The Social Media Stalemate

Comments | Add yours

I had an interesting discussion on Twitter the other night, prompted by this thought:

Why do companies trust their employees to answer a phone, but not to blog or get on Twitter?

It drew a flurry of responses – everything from online activities being permanently etched in Google and thereby carrying more risk, to companies just not “getting” that their employees are likely out there talking anyway, with or without permission. It’s the second part that stuck. (The actual answers to the above question are actually rather secondary at this point).

Once again, we’re at this place of what I’m affectionately calling the Social Media Stalemate.

There are piles of information out there now about the “why” of social media, and there are increasingly bold and prominent examples of the how, from our favorites like Dell and Comcast and Zappos to all of the companies that Peter Kim has been copiously collecting here.  I’m just about done with the argument that what we need is more “examples”. We have examples, what we seem to collectively lack is the stones to execute and try stuff for ourselves (there, I said it).

So this brings me here. What happens when we’re a bit of an impasse? When we’ve outlined examples, talked until we’re blue in the face about the benefits of participating in social media and pointed out the risks of ignoring it, and yet our company or client refuses to hear?

You probably know by now that I’m a proponent of doing things in baby steps, and that complete revolution is often impossible and sometimes even unwise in the face of business. So no, to those of you that may be preparing to launch into a comment storm about social media’s overhype, I’m not suggesting that we jettison everything old in favor of everything new. But doing nothing at all, digging in your heels and refusing to see what’s in front of you? That’s a tough nut to crack.

I’m all for education and teaching and learning and gradual sea change. But even I have to admit that I shake my head at some of the stale rationale I keep hearing to justify resisting the things that are so obviously changing the face of business and media as we know them, even in small ways. And I grow even more confused when what I hear as justification are things like “it’s risky” or “we don’t know if it will work” or “companies are afraid of the unknown”. I have yet to execute any substantially successful communications, marketing, community outreach, fundraising, or customer service initiative in my career that came with a guarantee of success, whether or not it had precedent.

This isn’t fishbowl validation anymore, folks. I’m not trying to preach to the converted or play kumbaya, nor am I trying to assert that social media is the end-all (and I’ve written many times about why it isn’t). Social media didn’t create the mistrust or the detractors or the risks or the issues at hand, it’s just putting them in plain sight, and putting companies in the uncomfortable (or enlightening) position to respond.

So I’m asking you. Can persistence in teaching and education pay off, and is eternal patience the only prescription (besides more cowbell)?

How much analysis and risk evaluation is enough before action is imperative?

And when all else fails, when (and HOW) do you cut bait, either as a company or an adviser? Is there a time when you as the social media champion are forced to choose your company or your cause?

I don’t have all the answers here, far from it. But I’m wondering if any of you are thinking about this like I am. Help me out?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Find more like this: Marketing and Advertising, Social media , , , , , ,

← Older Comments
  • http://www.Asfaq.com Asfaq Tapia

    Amber / Susan: Maybe another way to do this is to influence the influencer?

    Every company has its departments with its set of groups in the departments. You could organically influence the influencers in those groups and soon you’ll have quite a few people prodding and ‘testing the waters’ with these tools..

    Albeit gingerly at first, but soon with the right amount of encouragement, they could be quite a passionate force – simply because they tried it themselves and were not forced to use ‘try’ the tools. What do you think?

    Asfaq Tapias last blog post..How to approach a journalist

  • http://www.mediabullseye.com Jen Zingsheim

    Amber:

    I’m going to come at this from a different angle, and will probably get jumped all over for it, but it’s a strongly held belief of mine so here goes.

    It boils down to one word: lawsuits.

    First some background on me–I’ve worked in a state legislature as an aide, and then worked at a state chamber of commerce. Anyone who has spent any time in either of these capacities can tell you that this is an enormous fear of businesses. And when you hear the stories of some of the lawsuits they’ve had to deal with, you quickly understand why. Like it or not, there are a certain number of employees out there who see litigation as a lottery, only with slightly better odds.

    That social media advocates seem unwilling or unable to accept this explanation is a bit unbelievable to me. PR and legal often are at loggerheads, because they have different responsibilities to the company. Legal is slated with protecting the company from risk. PR is slated with reputation. Sometimes, they are on the same page, often they are not. Social media counselors owe it to their clients to understand–fully–the legal risk of proactively encouraging employees to go out there and comment *with the company’s blessing.* That is the key point. How can a company distance itself from a rouge employee when it’s gone on record as saying ‘sure, go out there and comment.’ The oft-cited examples that you’ve used above have tight company cultures, and Comcast and Dell have a limited group of employees engaging, not all. I’m not willing to bet my bottom dollar on it, but I doubt Comcast will allow its entire customer service group to respond to people on Twitter. Which is why I’ve made the argument that social media will have trouble scaling. Control is still an issue, even for those companies that are engaging. And the bigger the company, the bigger the litigation target.

