Should Brands Remove Negative Reviews?

This is a case we recently came across that we thought was worth documenting to illustrate how managing negative user reviews badly can attract many more negative comments, over a much longer period, resulting in lasting brand damage.

Overview:
Rotolight, a manufacturer of LED lighting systems for film, had an independent video review of three different lights by Den Lennie, founder of F-Stop Academy, removed from Vimeo, citing copyright infringement.

Den publicly challenged Rotolight regarding the removal of the video, ‘Kino Flo Celeb vs Rotolight Anova side by side test’ on both Facebook and Twitter, resulting in a wave of support from the filmmaking community that flooded Rotolight’s social media feeds with negative comments.

The Challenge:
In February 2013, Den Lennie, an established authority in the film industry and owner of film workshop company F-Stop Academy, posted the following independent review of three lights, which portrayed the Rotolight Anova negatively in comparison to the other lights.

from on .

The approach:

1. In July 2013, Rotolight had Vimeo remove the review, citing a DCMA and copyright infringement. Den Lennie publicly requested more details around this removal on his and . Rotolight dropped copyright infringement claims and accused Den Lennie of violating trademark laws.
2. In early August, the video was reinstated on Vimeo after Rotolight’s claims were unfounded. Rotolight blamed incorrect external advice.
3. Rotolight publicly claimed on Denni Lennie’s Facebook Page that the light was in perfect working order, but that he didn’t test it properly.
4. Den Lennie accepts Rotolight’s apology that there was a ‘minor human error’ with the calibration and agrees to retest the light, using new equipment provided by Rotolight.

The result:

1. Views of Den Lennie’s review video leapt from 150 between February 2013 and July 2013 to 5,581 as of 15th August.
2. US lawyers heard about the story and offered Den Lennie free legal advice.
3. In less than two weeks, the video reached 150 countries (with most exposure in the UK, US, Canada and Germany), solely fuelled by social media.
4. The video has been embedded on 95 other websites.
5. Over 99% positive community support for Den Lennie shared on public social media platforms.

Key lessons learned:

1. Removing negative video content without notifying the user first can lead to huge negative publicity. Ensure violation claims are researched first.
2. Be prepared to back up bold claims and back down when necessary. Quality assurance of each and every one of your products is vital and if there is a fault, humbly admit it; consumers will respect that.
3. Social media moves quickly and if situations like this aren’t handled appropriately, one negative review of a product can easily grow into negative publicity that affects the whole brand.

Rotolight has offered Den Lennie a new Rotolight Anova which Den will retest independently, alongside other brands of lighting. The results are expected to be published at the end of August 2013.

Sources:
Rotolight Official Statement


Den Lennie’s F-Stop Academy blog

Please note: neither Den Lennie, nor Rotolight, are clients of Tempero. This is an independent case study of the main events, based on gathered information found online and an informal conversation with Den Lennie. Rotolight refused to comment.

Don’t make the same mistake that Rotolight did. View our guide on how brands can best deal with negative press.