John, it would be real easy to point the finger at Edelman and say "Physician, heal thyself." But it's more complicated than that.
My take here is that within Edelman, you had a cadre of people with blogging experience who were so sure they had the right answer, that no one was coordinated. It became an ant swarm, with everyone trying to patch the nest, and doing so from about eight of the ten stages of bloglife.
Companies that have blogging policies don't always have blogging built into the crisis management plan. And companies that help write crisis management plans don't always have them for their own company.
Is there an Edelman bible that dictates how Edelman deals with "blog-backlash?" If not, will there be one before the end of the day? If there is one, I'm not so sure I saw a coordinated strategy for dealing with the blogtart©.
Ike:
My point is not so much to point the finger at Edelman, but to use them as an example of how difficult it is to engage a critic properly.
They are the ideal candidate for comparison because they are the PR agency out in front of the rest in terms of blogging and the blogosphere, and because they have been involved in the most recent flare-ups.
Perhaps I should have made my point better, but if Edelman can't seem to engage critics on the up and up, how can we expect the big corporations to do the same? The end result is that we all need to be a little more forgiving of companies that are struggling to figure this out.
John -- You are on to something here. I am having a hard time remembering more than one example of a company that successfully responded to a negative crisis/situation via blogs - either their own or through commenting on others (Bigha laser pointers and bikes more than a year ago). I'm sure there must be some, but am drawing a blank. Anyone?
The thing that is really interesting though is that the Bigha example is actually evidence that having an *existing* blog actually may be helpful when a crisis hits. Unfortunately though the blog seems to have been suspended.
Some of the tech companies have done a good job ... Feedburner, for example. But that's a different animal in that the complaints are very specific in terms of services not working properly (or being misunderstood).
But what should an oil company do when it reads hundreds of complaints each week about profits? What should a fast food conglomerate do when it reads hundreds of complaints about its food or service? What should Wal-Mart do when it reads hundreds of complaints about, well, everything?
It's too simplistic to just tell them to "engage their critics."
Some then say, "have your own blog" -- which I would agree with, generally. But did Richard Edelman's blog post on the Wal-Mart issue sway anybody? Those inclined to believe him did; those who thought he was glossing over the issue took the firm to task again and again despite his quick response.
In fact, I don't think Edelman's post did anything to stop, halt or minimize the fallout there. Yes, he was participating in the conversation, but did it DO anything? It certainly didn't stop Strumpette from lashing out at the firm just a few weeks later.
If blogs fail to deliver on their promise ... if it all turns out to be hollow rhetoric ... this "opening ourselves for criticism" factor will be the reason why.
Sorry ... while I wrote "opening ourselves up for criticism," what I should have said was, "the inability of blogs to effectively communicate with critics while opening companies up to further introspection ..."
Good points and suggestions.
Here's another one: Don't talk to trolls.
Whatever else he or she may be, Strumpette is a troll.
Trolls work by baiting. They always bait with *some* factuality, *some* insight or truth. Often some humor as well. But the agenda is always negative. It's to do harm.
Wikipedia nails it pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Int.../
Internet_troll
Great point, Doc. One that I learned well when I participated in a number of bulletin boards.
You can save yourself a lot of angst, time, energy and effort by ignoring those who seek to create havoc.
It's the reason I say that blog monitoring HAS to be done with common sense and an eye for the proper public relations response.
You know it's hard (impossible?) to win over *everybody* Perhaps the best we can hope for is that by responding to the criticisms, companies keep their "friends" even if they never win over a single critic. And of course that is why companies (and individuals) do engage -- even though they know the risks. We want those on "our side" to stay there, and if all they hear is the criticisms....
Which means it is incumbent on us to present this properly to our clients or bosses. Blogging won't make everybody love you, and it will open you up to criticism, but it still is a great way to communicate directly with your customers and friends. With tremendous benefits for companies willing to take the plunge.
John - I was under the impression that Mr. Connolly was threatening legal action against Krempasky individually and/or Edelman for *presumably* defamation (and given what I've read about Mr. Connolly he has shown a tendency to threaten legal action rather willy nilly), but that's not why I'm writing.
The broader point you are addressing is a more meaningful conversation, and you and Susan are right in that you cannot win everyone over. In the case of WalMart, I do think they have an opportunity to win a lot of people over though by presenting the facts (and letting their reasonable - as opposed to purely zealotrous - critics independently verify them) and listening to criticism. When there is reasonable criticism, a company like WalMart can address it to one degree or another and make a very public showing of their response (case in point is WalMart reporting today that they're following through on a promise to do surprise inspections of overseas factories.)
