John:
Over the past few weeks you've written a number of articles playing devil's advocate re: the whole social media, listen you your customer meme. I have sometimes advised companies (usually pharma companies) on my blog, HealthCareVox, to launch blogs. In general, I've tried to back up the counsel with a case study and solid, realistic advice. Overall, I view blogs as another way that companies can get their messages out via a new communications medium. For example, see my recent post "What Big Pharma Can Learn From GM."
My question is in what cases do you believe that engaging the customer is a good call? Would you say that the recent flap (that I was involved in) over the JupiterKagan study was justified? Was this a case of bloggers blowing hot air or did we make legitimate points that the company needed to address? Where does one draw the line?
Answers to these questions and clarification on where you think conversation and engagement is appropriate (perhaps with some fictional case studies) would be welcome.
Fard:
Great question ... thanks for asking.
I am a 100 percent believer that when done correctly, a blog can be a powerful tool for allowing companies to dialog with their customers.
I don't think every company should blog, because there has to be a solid commitment and I think that can be difficult to come by in the corporate world.
When it comes to bloggers' complaints, here's my belief:
1) If the complaint is actionable (i.e. specific enough that it can be corrected), then I believe the company should respond by having the appropriate individual who can make something happen contact the blogger, either via e-mail or by comment.
In other words, I don't think it makes sense to have a PR person contact the blogger if that individual doesn't have the authority or responsibility to fix the problem.
2) If the complaint is general in nature (i.e. "Taco Bell food sucks ..." or perhaps in your industry, "Pfizer is just ripping people off ...") then I think companies should ignore the blogger.
Having said that, however, those kinds of comments taken in aggregate can be a powerful monitor for how people perceive you, and how those perceptions change over time.
However, it's unlikely that Taco Bell is ever going to morph into a four-star restaurant, and there will always be people who abhor fast food (or pretend to). So engaging those bloggers does no good and may only serve to inflame the situation.
Most importantly, companies have to be cognizant of the implications of their outreach. If they offer free stuff or special deals to disgruntled bloggers, for example, they may find that lots of folks will have their hands out. So any blog outreach has to be done in the context of an appropriate service response.
One reason I have been writing about this a lot is that many of the so-called evangelists work for agencies that don't really practice what they preach when it comes to engaging critics, so it's frustrating to see them get credit for their brilliance when they don't really believe in what they say.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you want more clarification.
Re: The JupiterKagan issue, I'm not really familiar with it enough to comment intelligently, other than to say that from what I remember it seemed like you had a legitimate issue with the study.
John:
Thanks for your response. It helps me better understand your position on this issue. Yes, I agree that actionable legitimate critiques are worth paying attention to. While other more general complaints are not.
I would say that certain industries or companies with poor reputations should consider whether what tools will help them rebut critics -- but in a responsible way. Personal attacks are more in line with the tactics of online trolls than responsible companies.
Thanks again. I look forward to reading more of your views.
Great posts the past few days. (Okay, the vast majority of your posts are great, John.)
I hate the philosophy that, "the customer is always right."
Businesses are in business to make money. Part of that is pleasing customers and encouraging prospects to give them a try. But, not at the expense of common sense.
Mike
Thanks, Fard and Mike.
I've read a few times that starting a corporate blog might not change others' perceptions of you, but it will definitely change your employees' perception of their company.
There may be a good deal of wisdom in that saying ... in that being so open and vulnerable makes you more aware of "getting things right" so that your blog isn't constantly on the defensive.
At the same time, however, starting a blog is easy. Keeping it going and effective is much more difficult. So as I mentioned earlier, unless there is a real commitment to blogging, you likely won't see a change in the company.
Anyone else have any thoughts??
Mike, the problem with common sense is that it's not too common.
I think blogs provide an excellent opportunity for people to question the statements made by a company, to expose instances where a company is not behaving in a way that matches its public persona and also provides a way for people to give genuine feedback on service, products and new developments. Or in Fard's case, to question statistics released by a company. (I'm sure we've all heard of companies making up figures for release, or 'massaging' figures. They should be called on it.)
Blogs also provide an excellent opportunity for companies to deal with the above issues.
However, and it's a point that has been made before, anonymity allows people to talk louder, act tougher and be less forgiving than they would in person. Even if the first poster is letting people know who they are, many comments are anonymous. When answering complaints or comments, care must be taken to maintain a proper tone. The company responding is not anonymous, so it has to maintain some dignity or restraint when answering.
And again, I agree with much of what John has said over the last number of weeks. Don't believe the hype. In the short, and the medium, term, blogs are not going to fundamentally alter the way we communicate, or change how PR people work. Even though Ireland is one of the world leaders in software export, broadband penetration is low and blogs remain in the periphery of the communications landscape. Our clients prefer to be seen and heard in print and on radio and TV and the majority of consumers prefer print, radio and TV. The blogs have a good way of enhancing their own importance, I've seen it referred to as the echo chamber, and I think this is a good description.
I also think that blogs have a big role to play in internal communications. Allowing matters be dealt with before they come to a head, letting issues be discussed openly and making sure that staff are informed of the happenings at a company are all ways to help improve staff morale, etc.
Tom:
Thanks for your comment. I agree that blogs are not going to change the fundamental practice of public relations. As I've said elsewhere "it's all about telling a good story." However, I think they are worth understanding and knowing how they can be used in appropriate ways.
You answer your three "Is a conversation..." questions with "I don't think so." I agree.
While blogging is a platform for a fully public conversation, some companies prefer to keep these conversations private. That's where the power loss exists.
These rants can be published on sites not owned by the company. Companies cannot stifle the conversation - legitimate or not. But companies can still have a powerful voice.
By following the conversation - and occasionally/appropriately making their side/view/perspective clear in a conversational manner - no matter whose blog hosts the exchange, a company can create loyalty - publicly.
Silence delivers a message too. Oft times an unprofitable one.
Not being convinced that Fard’s moniker of "devil's advocate" was à propos for John, I wandered over to dictionary.com and plugged it in. This came up:
"One who argues against a cause or position either for the sake of argument or to help determine its validity. For example, ‘My role in the campaign is to play devil's advocate to each new policy before it's introduced to the public.’ This term comes from the Roman Catholic Church, where advocatus diaboli (Latin for "devil's advocate") signifies an official who is appointed to present arguments against a proposed canonization or beatification. It was transferred to wider use in the mid-1700s."
IMHO, this post (and others On Message) comes across as quite declarative (albeit, well reasoned). So I vote against "devil's advocate," and instead would lobby for a designation such as:
- a b’sphere agnostic; or
- thinker outside the b’sphere
Which is about as clever as I can get the Friday morning of a busy work week; perhaps someone else is feeling more creative. 
"Thinker outside the blogosphere" sounds like a title granted by the Wizard of Oz!
Ha! Perhaps the Wizard already determined you had a brain, heart and courage.
Hi Guys! I'm sorry, but I want to present you BEST links(P.S. as for me) about Super Girl Naughty Nati Crotch Naughty
Please see this special link Naughty Naty Fuck
Or see this link about Naughty Nati Naughty Shot
Thank's!
402
Commenting by HaloScan