    I commented at length on a post Todd Defren had recently that touched on this topic. I’ve also been told, in the past when I’ve made this legal argument to “get over it.” Sorry, I have too much personal evidence to the contrary. I’ll be writing a post soon adding some other thoughts I have on this topic–I don’t fault companies for going ahead with an abundance of caution.

    Jen

  • http://www.mediabullseye.com Jen Zingsheim

    Amber:

    I’m going to come at this from a different angle, and will probably get jumped all over for it, but it’s a strongly held belief of mine so here goes.

    It boils down to one word: lawsuits.

    First some background on me–I’ve worked in a state legislature as an aide, and then worked at a state chamber of commerce. Anyone who has spent any time in either of these capacities can tell you that this is an enormous fear of businesses. And when you hear the stories of some of the lawsuits they’ve had to deal with, you quickly understand why. Like it or not, there are a certain number of employees out there who see litigation as a lottery, only with slightly better odds.

    That social media advocates seem unwilling or unable to accept this explanation is a bit unbelievable to me. PR and legal often are at loggerheads, because they have different responsibilities to the company. Legal is slated with protecting the company from risk. PR is slated with reputation. Sometimes, they are on the same page, often they are not. Social media counselors owe it to their clients to understand–fully–the legal risk of proactively encouraging employees to go out there and comment *with the company’s blessing.* That is the key point. How can a company distance itself from a rouge employee when it’s gone on record as saying ‘sure, go out there and comment.’ The oft-cited examples that you’ve used above have tight company cultures, and Comcast and Dell have a limited group of employees engaging, not all. I’m not willing to bet my bottom dollar on it, but I doubt Comcast will allow its entire customer service group to respond to people on Twitter. Which is why I’ve made the argument that social media will have trouble scaling. Control is still an issue, even for those companies that are engaging. And the bigger the company, the bigger the litigation target.

    I commented at length on a post Todd Defren had recently that touched on this topic. I’ve also been told, in the past when I’ve made this legal argument to “get over it.” Sorry, I have too much personal evidence to the contrary. I’ll be writing a post soon adding some other thoughts I have on this topic–I don’t fault companies for going ahead with an abundance of caution.

    Jen

  • http://dailydaley.windycitizen.com Anna Tarkov

    I think experimenting internally first is absolutely the key to a company getting comfortable enough with social media to try it externally. I interviewed for a marketing position with a somewhat forward-thinking company once and when I talked about applying social media, I definitely saw looks of fear and doubt flash across the interviewers’ faces. But when I mentioned building an internal network on Ning or some such, they perked up noticeably. Suddenly, the President of the company could see the value in it even though he was not a marketer, not very young, etc.

    This can work for large, medium and small companies. Almost every company can benefit from an internal application of online community. After all, isn’t it sooo much better than that obnoxios newsletter from HR you get in your inbox and then delete without ever reading it? The value to a company is not quantifiable, but it can help morale, company culture and cohesiveness tremendously. And happy employees = productive employees who do a good job and represent the company well.

    If there’s one commonality among working people, it’s the propensity to bitch about your job/company. Doesn’t every company want to, ideally, be like Starbucks or Southwest, a company that is almost never complained about by its workers? A company like that not only attracts the best and brightest employees, but it also attracts customers who are, in all likelihood, working people themselves and want to patronize businesses that treat their employees well.

    It’s kind of like cooking a new dish. I’m not a cook myself, but the advice I’ve heard from those that dabble in the culinary arts is that one should try a new recipe on one’s family or friends first before serving it at, say, a big dinner party. I think the same prescription could apply to companies getting into social media. Try it first with those closest to you: your employees, maybe your most loyal customers, etc. Then try it out on the world at large.

  • http://dailydaley.windycitizen.com Anna Tarkov

    I think experimenting internally first is absolutely the key to a company getting comfortable enough with social media to try it externally. I interviewed for a marketing position with a somewhat forward-thinking company once and when I talked about applying social media, I definitely saw looks of fear and doubt flash across the interviewers’ faces. But when I mentioned building an internal network on Ning or some such, they perked up noticeably. Suddenly, the President of the company could see the value in it even though he was not a marketer, not very young, etc.