For many critics, the number of inspections, etc. will never be enough. But there are probably many more people for whom their impression of WalMart will improve with this news. There are always converts to be won, the point is to recognize when its time to fish and when to cut bait because the true believers ain't biting. That is precisely why companies need sound PR counsel (as opposed to pure marketing and advertising input) in building an effective blog strategy. The point is to foster constructive criticism and put it to good use.
Usher, great points. I've added a note to my original post to show that I may have misinterpreted Krempasky's comment.
I really enjoy reading the thoughtful and strategic input that folks like you and Susan have added to the conversation. It brings to mind something that we should never forget -- in PR, there are no absolutes. What works for one company in one situation might not work for anyone else. I hope that some of the PR blog leaders are learning that lesson.
I dare say that there are no "leaders" in the PR blogosphere (regardless of what some of us put in our bios, or the faith we put in Technorati, et al rankings, ahem). You are leading this conversation John, I hereby annoint you as one of our PR blogger leaders.
We are all still learning and experimenting as the past couple of weeks so clearly demonstrate, and I think we'll be doing that for a long time to come, and you're absolutely on target, what works for one does not work for all. So much for high-margin cookie cutter campaigns I suppose (and may they mercifully RIP).
John: I agree that it is difficult to "manage" the blogosphere, but certain companies could really benefit from having a place to air unfiltered commentary about what they are doing.
I recently wrote a post (www.healthcarevox.com) focusing on the controversy about Genzyme's pricing policies. In that post I wondered why Genzyme was relying on the pharma trade press (i.e., Pharmaceutical Executive) to rebut its critics. I think its because most MSM wouldn't write an article (it was glowing) like Pharmaceutical Executive did about Genzyme.
I think that given the heat pharma and biotech companies take that it would be beneficial for them to have a voice that could allow them to engage their critics in a measured way. After all, the companies can always moderate comments and ignore people (trolls) that don't have anything substantive to say.
Usher wrote: We are all still learning and experimenting as the past couple of weeks so clearly demonstrate, and I think we'll be doing that for a long time to come ...
You are so right ... and I honestly feel that the more I learn about this whole "new PR thing," the less I know.
The things I felt so strongly about six months ago ... well, not so much now. It's not that I've lost faith. It's just that I see clearly how far we have to go before we can speak with absolutes.
The people we deal with daily -- our audiences, so to speak -- are in great flux and there is no one right answer on how best to communicate with them.
Fard wrote: I agree that it is difficult to "manage" the blogosphere, but certain companies could really benefit from having a place to air unfiltered commentary about what they are doing.
Fard, no doubt ... I agree completely. I am not saying companies shouldn't blog. I just think it's becoming more clear than ever that it's not a panecea for every communication ills.
I'm certainly not the first one to say that ... folks like Jeremy Pepper and Tom Murphy have been preaching that for a long time. But we see in these situations how it's playing out in real time.
I think that it is easy to get caught up in the misguided assumption that this amazing tool, blogging and interactive media is transcendence stage in Maslow's triangle. In other words, the pinnacle.
However, since we all spend a lot of time blogging, we are passionate about it.
Then along comes a troll, a button pusher, and we predictably react.
It is human nature, and part of being good at PR is understanding this nature and taking a pause between stimulous and response to plan a course of action, or inaction, as the case may be.
Strategic public relations is never a formula, it is a state of mind.
John,
Indeed - my apologies for being cryptic. It was meant to mean that a particular jackass sent *me* a C&D. Which was amusing to no end.
John wrote: I am not saying companies shouldn't blog. I just think it's becoming more clear than ever that it's not a panecea for every communication ills.
Absolutely. We are still in blogging's infancy and it's inevitable that mistakes will be made along the way (as well as successes). What's important is that we learn from these mistakes/successes and adapt to them in our daily PR and Communications activities.
As Usher says, we are in the Privileged position to be leading the charge. Interesting times
Hi John,
Thx for your suggestions on our start-up, we launched our website www.pixollard.com three days ago. yesterday we sent out press release to several e-media, here is one of those links: http://www.free-press-
release.co...1143790563.html ^_^
I think it comes back around to a simple premise: blogging isn't intrinsically "right." For a business, it has to make sense for the overall business plan. The benefits to be gained are clearly understood as are the risks.
Blogging because "everybody else" is? Not such a good idea.
Hola
I also launched a website, its
http://www.listadeyo.com
It is a spanish themed classifieds ad website where anyone without registration can post a ad for free, preferably in spanish because it is geared toward the spanish speaking population of USA. Hopefully they can come together under a more familiar enviornment to exchange goods and services.
Commenting by HaloScan
