Social Media: Bark or Bite?

This week’s blog post is going to be shorter than usual. To be completely-bare-naked-without-the-magic-of-Photoshop honest with you, I haven’t (yet) been able to completely wrap my brain around this thought I had recently:

What’s worse? Social Media’s bark, or Social Media’s bite?

I think we can all agree that Social Media’s bark is significant. Not so long ago and relatively speaking, negative word-of-mouth was spread to only a handful of people. And now, that reach is almost immeasurable. On any given day, Twitter alone can and does serve as a bandwagon for the hot (see also: controversial) topic of the hour.

The next logical step in that progression is from bark to bite. It’s perfectly reasonable to think that with so much more reach, Social Media’s bark would lead to more of a negative, sustained, financially tangible impact upon the objects of its dismay. Is it possible that weathering or, more importantly, navigating the storm is quickly becoming an art?

Make no mistake, I truly believe that Social Media provides many more positives than negatives for everyone making the jump into the stream.

But still, it doesn’t take much research to understand why the traditional marketer is greatly concerned about the negative possibilities of being involved in Social Media.

So, with these thoughts in mind, I pose the question to you:

Which is worse: Social Media’s bark, or Social Media’s bite?