    This can work for large, medium and small companies. Almost every company can benefit from an internal application of online community. After all, isn’t it sooo much better than that obnoxios newsletter from HR you get in your inbox and then delete without ever reading it? The value to a company is not quantifiable, but it can help morale, company culture and cohesiveness tremendously. And happy employees = productive employees who do a good job and represent the company well.

    If there’s one commonality among working people, it’s the propensity to bitch about your job/company. Doesn’t every company want to, ideally, be like Starbucks or Southwest, a company that is almost never complained about by its workers? A company like that not only attracts the best and brightest employees, but it also attracts customers who are, in all likelihood, working people themselves and want to patronize businesses that treat their employees well.

    It’s kind of like cooking a new dish. I’m not a cook myself, but the advice I’ve heard from those that dabble in the culinary arts is that one should try a new recipe on one’s family or friends first before serving it at, say, a big dinner party. I think the same prescription could apply to companies getting into social media. Try it first with those closest to you: your employees, maybe your most loyal customers, etc. Then try it out on the world at large.

  • http://piotrj.wordpress.com Piotr Jakubowski

    Amber,

    My best guess after sitting in and listening to a small company and their needs is having to evaluate ROI. Social media isn’t exactly a walk in the park, as you’ve said, and it takes a great deal of time, money and effort to get a good flow with great content going. That being said, particularly in an economy that isn’t exactly growing, it seems to me that companies pressed for resources aren’t willing to venture into this unknown field where direct ROI is hard to gauge.

    Piotr Jakubowskis last blog post..The Good, The Bad and The Ugly #4

  • http://piotrj.wordpress.com Piotr Jakubowski

    Amber,

    My best guess after sitting in and listening to a small company and their needs is having to evaluate ROI. Social media isn’t exactly a walk in the park, as you’ve said, and it takes a great deal of time, money and effort to get a good flow with great content going. That being said, particularly in an economy that isn’t exactly growing, it seems to me that companies pressed for resources aren’t willing to venture into this unknown field where direct ROI is hard to gauge.

    Piotr Jakubowskis last blog post..The Good, The Bad and The Ugly #4

  • http://twitter.com/GeoffatDell Geoff Knox

    @29

    Jen, I think you make a valid point and one that my group struggled with during our inception. Anytime an employee communicates with someone outside of the company, and especially in a format that is both public and more permanent than a phone conversation (such as posting online) you run the risk of that communication going sour and then used as part of a litigation. This is why most companies exert the tight control over employee communication that you mention.
    One thing is becoming readily apparent as social media tools have flourished, and it’s something that I first heard from Sean O’Driscoll when he was with Microsoft. Paraphrasing it here: it’s not a question of ‘if’, but ‘when’ the lawsuit will happen, so it’s better to not let the threat of it prevent you from doing what is right.
    Another way to think about it is this way: your employees are going to communicate online anyway, and quite often identify themselves as employees even if they don’t supply their name. In fact, they are most likely doing so already. Rather than deny that this will happen, isn’t it better to give them some training on netiquette and the proper way to conduct themselves online as well as provide them resources internally if they are unsure about what to say (or whether they should say it) instead of pretending that you have control over them by refusing to allow any conversation?
    I think that at some point you have to trust your employees to do the right thing- how many employees do you have that are already customer facing? Each one of these is already in a position to put your company at risk. If you’ve given them the trust to communicate with your customers already, why should you not trust them to communicate in other mediums? When you get down to brass tacks, social media is just another way of communicating- not much different than phones, email and chat at its heart.
    I think the bigger issue with opening up an entire customer service department to working on a tool like twitter is a different kind of control problem: duplication of effort. Most CS work is done by case, and if you don’t know that someone else is working a case you can spin your wheels doing work that is being done by someone else. Multiply this by several times and you can see how inefficient the process becomes. In most CS groups you have a queue with customers waiting to be helped. This makes it easy to assign cases to agents as they are available and manage your workflow. Proactive support, while it has many advantages, can be difficult to manage as there is no “queue”. This is one of the real difficulties in scaling the process, especially when your available bandwidth is at a premium. It’s not the worst problem to have, but it is one you have to address to scale well.

