How NOT to Do a Promoted Twitter Campaign

Blackfish_Dogwoof_Documentary_7_1600_900_85

San Diego theme park SeaWorld recently suffered a great deal of negative press thanks to Blackfish, a documentary investigating the deaths of several trainers at the hands… er, fins of an allegedly mistreated orca. I am not here to defend or contradict the sentiments of the filmmakers. You can check out the documentary yourself if you’d like to form an opinion (turn on CNN and there’s an 80% chance that it’s on right now). I am here solely to discuss SeaWorld’s response to the film and how it serves as an object lesson of how NOT to use social media when dealing with controversy.

I am not suggesting that SeaWorld should have ignored Blackfish. It’s not like the film was just going to go away (again, turn on CNN — I’ll bet you $100 worth of Bed Bath and Beyond coupons that it’s on right now). But they definitely should’ve consulted with someone, ANYONE, before launching this poorly-thought-out sponsored Twitter campaign.


Yes, that’s right, they called Blackfish “propaganda.” This is a film with a 98% Fresh Tomatometer rating. Not only was it a modest success at the box office, it was dinner table discussion for months. Whether SeaWorld likes it or not, Blackfish is already part of the zeitgeist. And by likening the filmmakers to Joseph Goebbels, SeaWorld was insulting anyone who thought the film warranted serious discussion – which was, apparently, a great deal of people.

So how did the internet-at-large respond to this inflammatory claim being shoved down their virtual throats, i.e. at the top of their Twitter feeds? Unsurprisingly, with a great deal of snark and contempt.





Writer Alan Spencer, creator of the brilliant TV shows Sledgehammer and Bullet In the Face, responded with a slew of hilarious tweets such as this one.


And full disclosure, I also got in on the action:


Granted, I was doing it for comedy reasons. But also because I found the idea of calling Blackfish “propaganda” ludicrous. Disagree with the filmmakers’ conclusions if you like, discredit their sources and question their editorial process if you can, but hyperbolically calling the film something it’s not comes off as unreasonably defensive. To paraphrase the Bard, methinks the theme park doth protest too much.

Say what you will about British Petroleum, but their response to the Gulf oil spill was smart. They took responsibility, focused on the work they were doing to solve the problem and later, shed light on their positive contributions to the Gulf. Sure, they killed a million sea creatures, but at least they took a positive spin with their PR battle plan instead of trying to blame the fish.

But the larger lesson here is, know how the internet works. A tweet going viral for the wrong reasons — such as this one — does a lot more damage than damage control.

  • Spinner123

    Without having actually seen the movie, I’m not about to take ANYTHING PETA promotes at face value. I’ve read about how they treat the animals in their care (the euthanize up to 96% of animals in their shelters) and have seen how they jump on any potentially headline grabbing issue to fill their coffers without actually committing to DO anything except make a lot of noise and rake in the dough from uneducated supporters. Their campaign against the carriage horses in New York City is full of exaggerations, innuendo, and downright lies about the condition of the horses and how they are treated. If that’s how they present other issues, PETA can take Blackfish and go jump in a lake.

Get fresh online marketing ideas.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Get fresh online marketing ideas. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter