It's coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop a traffic line
Your future dream is a shopping scheme
- "Anarchy in the UK" - The Sex Pistols
The afternoon session of the Enterprise Software Summit yesterday was a good old fashioned food fight. It became apparent that the room had split into two factions, the first being the "Anarchists" and the other group I'll just call the "Status Quo'ians". JB Holsten and Ross Mayfield were up giving a primer on RSS, blogs, wikis, and the broad cultural ramifications being foist upon companies in the market today and all hell broke loose... and I'm quite sure I had nothing to do with it :)
I think that the ongoing series of discussions throughout the day were leading up to this confrontation, although in hindsight I would point out that the guy who inspired the Anarchy title of this post wasn't even there in the morning session so I maybe that had nothing to do with it... and I'm not hesitant about pointing out the fact that he wasn't there in the morning because I'm 99% sure that guy isn't reading any blogs.
The key issue pivoted around a legitimate question thrown out at one point, which is whether or not all this free flowing and unstructured "conversation" by employees, partners, customers, or whoever potentially diminishing to brands. The premise of the question is rooted in the notion that companies actually control the conversation about their products/services/brand in the marketplace, something I reject. What this question also does not acknowledge is that the best spokespeople for your brand are in fact your employees, partners, and customers, and not the "marketing spokesperson" or the CEO. Read The Me2 Revolution.
After much debate we get to the substance of the dispute, which is "what if one of your employees says something bad about the company?" The only answer I would give to that is "well, is it true?" in which case you have a bigger issue to deal with, but even if something bad is true are you assuming that it won't come out anyways? Of course you can't respond with an answer to a negative but there is ample historical evidence that supports the notion that companies are unable to contain anything negative about themselves.
More points were made about disclosure of information that is deemed sensitive or in violation of government regulations. Rules already exist in companies that cover this, you certainly don't need to create 'blogger versions' of quiet period rules or confidentiality clauses in employment agreements. This is a non-issue.
It's absolutely myopic for any marketing professional to look at what is happening in social media and not come to the conclusion that the strategy and tactics by which they engage the marketplace are not going to evolve as a result. This is not to say that everything gets thrown out the window and we invent new rules, not at all because what I am saying is that smart companies are adding this componentry to their toolbox in addition to everything else they are already doing. Want to ignore it, fine but be sure to dust off your resume.
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
great, passionate post...,have complimeted you on my blog as well...but not your taste in music!
Posted by: vinnie mirchandani | Feb 08, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Jeff,
Great post, and I agree that everything did come 'to a head' yesterday afternoon. As I have had more time to think about it, I think the statement about an out of control employee was more of a gut reaction than really a true issue. You're correct in that bringing the issue forward, if true, is more important than the route/publicity of the message itself. Non-truths could be an issue, but I'm guessing that might not be as big a deal as first percieved.
We were talking about some specific "corporate" sponsored blogs yesterday - Microsoft, McDonalds Responsibilty, etc. I feel these are a different type of messaging tool that works well.
Microsoft - there is so much happening at the organization, it's impossible to publish status/updates in each area of development. Generating specific group blogs (such as: http://blogs.msdn.com/rssteam/default.aspx) allow this team to publish status that would otherwise go unknown until a significant release. And able to approach issues faster than items getting into the knowledge base.
The McDonalds Responsibility blog (http://csr.blogs.mcdonalds.com/) seems to be more of an attempt on putting a personal face on a very face-less monster "evil" organization.
These are two far different examples of brand salvaging and attempts to increase the value of the end brand in spite of the company's internal standard marketing processes.
My real concern is the branding aspect of personal blogs that use the brand as a way to increase readership. Let's use sapventures as an example. This blog is a mix of items that are SAP Venture specific as well as items that are more personal thought in nature - on the industry, comments on others, etc. This is where I get worried. The mix of personal opinions under the guise of a corporate blog. This isn't discussion on corporate issues or product defects, or even corporate branding and "look what we're doing!" type text that's on the McD's blog. You're making personal opinions and statements on behalf of SAP Ventures. I'm just using SAPV as an example here and I feel that you're in a position to comment at that level. On a more general level, however, this could be a large issue for other organizations. It's a seperation of personal and corporate communication, and in most cases, I feel there has to be a line there.
It doesn't stop someone from going to typepad, creating their own personal blog, and bitching up a storm. Absolutely not. But in that situation, they're not speaking for the organization.
Nice meeting you this week.
Posted by: Eric Carlson | Feb 08, 2006 at 05:28 PM
Eric,
See my post on the McD CSR blog:
http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/01/26/mcdonalds-is-open-for-discussion/
Knowing what I know now I would not have branded my blog sapventures... and that's a big part of my move to my jeffnolan.com domain. I originally had in mind a pure VC blog but found myself hard to contain :)
another blog to take a look at is fastlane.gmblogs.com
Good meeting you as well.
Posted by: jeff | Feb 08, 2006 at 08:27 PM
I don't agree with the idea of marketing in a state of evolution - there are big lumps of what 'marketing' does that get tossed out the window as irrelevant when the impact of social media hits the proverbial fan.
The ones who struggle most with this ARE the brand managers that live in the continuing belief that brand can truly be managed. Maybe if they concentrated on reputation, then things would change.
Posted by: Dennis Howlett | Feb 09, 2006 at 02:58 PM
The corporate blog genie will not go back into the bottle. As far as saying something bad: Who says it's bad? If it is wrong, or irresponsible, or hard news, then that's unfortunate. If the blogger is 'out of control' the sphere probably edits the employee into irrelevance. If it's true, and the revelation closes some gap between company and marketplace, then it's a question of the beholder's control issues. Control is fantasy.
Posted by: Jack Moore | Feb 10, 2006 at 03:40 PM
The corporate blog genie will not go back into the bottle. As far as saying something bad: Who says it's bad? If it is wrong, or irresponsible, or hard news, then that's unfortunate. If the blogger is 'out of control' the sphere probably edits the employee into irrelevance. If it's true, and the revelation closes some gap between company and marketplace, then it's a question of the beholder's control issues. Control is fantasy.
Posted by: Jack Moore | Feb 10, 2006 at 03:41 PM
well said Jack
Posted by: jeff | Feb 10, 2006 at 03:43 PM