On Dealing with Bloggers

As many of you know, I have been on a tear about the number of LinkedIn invitations I get, so much that I decided to run a test to see how many people I could snag into a fakester network. I didn't intend to flame LinkedIn, but they are the most ubiquitous of the social network deals so I went with them. Yesterday, Matt Marshall picked up my experiment, although he called it a "prank", in his column. Shortly thereafter, Reid Hoffman, the CEO of LinkedIn, posted a comment on my blog and we later exchanged some private email.

Far from the typical "this is a violation of our user agreement" response that I had been getting from various people, Reid's response was in fact very genuine and completely disarming. In the email he sent to me (and I didn't take any of this to be confidential, so hopefully it's okay to blog it), Reid said "We have another huge release coming out in two weeks, so we’ve been held-up in releasing the “cure to the unwanted invite”, but for personal reasons (of my own inbox) also really want it. (Part of the idea of Linkedin was a service that I could invite my contacts into.) Later, we will have better identity validation mechanisms... It’s just fairly straightforward when there are mutual handshakes. The thing that messes it up is when people just accept an invitation randomly... Hopefully we can get the non-comprehension of what a link means below 2%. I’d love it if only 1-2 people max accepted a fake invite from a fake account. Then we wouldn’t need to wait for a failed contact request or some (developed later) analytics to discover it."

This, my friends, is the difference between management and leadership. A manager, often found running amok in large companies, would have tried to shut me down by invalidating my ideas, spinning the results, discrediting me, and finally, by simply ignoring me because I'm not mainstream media. A leader, on the other hand, came to my house (this blog), admits the problem, and details what they are doing to fix it. In short, the leader left me nowhere to go and impressed by their personal style; Reid turned me from a critic to a fan. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to jump on the LinkedIn bandwagon, but my brief exchange with Reid left me with an appreciation of his genuineness and long-term outlook for creating value for all of his stakeholders.

This also left me to ponder why companies should pay attention to blogs and how they should handle them:

1) read what people are saying about you in blogs, don't discount them because they are not the NYTimes, Mercury News, Cnet, or Informationweek. The writers at these publications are also reading/writing blogs.

2) If a blogger is not flaming you, but offering a detailed critique of your service/product and the pros and cons, confront them with honesty and not spin. It's been my experience that the committed bloggers are pretty saavy when it comes to the things companies say, so not only will you not sway them by spinning them, you will probably dig your hole even deeper

3) Mainstream technology media and the technology industry have a connected future, which is why mainstream tech media is pretty bland. The dependence on advertising revenue and access to executives has become a corrupting force, much like money in politics, whereas bloggers have no strings you can pull. If XYZtechCo doesn't like what I'm writing about them, well tough. This is a non-revenue gig for me, nobody can take anything away from me to pressure me.

4) the views expressed in this blog are my own, they are my opinions. Blogging is not marketing and it should not be editorialized or censured by marketing or management. I don't tout the SAP company line all the time, but don't get me wrong, I love this company and if I will defend it tooth and nail, but it's that same affection that drives me to criticize when I see something whack. I'm sure that there are people within SAP that cringe at some of the things I say, but much to everyone's credit, they leave me alone.

5) don't lie or mistate the truth, it'll always catch up with you.

6) don't confront a blogger through a backchannel or email, just write a comment in the blog itself. Not only is this public discourse healthy, but I'm probably gonna blog whatever you write me in email anyways.

7) don't have an underling or PR person contact me about something I write, there's nothing more I dislike than having a PR person call me. You, as the leader of the company, pick up the keyboard and respond... I deal with CEO's all day long, it's okay... I know how to handle it.

8) blog fodder has a really short shelf life, so if you want to respond to something do it fast and don't get a lawyer or PR flak to sanitize your comments, it'll push you out of the response time window. If you don't like something in a blog and don't want to respond honestly, and in a human voice, just let it go because in a couple of days nobody will remember it.

9) treat everyone with respect, and acknowledge that as much as we try to do this sometimes we fail. Just because the guy writing the blog is some entry level IT guy doesn't mean you should treat him any different than some billionaire CEO of MongoHuge Software Inc.

10) acknowledge when your competitors do good things. One of the most linked to posts I have is one I wrote on Peoplesoft and the remarkable job that Craig Conway has done. Some people told me "but they are a competitor" to which I said "yeah?". The fact is that Conway has done a great job and I have a lot of admiration for him and his team, so why shouldn't I write about it. It's not like some SAP sales prospect is going to find my little blog and say "gee, this guy from SAP is saying something nice about Peoplesoft, maybe we should take another look at them". I mean, c'mon, that's just not how the real world works, and besides, when you acknowledge what others do you really only demonstrate the confidence you have in your own achievements.

11) state a position forcefully and with clarity, don't try to straddle the line because it just makes you look weak and indecisive.

12) know your stuff, and acknowledge when you don't.

13) while few companies have an official blogging strategy, if they are thinking of one it should be limited to one sentence: "use common sense". Basically, anything confidential is non-bloggable, but if it's just a matter of the truth hurting, then get over it... think of blogging as a corporate therapy. CEO's and operational executives should not blog because they can't be utterly truthful without opening themselves up to legal issues, and if they blog with the lawyers and marketing people reviewing everything that goes out, well then it's not blogging so what's the point.

Comments

[Jeremy C. Wright]

Fantastic advice. Definitely going in my list of things to remember.