  • http://twitter.com/GeoffatDell Geoff Knox

    @29

    Jen, I think you make a valid point and one that my group struggled with during our inception. Anytime an employee communicates with someone outside of the company, and especially in a format that is both public and more permanent than a phone conversation (such as posting online) you run the risk of that communication going sour and then used as part of a litigation. This is why most companies exert the tight control over employee communication that you mention.
    One thing is becoming readily apparent as social media tools have flourished, and it’s something that I first heard from Sean O’Driscoll when he was with Microsoft. Paraphrasing it here: it’s not a question of ‘if’, but ‘when’ the lawsuit will happen, so it’s better to not let the threat of it prevent you from doing what is right.
    Another way to think about it is this way: your employees are going to communicate online anyway, and quite often identify themselves as employees even if they don’t supply their name. In fact, they are most likely doing so already. Rather than deny that this will happen, isn’t it better to give them some training on netiquette and the proper way to conduct themselves online as well as provide them resources internally if they are unsure about what to say (or whether they should say it) instead of pretending that you have control over them by refusing to allow any conversation?
    I think that at some point you have to trust your employees to do the right thing- how many employees do you have that are already customer facing? Each one of these is already in a position to put your company at risk. If you’ve given them the trust to communicate with your customers already, why should you not trust them to communicate in other mediums? When you get down to brass tacks, social media is just another way of communicating- not much different than phones, email and chat at its heart.
    I think the bigger issue with opening up an entire customer service department to working on a tool like twitter is a different kind of control problem: duplication of effort. Most CS work is done by case, and if you don’t know that someone else is working a case you can spin your wheels doing work that is being done by someone else. Multiply this by several times and you can see how inefficient the process becomes. In most CS groups you have a queue with customers waiting to be helped. This makes it easy to assign cases to agents as they are available and manage your workflow. Proactive support, while it has many advantages, can be difficult to manage as there is no “queue”. This is one of the real difficulties in scaling the process, especially when your available bandwidth is at a premium. It’s not the worst problem to have, but it is one you have to address to scale well.

  • http://www.katugasm2.co.uk Nigel Legg

    I’ve been looking at three global professional services companies for a client presentation, and all three of them have had issues spread far and wide across the web in the last month – law suits, potential malpractice, potential involvement in fraud and scandal, you name it. For them to ignore the bad news being spread about them is clearly damaging, and I hope that they will realise it. The thing about social media is that those posts will remain there; if there is nothing to counter them, the reputations of the firms involved could be severely damaged.

  • http://www.katugasm2.co.uk Nigel Legg

    I’ve been looking at three global professional services companies for a client presentation, and all three of them have had issues spread far and wide across the web in the last month – law suits, potential malpractice, potential involvement in fraud and scandal, you name it. For them to ignore the bad news being spread about them is clearly damaging, and I hope that they will realise it. The thing about social media is that those posts will remain there; if there is nothing to counter them, the reputations of the firms involved could be severely damaged.

  • http://www.quired.com Quired

    I think what concerns small business owners the most about social media is the investment in time vs. the ROI.

    Think of the flower shop with 4 employees or the insurance agency with 10 employees or even the engineering firm with 30 employees.

    Who is committing the time in these organizations to participate in social media. Yes you can have a marketing director but many smaller firms do not (especially in this economy).

    You can educate all you want but the fact is who handles the demands of real time communication social media participation requires (at a reasonable price no less).

    Plus there still is the stigma of social media (much of which is deserved) regarding facebook, twitter or myspace.

    They don’t see targeted applications for their business. They see useless widgets on facebook or inane comments on twitter.

    Social media has to become more about their own website and having the conversation start there. It has to be more about what they are willing to share to start a conversation (just as it should have always been even before the internet).

    Digg, Twitter, Facebook is a by product of the conversation and yes a means of discovery but is the future really about having profiles on a hundred social networks or having one profile on your website that is shared with motivated participants.

    Create better tools for social media (and maybe rename it – do businesses really care about something that is social) and let the conversation start on their own website.

  • http://www.quired.com Quired

    I think what concerns small business owners the most about social media is the investment in time vs. the ROI.

    Think of the flower shop with 4 employees or the insurance agency with 10 employees or even the engineering firm with 30 employees.

    Who is committing the time in these organizations to participate in social media. Yes you can have a marketing director but many smaller firms do not (especially in this economy).

    You can educate all you want but the fact is who handles the demands of real time communication social media participation requires (at a reasonable price no less).

    Plus there still is the stigma of social media (much of which is deserved) regarding facebook, twitter or myspace.

    They don’t see targeted applications for their business. They see useless widgets on facebook or inane comments on twitter.

    Social media has to become more about their own website and having the conversation start there. It has to be more about what they are willing to share to start a conversation (just as it should have always been even before the internet).

