by the owners taken from their Facebook Page. Just a courteous warning, there is explicit language involved:
There's more. But let's just leave it at that, I think you get the idea!
Consequences
Consequences
Back to the principles, which once analysed, will give you a sound view into the consequences that this unethical practice caused.
Information Ethics, as defined in Rogerson's paper, A Practical Perspective of Information Ethics, is "...the analysis of the nature and social impact of computer technology and the corresponding formulation and justification of policies for the ethical use of such technology" (pg. 1). Note the "analysis of the nature and social impact..." part. Rogerson states that "to be ethical, an action should elicit a positive response..." which is why these principles should be applied as a framework, and which were not present in this case study.
Referring to the 8 principles mentioned and their link to this case study:
1 & 2. Honour and Honesty - Focuses on whether the action is considered beyond reproach and whether the action violates trust, respectively.
The unethical use of the social platform of Facebook from the organisation has diminished what trust was already present, if not destroyed it, and has also taken away the chances of trust being gained back from past or future customers. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to bounce back from such an action and event, particularly because it is now a world wide story. These points lead back to reputation, which was mentioned earlier. The once successful reputation of the organisation has completely been turned upside down, a massive consequence associated with the misuse of social technology.
Skipping 3, 4 and 5, as these principles are not pertinent and heavily focuses on before the action is taken.
6. Fairness - considerations of stakeholders
Not only didl the organisation suffer internally, with staff leaving and perhaps even providing negative comments also, but it is safe to say that any stakeholders involved with this organisation may no longer what to be involved and connected with the enterprise. Again, the statement of no such thing as bad publicity can come into play, though for me, I certainly wouldn't want to put my investment into a company that has a highly negative aura, particularly when the criticism is still being poured out even more than a year on, indicating the severity of these unethical actions.
7. Consideration of Social Cost - accepting responsibility for the action, will it violate or harm anyone?
After the show aired, the business owners had a chance to accept responsibility for their initial on-air actions, and try repair the damage made. However, by then using social technology in a negative way and not for accepting responsibility, the organisation's physical and online reputation was severely harmed even further. The social cost of the actions were not taken into consideration, and the consequence of this? Loss of customers, followers, income, staff, reputation and control. Furthermore, social technology is an effective tool to be used to boost organisations in many ways as mentioned in previous blogs, but if misused, can cause harm, as seen from this case study - even if deleted from the Facebook page, the comments will remain on the web and continue to spread via other social technologies.
8. Effective and Efficient action - is the action suitable given the objectives set?
For an organisation wanting to engage with customers, gain a wider online presence, as well as gain more awareness of their products and services, social technologies are a great platform to go through, and you can read more about this aspect in my previous blogs! Though these objectives cannot be reached if the social platform isn't used effectively or efficiently. By using unethical practices, the owners have created a problem space online, and with the possibilities of the web, the consequences can definitely evolve - take Reddit as an example, as soon as this story was posted through this source, it escalated insanely fast, and still continues to do so. Refer back to the Facebook Page, and check comments on posts, posts made to the wall, and comments on photos. The consequence's are evident everywhere, and by checking the time the comments were made, you will be able to see the negative impact the unethical posts still continue to make.
Avoiding such a misuse in the future
Unfortunately for this organisation, the reputation of the organisation and the individuals cannot be regained. The unethical practices cannot be taken back, and the consequences cannot be mend. Though for other organisations, common sense will definitely help, though following Rogerson's 8 Ethical Principles before undertaking an action, whether it be via Social Technology or not, will ultimately ensure a safe outcome, positive benefits and aid the organisation in avoiding such a conundrum as seen in this case. Integrating this secure framework as a foundation is the go!
I hope you enjoyed my final post! Please leave a comment! And if you'd like, maybe you can answer the question "Is there such thing as bad publicity?". I'd love to know your perspective! And also go check out Andrew Matchett's post on this case study. It's a great read and really helps put the unethical impact into perspective!
