On the recommendation of a good acquaintance, Anton Vert, I read Timur Aslanov’s book I Know What to Tell Them. In the blurb, the author promises to explain how to deal with negative comments about you, your company, and your products online. To do this, he introduces the concepts of the “Light Knight” and the “Dark Knight.” The latter is ready to act tough, respond rudely, and wipe out comments he doesn’t like. However, the greatest benefit comes from the “Light Knight,” who constantly monitors his emotional intelligence and knows how to respond to the substance rather than the tone.
My direct work has never involved responding to user comments; more often I’ve been on the other side of the barricades — and I’ll admit that at times I can be overly emotional in voicing my criticisms. Still, I’ve always tried not to stoop to personal attacks or mudslinging just for the sake of it.
At the same time, I’m active on social media, I have my own blog, and sometimes my position or certain statements can provoke negativity — both from subscribers and from people who just happened to drop by. So I was curious what exactly Timur Aslanov might advise, especially after such a strong recommendation from someone I know.
All the more so because being able to handle negativity properly is, in fact, useful not only for those who actually deal with comments online. Because “reviews” like that can surround us in everyday life too — and even at work, in interpersonal relationships, when people in conversation simply cross personal or emotional boundaries. And the principles of how you respond are hardly any different from reacting to nasty comments. Though that’s already closer to managing people and conflicts — which is, in fact, part of my day-to-day work.
The book is very compact — just 208 pages in the print edition — and that’s one of its strengths: the author doesn’t ramble, but gives very concrete definitions and advice. Yes, at times he repeats himself a bit, but within reason, and he also writes in an easy style, not afraid to add a pinch of humor now and then.
The book is divided into several parts. In the first, Timur explains why it’s worth working with comments at all, including neutral ones, and how that affects reputation. And he gradually leads into his “Light Knight” ideology. Here he gives a good quote about modern realities:
Книга разбита на несколько частей. В первой Тимур объясняет, почему вообще стоит работать с комментариями, в том числе нейтральными, как это сказывается на репутации. И плавно подводит к своей идеологии “светлого рыцаря”. Здесь он приводит хорошую цитату по поводу современных реалий:
Chris Anderson, when he was the editor of the American technology magazine WIRED, once noted: “Your reputation is not what you say about yourself. Your reputation is what Google says about you.” These are true words.
The second part focuses on the basic rules of behavior online: how to recognize useful comments even beneath a flood of emotional — and sometimes outright rude — remarks; how to separate emotions from substance; how not to slip over to the dark side; and what tone of communication to choose. And this matters because you’re not responding privately to the person who criticized you — you’re doing it in full view of everyone:
For this reason, whenever you enter into any public dialogue, you — as the face and voice of the brand — find yourself on a stage, at a podium, in front of a wide audience. Your behavior online should first and foremost be grounded in an understanding of this principle.
I would add, for myself, that sometimes it’s not even that important whether the author of the original comment ends up satisfied — especially if they weren’t looking for a solution in the first place and just came to vent negativity. What matters more is how you come across to the entire audience, both your current clients and your potential ones. The protagonist of the film Thank You for Smoking put it very well:
— Joey: But you still didn’t prove that chocolate is better than vanilla.
— Nick: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong. And if you’re wrong, I’m right.
— Joey: But you didn’t convince me.
— Nick: I don’t have to convince you. I’m not after you. I’m after them. (gestures to the crowd)
That said, I’m not suggesting that responses should turn into empty wordplay.
After explaining why working with feedback matters and why it’s important to stay on the light side, the author moves on to specific examples of negative reviews and ways to respond to them. He covers situations where it’s better to stay silent and where it’s necessary to shut down a discussion. He also discusses who has the right to speak on behalf of the company and what skills they must have so they don’t make the situation even worse. In other words, it’s a kind of checklist that those responsible for working with clients shouldn’t forget to revisit.
At the end, the author gives brief definitions of professional “negativity merchants”: paid black PR operators, haters, and trolls. All of them can more or less be recognized, and each requires a slightly different approach. Ignoring them isn’t an option — they can cause irreparable damage — but stooping to their level isn’t either. In many cases, responding to such rude provocateurs can demonstrate to your audience your composure and your ability to work with clients.
To sum it up briefly, the book is genuinely useful and free of fluff.
But a few things rubbed me the wrong way while I was reading, which is why I lowered my final rating (even though I still recommend the book). I’ve listed those drawbacks separately.
First, when discussing tone of voice (that is, communication style), the author divides it into several types and describes them as “informal,” “cheeky,” and so on. And although later he gives examples of different combinations, it would have helped a lot to provide clear definitions for each of these types, because a single word isn’t enough to understand, for instance, how “cheeky” is supposed to differ from “rude.” And what exactly he means by an “informal style.”
Second, there are a couple of his “good” sample responses that I actually disagree with. Maybe it’s just my perception — but the author is clearly addressing a broad audience that will form its opinion about him as a company based on how well he responds in a “light” way. Here are the two examples.
First example: a customer wrote a review saying that the cheap T-shirt they ordered didn’t look like the picture in the online store. One of the recommended responses:
The picture online doesn’t always accurately convey colors — let alone quality. Yes, our T-shirts are fairly simple, but that’s precisely why they’re inexpensive. Not everyone can afford more expensive models, which is why our store offers a fairly wide range across all price categories.
If someone replied to me like that, I’d take it negatively — even as rude — as if they were publicly implying, in a veiled way, “If you can’t afford something expensive, that’s why we sell this simple cheap stuff.”
Second example: a client asks to be paid compensation, but the company can’t do that. The author suggests a more “lively” reply, specifically:
Sergey, we’re very sorry, but the head of claims at our retail chain absolutely refuses to make any concessions or discuss paying compensation. We understand how unpleasant this is, but unfortunately we weren’t able to convince him.
And although the reply does sound human, it irritated me. Because in that response we’re just as publicly blaming one of our own company’s directors — basically saying, “that guy just refuses to make concessions.” In my view, that’s a far more serious blow to the company’s reputation and its management than simply giving a dry response like, “we are unable to provide compensation.” I wouldn’t pat such a “responder” on the head.
Third, in a separate section Timur writes about how important it is to address a client by name — and how even more important it is not to make mistakes in that name (Natalia and Natalya are two different names; Danil and Daniil are different as well). At the same time, when discussing the Streisand effect, he repeatedly refers to the actress as Barbara, even though her name is actually Barbra (without the second “a” in the middle), and apparently she also gets annoyed when people misspell it. A classic case of the cobbler’s children going barefoot. 😉
But these are just three remarks that I approached critically while reading. In all other respects, the book is more than worth reading.
My rating: 4/5