    Digg, Twitter, Facebook is a by product of the conversation and yes a means of discovery but is the future really about having profiles on a hundred social networks or having one profile on your website that is shared with motivated participants.

    Create better tools for social media (and maybe rename it – do businesses really care about something that is social) and let the conversation start on their own website.

  • http://leanstartups.com Apolinaras “Apollo” Sinkeviciu

    I don’t consider myself a marketing person, though I thoroughly enjoy branding, publicity, and other initiatives. My POV is more from business operations leadership side. People in my profession have the ultimate responsibility of building out frameworks for organizations, so the rest of the teams could have something to attach to and grow.
    Core point I want to make is that with anything new and cutting edge, it is important not to fear it, but rather look for ways to at least try it. No, don’t push entire company to get involved in SM, but grab a group of people you could trust to be your R&D in SM and give them the tools and guidelines to do it.
    People are not dumb, if you hired properly, they will behave like adults. So just let them. Provide them with expectations and let them impress you with results. And if they make a genuine mistake or two… well that is fine too. Progress does not happen without some mistakes along the way.

    Just my humble 2c.

    Apolinaras “Apollo” Sinkeviciuss last blog post..Keeping entrepreneurs out of jail and an early grave

  • http://leanstartups.com Apolinaras “Apollo” Sinkevicius

    I don’t consider myself a marketing person, though I thoroughly enjoy branding, publicity, and other initiatives. My POV is more from business operations leadership side. People in my profession have the ultimate responsibility of building out frameworks for organizations, so the rest of the teams could have something to attach to and grow.
    Core point I want to make is that with anything new and cutting edge, it is important not to fear it, but rather look for ways to at least try it. No, don’t push entire company to get involved in SM, but grab a group of people you could trust to be your R&D in SM and give them the tools and guidelines to do it.
    People are not dumb, if you hired properly, they will behave like adults. So just let them. Provide them with expectations and let them impress you with results. And if they make a genuine mistake or two… well that is fine too. Progress does not happen without some mistakes along the way.

    Just my humble 2c.

    Apolinaras “Apollo” Sinkeviciuss last blog post..Keeping entrepreneurs out of jail and an early grave

  • http://www.mediabullseye.com Jen Zingsheim

    @Geoff, you raise some very valid points. Part of the issue is “company blessing”–it’s far harder to defend in court if the company has officially sanctioned everyone to participate, than if they had no policy in place. Also, while a part of what I was getting at were lawsuits externally, it’s actually internal employee lawsuits that companies fear most. And Twitter is just the sort of informal banter that provides the climate for people to say things about other employees or the employer without even stopping to think about it. There are also all kinds of regulations surrounding publicly-held companies, and pharma companies have an obligation to report any adverse reactions the moment they are discovered. Companies can impress upon employees the seriousness of these rules and regulations, but in my experience there are always a handful of people who think “ah, it’s overblown. No one will know.” etc. and then do what they want (for an example of this, go to Chris Brogan’s blog and read about “Bob.”)

    And, regarding trusting employees, that’s a great objective to have. But in a very large organization, it’s pretty unrealistic. There will always be great, wonderful, dedicated and smart employees. And there will be some who are angry to be there, for whatever reason. Or just bored. Or not care (have you seen the video of the Hertz employee who clocked out at left an airport rental counter, when she was a) the only employee there, and b) there was a line of 20+ people waiting?) Companies have every right to determine for themselves what the proper level of social media interaction is appropriate, and who should be permitted to interact–*if* they choose to do so at all.

    @Nigel–I think there’s a big leap in assuming that those companies aren’t aware of what’s being said. If they are in the midst of litigation, however, they would be foolish to be commenting at this point in matters directly related to their cases. I’m not a lawyer, but I would think that any content coming from them could be construed as official statements.

    @Quired You hit the nail on the head re: small/mid sized businesses and time commitment. Each company considering social media activity should do what amounts to a cost/benefit analysis.

    Again, I’m a proponent of social media, and think it carries a lot of promise as a communications tool, but I do think that companies have a right to determine whether it’s right for them.