It's been a pleasure, guys! Thank you for following me on this new blogging journey!
Once more, I can be reached on any of the following Social technologies:
Ashley out.
Information Ethics, as defined in Rogerson's paper, A Practical Perspective of Information Ethics, is "...the analysis of the nature and social impact of computer technology and the corresponding formulation and justification of policies for the ethical use of such technology" (pg. 1). Note the "analysis of the nature and social impact..." part. Rogerson states that "to be ethical, an action should elicit a positive response..." which is why these principles should be applied as a framework, and which were not present in this case study.
Referring to the 8 principles mentioned and their link to this case study:
1 & 2. Honour and Honesty - Focuses on whether the action is considered beyond reproach and whether the action violates trust, respectively.
The unethical use of the social platform of Facebook from the organisation has diminished what trust was already present, if not destroyed it, and has also taken away the chances of trust being gained back from past or future customers. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to bounce back from such an action and event, particularly because it is now a world wide story. These points lead back to reputation, which was mentioned earlier. The once successful reputation of the organisation has completely been turned upside down, a massive consequence associated with the misuse of social technology.
Skipping 3, 4 and 5, as these principles are not pertinent and heavily focuses on before the action is taken.
6. Fairness - considerations of stakeholders
Not only didl the organisation suffer internally, with staff leaving and perhaps even providing negative comments also, but it is safe to say that any stakeholders involved with this organisation may no longer what to be involved and connected with the enterprise. Again, the statement of no such thing as bad publicity can come into play, though for me, I certainly wouldn't want to put my investment into a company that has a highly negative aura, particularly when the criticism is still being poured out even more than a year on, indicating the severity of these unethical actions.
7. Consideration of Social Cost - accepting responsibility for the action, will it violate or harm anyone?
After the show aired, the business owners had a chance to accept responsibility for their initial on-air actions, and try repair the damage made. However, by then using social technology in a negative way and not for accepting responsibility, the organisation's physical and online reputation was severely harmed even further. The social cost of the actions were not taken into consideration, and the consequence of this? Loss of customers, followers, income, staff, reputation and control. Furthermore, social technology is an effective tool to be used to boost organisations in many ways as mentioned in previous blogs, but if misused, can cause harm, as seen from this case study - even if deleted from the Facebook page, the comments will remain on the web and continue to spread via other social technologies.
8. Effective and Efficient action - is the action suitable given the objectives set?
For an organisation wanting to engage with customers, gain a wider online presence, as well as gain more awareness of their products and services, social technologies are a great platform to go through, and you can read more about this aspect in my previous blogs! Though these objectives cannot be reached if the social platform isn't used effectively or efficiently. By using unethical practices, the owners have created a problem space online, and with the possibilities of the web, the consequences can definitely evolve - take Reddit as an example, as soon as this story was posted through this source, it escalated insanely fast, and still continues to do so. Refer back to the Facebook Page, and check comments on posts, posts made to the wall, and comments on photos. The consequence's are evident everywhere, and by checking the time the comments were made, you will be able to see the negative impact the unethical posts still continue to make.
Avoiding such a misuse in the future
Unfortunately for this organisation, the reputation of the organisation and the individuals cannot be regained. The unethical practices cannot be taken back, and the consequences cannot be mend. Though for other organisations, common sense will definitely help, though following Rogerson's 8 Ethical Principles before undertaking an action, whether it be via Social Technology or not, will ultimately ensure a safe outcome, positive benefits and aid the organisation in avoiding such a conundrum as seen in this case. Integrating this secure framework as a foundation is the go!
I hope you enjoyed my final post! Please leave a comment! And if you'd like, maybe you can answer the question "Is there such thing as bad publicity?". I'd love to know your perspective! And also go check out Andrew Matchett's post on this case study. It's a great read and really helps put the unethical impact into perspective!
It's been a pleasure, guys! Thank you for following me on this new blogging journey!
Once more, I can be reached on any of the following Social technologies:
Ashley out.
