NextBigWhat has a guest post on what Amul has done to a customer’s post on Facebook when they responded to it, in turn alleging that her intentions are ‘malafide’ (now edited out by Amul). I don’t quite understand the significance of the ‘missing globe’ (though it is a good observation) since the rest of the text holds up as-is, from the customer’s post.

But here are two things still missing the in the story.

Amul’s response on Facebook had a line that they removed later, but since the original was reproduced by many people, including Social Samosa (and another word-for-word cut-copy-paste reproduction of the original post by Amul), that line stays there. Or, even better – simply go to Amul’s response, and see the ‘edit history’ that opens up when you click the word, ‘Edited’!

The line, “This clearly reflects that she has malafide intentions” (last but one line in 2nd last para from the end) is missing in Amul’s edited response. Did Amul’s legal team ask them to ‘tone things down’ and not counter-allege something against a customer? Blaming the customer and alleging malafide intentions without being absolutely sure about it, that too in the public space is a very dangerous tactic!

The 2nd missing element. Here’s another intriguing line from Amul’s reponse (this has been edited too, by the way!)

It may be also noted that the consumer has been misusing her office to publicize this story on Amul. We hope that she has informed her office regarding the same as we shall hold her office too responsible for her actions.

This was eventually edited to,

We do not understand that why the consumer used her official position to make such complaint without knowing the fact.

Have you wondered what this ‘official position’ deal is? Just search for Neha Tomar on Facebook and find the correct person (these are free to all – I’m not breaking any privacy rules here). She happens to be, “Senior Legal Officer at Public Health Foundation of India

That explains Amul’s panicky reaction, does it? And the eventual goof-up, editing etc.? In the end, I don’t think Amul acted all that smartly in this case at all. It was knee-jerk reaction to stem the negativity and divert it to Amul’s position. They had a good position to hold on to, but they perhaps framed it with so much personal animosity towards the client that it ended up looking more personal than an official stand.

The customer is now, understandably, flustered!

neha

Comments

comments