  • http://www.mediabullseye.com Jen Zingsheim

    @Geoff, you raise some very valid points. Part of the issue is “company blessing”–it’s far harder to defend in court if the company has officially sanctioned everyone to participate, than if they had no policy in place. Also, while a part of what I was getting at were lawsuits externally, it’s actually internal employee lawsuits that companies fear most. And Twitter is just the sort of informal banter that provides the climate for people to say things about other employees or the employer without even stopping to think about it. There are also all kinds of regulations surrounding publicly-held companies, and pharma companies have an obligation to report any adverse reactions the moment they are discovered. Companies can impress upon employees the seriousness of these rules and regulations, but in my experience there are always a handful of people who think “ah, it’s overblown. No one will know.” etc. and then do what they want (for an example of this, go to Chris Brogan’s blog and read about “Bob.”)

    And, regarding trusting employees, that’s a great objective to have. But in a very large organization, it’s pretty unrealistic. There will always be great, wonderful, dedicated and smart employees. And there will be some who are angry to be there, for whatever reason. Or just bored. Or not care (have you seen the video of the Hertz employee who clocked out at left an airport rental counter, when she was a) the only employee there, and b) there was a line of 20+ people waiting?) Companies have every right to determine for themselves what the proper level of social media interaction is appropriate, and who should be permitted to interact–*if* they choose to do so at all.

    @Nigel–I think there’s a big leap in assuming that those companies aren’t aware of what’s being said. If they are in the midst of litigation, however, they would be foolish to be commenting at this point in matters directly related to their cases. I’m not a lawyer, but I would think that any content coming from them could be construed as official statements.

    @Quired You hit the nail on the head re: small/mid sized businesses and time commitment. Each company considering social media activity should do what amounts to a cost/benefit analysis.

    Again, I’m a proponent of social media, and think it carries a lot of promise as a communications tool, but I do think that companies have a right to determine whether it’s right for them.

  • http://twitter.com/GeoffatDell Geoff Knox

    @Jen

    I think it’s safe to say that each business has to judge what’s appropriate, but to me social media is simply another method of communicating with your customers- just like the phone, or email, or chat. I think the risks are inherently the same. “Bob” ran into trouble because his company tried to shut him down- even though it seems that, had they embraced his efforts, they could have taken his actions and used it to strengthen their brand. I think Bob is a great example of my point- he’s going to be out there whether you like it or not, so do you help him help your business or do you pretend that he’ll just go away? Even if you let him go, he’ll still be there online speaking to your customer base- and by laying the hammer on him you’ve not only turned him against your company, but all of those that he is speaking with.

    As to litigation being easier if the company gives its employees approval to communicate online, I think that the difference has to be made as to whether the company makes clear what is and is not appropriate. If an employee breaks established policy, then to me, it would be the same as if the employee went online without the blessing of the company. Again- it’s going to happen whether you like it or not, and regardless of the controls in place. I would think that if the company made clear what guidelines employees should use and made internal resources available to them (such as PR and legal contacts) then it would be difficult to litigate from the stance of the company supporting a rogue comment if that comment went against pre-established guidelines.

    (I’m not a lawyer either, so take that with a grain of salt. I’m related to several lawyers though, so you’ve given me some good topics for dinner conversation at my next family gathering.)

    A quick Google-fu found this link which seems to take a good stab at the topic:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=900005509201

    As before, I think that Pandora’s box has been opened with regard to social media and corporations. Trying to stifle your employees will not only be futile, in my opinion, but it may actually stir up negative posts online by some of the same employees who feel their hands are tied. I think that one of the great fears that some companies have is that opening up access to all of their employees means that suddenly their entire workforce will be online and engaged in conversations. The reality is that the take rate for employees is likely to be small- whether it’s due to a lack of interest or a lack of time, blogging and tweeting and such just doesn’t appeal to everyone. Social media is by its very name, social. You’d be surprised at how many people prefer to be wallflowers online rather than ask someone else to dance.

  • http://twitter.com/GeoffatDell Geoff Knox

    @Jen

    I think it’s safe to say that each business has to judge what’s appropriate, but to me social media is simply another method of communicating with your customers- just like the phone, or email, or chat. I think the risks are inherently the same. “Bob” ran into trouble because his company tried to shut him down- even though it seems that, had they embraced his efforts, they could have taken his actions and used it to strengthen their brand. I think Bob is a great example of my point- he’s going to be out there whether you like it or not, so do you help him help your business or do you pretend that he’ll just go away? Even if you let him go, he’ll still be there online speaking to your customer base- and by laying the hammer on him you’ve not only turned him against your company, but all of those that he is speaking with.

