Two days ago, I happened upon the YouTube video FedEx Guy Throwing My Computer Monitor. Just :21 seconds long, the video is shot from the package owner’s CCTV camera located at his front door. View the video here:

In the scene you see a FedEx Express van driver exit his van with a box that is clearly marked as a flat screen computer monitor both in text and pictures. The delivery man doesn’t ring the doorbell at the gated home or even place it outside the gate. He walks to the gate and heartily chucks the delicate monitor over the fence, turns and walks away. He looks back a second time as if to signal a regret or to see whether someone saw him. The video was posted by the YouTuber (and FedEx customer) goobie55, an apparent flight video enthusiast on 12/19/11 and as of this post the video has received 5.7 million views on YouTube. That’s going viral in a big way with one of the biggest brands in express delivery’s logo all over it.

If you’re a Fortune 100 company how do you manage a customer service complaint lodged via a YouTube viral video sensation? FedEx decided they would respond via their FedEx YouTube channel with hopes it would go viral as well. Since it’s posting on 12/21/11 the FedEx response has received 300,994 views.  FedEx prepared the following video response to the incident sensation:

From a PR perspective, more importantly a social media savvy PR perspective, FedEx missed the mark on their response just a touch because their approach was “out of voice” for the social media channel. Here are some observations on what was done wrong and could have been done better:

Where is Frederick W. Smith, CEO of FedEx? 

Matthew Thornton, III, SVP of FedEx Express US Operations delivers the apology and corporate video. I’m sure somewhere in Corporate Communications at FedEx a decision was made that from a corporate perspective Mr. Thornton’s title and responsibility made him the man for the job. That’s fair corporate reasoning. But this is YouTube and the mistake was that social media is a great equalizer and by delegating this to Mr. Thornton it seems as if it’s not as important for the CEO to address this. We understand the empowered executive scenario from the top, but that seems like jargon. What we all know even better is an experience where we heard a thud and the doorbell ring, opening the door and seeing the heels of a delivery man speeding off to next location. Ideally, film the CEO looking sincerely into the camera (lose the tie) briefly apologizing for these actions. The big title of Mr. Thornton on the lower third is impressive, but it’s not CEO. This isn’t a slight to Mr. Thornton he did the best he could with what he was given.

What does “the customer is satisfied” mean?

How much would it have hurt to be specific and say, “…we’ve paid to replace the monitor that was damaged due to the incident” (negligence of one of our employees)? Call it PR nirvana but can we have the CEO on camera with the customer? No? Ok, then can we have the customer on camera saying what FedEx has done to make them whole and how satisfied they are and then cut to Mr. Thornton? It would be so much more powerful to hear and see the mysterious dissatisfied customer that posted the video say they were made whole and they appreciate FedEx doing the right thing. That’s PR gold!

Was legal on set? Dare to speak plainly.

The tone of the copy seems careful with necessary ambiguity not describing whether the employee was terminated. I don’t know the legal ramifications but if you can say you’ve fired him, then say it. Saying he is not working with customers doesn’t make me feel better. I envision him angry in a FedEx warehouse kicking one of many packages with resentment YouTube was ever created. I’m sure Privacy laws and HR concerns prohibit FedEx from saying some of these things but I would have challenged them that now was the time to go hard with a statement like, “He is no longer with our company as he clearly doesn’t share our values.”

Hello SEO! Who Tagged FedEx’s Video?

Tagging a video correctly with relevant tags is an important part of having content found. The customer’s video is succinctly tagged with four terms as “FedEx” “Throwing” “Computer” “Monitor”. As a result when you do a YouTube or Google search for “FedEx Throwing Monitor” it comes right up.  At the time of this post, the FedEx’s video is astonishingly tagged with only two terms “FedEx” and wait for it… “Video”. This is a head scratcher and proves that FedEx has some people executing social media that either don’t understand it, or don’t care to do it the right way. If you want this response to be seen with the original 5.7 million hit in search results you need to tag it similarly. It may hurt FedEx to tag “throwing” and “computer” in a video on the corporate YouTube channel, but it will deliver desired results quicker.

YouTube and social media are powerful mediums to reach people but there’s a formula and rules that aren’t governed by Corporate Communications Audio/Video departments. More and more I’ve seen corporations respond to operational challenges and changes via messages from the top.  In 2011 we saw videos from top leadership at Sony, Netflix and BlackBerry describing or decrypting what’s happening with their organizations.  Some were done well, others weren’t.

To be balanced, FedEx did a lot right with this response. They responded quickly. They responded on YouTube the turf where the complaint was lodged. They made it right with the customer. They acknowledged that it was wrong. They conveyed their corporate mission. I just wish they had done a few more things to show they are speaking as a member of the social media community, not to it. Then the FedEx response doesn’t feel like a talking to in the principals office. It feels like an apology from a neighbor or friend.

What do you think about corporate issued apologies or responses on YouTube videos?

Should the FedEx’s CEO have responded?