[Josh Jacobs]

Great post, thank you. Our company has been discussing this all week, and this post states everything we are striving for (but haven't said as well). I'm curious about 13 though. www.joelonsoftware.com seems to be a great example of the kind of blog a CEO can write without putting his company at risk, do you think this is the exception?

[jn]

good question, it might be an issue of scale. Generally, I'd stick with the rule that the CEO should not be blogging, but like any rule there is going to be exceptions. But I do think the scale of the company is the key variable. By the way, this is no ding on Joel, I really enjoy reading his stuff.

[jn]

I thought a little more about this. I think that scale of the company may be a variable, but more significant may be the kind of technology company it is, apps vs. tools. At any rate, a CEO or similar executive can't just 'tell it like it is' without first filtering through their CEO perspective. It's an obligation really, because the CEO carries several duties related to confidentiality, loyalty, etc. so without first thinking about "what this means for the company" a CEO cannot just say it like it is, and if they did it would be irresponsible to the employees, customers, partners, and most importantly, shareholders of their company.

I'm not suggesting the blunt honesty at all costs is a prerequisite for blogging. I sometimes write things and take a second look, say to myself "I should not say that" and pull it. A CEO can easily blog without hitting on subjects too close to home, but then you get into an area where you have to question the value of the effort relative to other things the CEO can be doing to create value. Anyway, just my .02 cents

[Josh Jacobs]

I guess my question on the value of CEO time is that blogging feels to me like one of the best ways for a CEO to speak to their customers, and potential customers, about the vision of the company, the challenges the company is trying to tackle, and to create a forum for communicating ideas to customers where they can directly respond on a much larger scale. While the CEO may not want to comment on future plans, they can add a lot of depth to the companies positioning (which tends to be designed for quick understanding, rather than nuance for experienced users). Especially for smaller companies, I think there is also significant value to making it clear that insiders are people, people who love and use the same products as you, and have a burning desire to address the very problems that drew the reader to the company in the first place. This type of engagement and connection seems very much in line with the responsibilities of the CEO; to their customers, but also in establishing the tone of the company for all employees.

[jn]

agreed, but that is the kind of communication that the company as a whole should be doing, you should read this link about how Macromedia got started in blogging.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,52380,00.html

I don't think that having a CEO blog is the *right* way for him/her to be reaching customers. In fact, if that is what is determined to be the only effective way to do it, then I think you have a bigger problem to deal with. Blogs can be a good vehicle for staying close to customers, but at a much lower level.

Trust me when I say you are opening yourself up to huge legal liability issues when you have a CEO communicating at this level. It's only a matter of time before a lawsuit shows up with "Mr/Ms. CEO said such-and-such in the following blog, yet the company did something in conflict with that that caused harm to this party," or "the CEO made these commitments but reneged on this contract which could be construed to include the aforementioned commitments". It's just not worth the risk for negligible value it brings.

There are examples of where CEO's do straddle the line, JoelOnSoftware being one, Ross Mayfield at ross.typepad.com being another. But nonetheless, it would be my recomendation on any company I participate in that the CEO not do this unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

[Josh Jacobs]

Thanks for the response. This post, and discussion, has been really helpful to me in shaping my thinking on our companies approach. I appreciate it.

[Josh Jacobs]

Thanks for the response. This post, and discussion, has been really helpful to me in shaping my thinking on our companies approach. I appreciate it.

[Robert Scoble]

Excellent post.

I wrote much the same things in my "Corporate Weblogger's Manifesto" a year ago. http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2003/02/26.html#a2357

By the way, Microsoft's blogging policy is "be smart."

[jn]

thanks Robert, I was remiss in not crediting your Manifesto with influencing me. I've read it before, and linked to it here.

Microsoft has really taken a leadership position in it's hands-off policy to blogging, and the long, long list of Microsoft bloggers is evidence that it works.

[kirsten]

Very smart and helpful post. Ironically, I have been contemplating that same issue on re:invention's blog (only in a different voice and vein). Appreciate the recommendation and suggestions.

Thought you needed a little gal to chime in here!

[rikk carey]

Just curious what approach you recommend when bloggers that are attacking or flaming you? We have been practicing the approach that you describe above for some time now (i.e. common sense), but it gets a lot more complicated when the blog posting is inaccurate or nasty. It's easy to appear defensive when someone accuses you of being a child molestor (for example).

[jn]

my first instinct would simply be to post a courteous response in an effort to correct any misinformation. Most people writing online content never expect the target of their spear to actually confront them, and when it happens they often turn into paper tigers. Perhaps I am naive, but I also assume that most people do not deliberately misstate the facts, and when mistakes are made they will make a prompt effort to correct it. If the individual is flaming you with another agenda, their credibity will take a hit when it becomes evident that they are not interested in dealing with you legitimately, in effect, they end up silencing themselves. Just remember that your objective is to minimize any damage from a flame, not to eliminate the reason behind the flame, which often cannot be achieved at any price.

If more than one site is attacking you, and they do not appear to be connected, then you may have a bigger issue that may require specialized assistance. There are PR firms that specialize in crisis management situations and that kind of help may be what you need.

Finally, if the criticism is legitimate, however inappropriately it is communicated, then it's always a good idea to listen to it and respond with an honest statement of what you will and will not do.

[ichi]

Here's a site that gives a pretty good view of the pros and cons of joining LinkedIn. If you want, the
the author will invite you to join LinkedIn.
http://www.luhman.org/gl/article.php/20040918000256936

[john]

very deep

http://www.microsoft.com