    As to litigation being easier if the company gives its employees approval to communicate online, I think that the difference has to be made as to whether the company makes clear what is and is not appropriate. If an employee breaks established policy, then to me, it would be the same as if the employee went online without the blessing of the company. Again- it’s going to happen whether you like it or not, and regardless of the controls in place. I would think that if the company made clear what guidelines employees should use and made internal resources available to them (such as PR and legal contacts) then it would be difficult to litigate from the stance of the company supporting a rogue comment if that comment went against pre-established guidelines.

    (I’m not a lawyer either, so take that with a grain of salt. I’m related to several lawyers though, so you’ve given me some good topics for dinner conversation at my next family gathering.)

    A quick Google-fu found this link which seems to take a good stab at the topic:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=900005509201

    As before, I think that Pandora’s box has been opened with regard to social media and corporations. Trying to stifle your employees will not only be futile, in my opinion, but it may actually stir up negative posts online by some of the same employees who feel their hands are tied. I think that one of the great fears that some companies have is that opening up access to all of their employees means that suddenly their entire workforce will be online and engaged in conversations. The reality is that the take rate for employees is likely to be small- whether it’s due to a lack of interest or a lack of time, blogging and tweeting and such just doesn’t appeal to everyone. Social media is by its very name, social. You’d be surprised at how many people prefer to be wallflowers online rather than ask someone else to dance.

  • http://dailydaley.windycitizen.com Anna Tarkov

    This is in response to #34 (Quired).

    I disagree with pretty much everything you said. There, I said it.

    I disagree that conversations should start on the company’s site. A company can’t control that and it shouldn’t try to either. It should monitor and join in the conversation, sure, but not control it. Control is, realistically speaking, impossible anyway and any attempts at it are transparent and sometimes very off-putting.

    I disagree that Facebook is just useless widgets and Twitter is just inane comments. Social media tools are tools and they can be used in a variety of ways. One can use a hammer to pound in a nail or bash someone over the head with it. That simple reality doesn’t negate the usefulness of the hammer.

    As for the time and effort required: yes, small businesses have both in short supply. But I disagree that social media efforts must take an enormous amount of time. There’s a more significant time investment at the outset and then after that it can literally be 1-2 hours a day. Maybe even less, depending on the specific situation. The quality of the involvement and participation if what’s important, not the quantitiy.

    As for the semantics (should it be called something other than social media?), it’s, well, semantics. Would it make you feel better to call it community building? Relationship management? If yes, then go ahead and use those terms. As for the “social” element, hey, guess what? Business already inherently has a social element and social ties affect how business is done. Why fight it?

  • http://dailydaley.windycitizen.com Anna Tarkov

    This is in response to #34 (Quired).

    I disagree with pretty much everything you said. There, I said it.

    I disagree that conversations should start on the company’s site. A company can’t control that and it shouldn’t try to either. It should monitor and join in the conversation, sure, but not control it. Control is, realistically speaking, impossible anyway and any attempts at it are transparent and sometimes very off-putting.

    I disagree that Facebook is just useless widgets and Twitter is just inane comments. Social media tools are tools and they can be used in a variety of ways. One can use a hammer to pound in a nail or bash someone over the head with it. That simple reality doesn’t negate the usefulness of the hammer.

    As for the time and effort required: yes, small businesses have both in short supply. But I disagree that social media efforts must take an enormous amount of time. There’s a more significant time investment at the outset and then after that it can literally be 1-2 hours a day. Maybe even less, depending on the specific situation. The quality of the involvement and participation if what’s important, not the quantitiy.

    As for the semantics (should it be called something other than social media?), it’s, well, semantics. Would it make you feel better to call it community building? Relationship management? If yes, then go ahead and use those terms. As for the “social” element, hey, guess what? Business already inherently has a social element and social ties affect how business is done. Why fight it?

  • http://ariwriter.com Ari Herzog

    What does it mean when one person comments on a fictitious-or-not character that Chris Brogan wrote about named “Bob” and enough people know the facts without asking for a reference?

    Imagine if Chris didn’t blog about “Bob” and consider how the above exchange between Jen and Geoff would be different.

    Just sayin’.

    Ari Herzogs last blog post..Sextogenarian Women Come to Facebook

  • http://ariwriter.com Ari Herzog

    What does it mean when one person comments on a fictitious-or-not character that Chris Brogan wrote about named “Bob” and enough people know the facts without asking for a reference?

    Imagine if Chris didn’t blog about “Bob” and consider how the above exchange between Jen and Geoff would be different.

    Just sayin’.

    Ari Herzogs last blog post..Sextogenarian Women Come to Facebook

  • http://twitter.com/GeoffatDell Geoff Knox

    @39

    Actually, I had to search for it. I put “Chris Brogan Bob” into Google and it was the first hit. Apparently, I need to brush up on my Brogan since it was an interesting piece I would have otherwise missed.

    :)

  • http://twitter.com/GeoffatDell Geoff Knox

    @39

    Actually, I had to search for it. I put “Chris Brogan Bob” into Google and it was the first hit. Apparently, I need to brush up on my Brogan since it was an interesting piece I would have otherwise missed.

    :)

  • http://www.mediabullseye.com Jen Zingsheim

    @39 Ha! It’s interesting though, I didn’t think twice about saying Brogan/Bob. It was *such* a big deal when it hit. FWIW, I agree with my boss’s take on the whole thing: http://is.gd/7EhE

    An interesting discussion, all the way around. I love that there are a few places left where people can disagree without becoming disagreeable. It has become increasingly rare!

    Jen

  • http://www.davidniallwilson.com David Niall Wilson

    It seems to me that there is a difference between letting your employees blog and interact with impunity, and using these things for business. It’s easy enough to set up a few trusted employees to be the “voice” of your company and much easier to trust that smaller number.

    Then you expand, as it seems worthwhile or necessary, from that trusted base. Along with this, I’d suggest a policy of educating employees on your hopes for Social Media and your expectations or policies concerning your employees on the web. Obviously (particularly in a large company) you aren’t going to get complete control. The important thing is to have a policy, and to enforce it when you run across abuse.

    One of the biggest turn-offs from my perspective is any sort of witch hunt or negative campaign that could send employees off on the very rants you hope to curtail.

    As for return on investment…I can tell you that interaction with DELL folks in social media has earned ROI from my company.

    We started small about five years back, but are now a multi-million dollar logistics firm. When possible, we are early adopters.

    In our case, however, all current clients are government or military, and so there is no benefit for us in a large move toward social media. Instead, I take my business advantage from the information, support, and resources Social Media provide me and watch for opportunities to put it to use.

    David Niall Wilsons last blog post..I Want the Fire Back…

  • http://www.mediabullseye.com Jen Zingsheim

    @39 Ha! It’s interesting though, I didn’t think twice about saying Brogan/Bob. It was *such* a big deal when it hit. FWIW, I agree with my boss’s take on the whole thing: http://is.gd/7EhE

    An interesting discussion, all the way around. I love that there are a few places left where people can disagree without becoming disagreeable. It has become increasingly rare!

    Jen

  • http://www.davidniallwilson.com David Niall Wilson

    It seems to me that there is a difference between letting your employees blog and interact with impunity, and using these things for business. It’s easy enough to set up a few trusted employees to be the “voice” of your company and much easier to trust that smaller number.

    Then you expand, as it seems worthwhile or necessary, from that trusted base. Along with this, I’d suggest a policy of educating employees on your hopes for Social Media and your expectations or policies concerning your employees on the web. Obviously (particularly in a large company) you aren’t going to get complete control. The important thing is to have a policy, and to enforce it when you run across abuse.

    One of the biggest turn-offs from my perspective is any sort of witch hunt or negative campaign that could send employees off on the very rants you hope to curtail.

    As for return on investment…I can tell you that interaction with DELL folks in social media has earned ROI from my company.

    We started small about five years back, but are now a multi-million dollar logistics firm. When possible, we are early adopters.

    In our case, however, all current clients are government or military, and so there is no benefit for us in a large move toward social media. Instead, I take my business advantage from the information, support, and resources Social Media provide me and watch for opportunities to put it to use.

    David Niall Wilsons last blog post..I Want the Fire Back…

  • http://evergance.wordpress.com Esteban Kolsky

    Amber,

    Normally I would agree with you (what, being so market and much more knowledgeable and all that), but I am having to take a contrarian view of sorts here.

    See, I have come to realize that despite all descriptions to the contrary Twitter has become one of two things: an excellent (and cheap) PR and Marketing tool, or a passable social communication platform. I cannot foresee lots of our clients (or just about any entrepreneur I know) allowing anyone who wants to say something to become the PR or Marketing voice of the company just because they have access to a platform. I am not advocating silencing your employees, far from it, I am simply saying that as you do with your formal PR and Marketing programs, you must have a purpose, a vision, and rules for execution. If your employees can abide by them – free to communicate on behalf of the company.

    Let me draw an analogy. I do customer service. Nothing turns me off the worse possible way than an employee who works in customer service and wants to differentiate between what they are and what they do. When you work customer service, you are the company servicing the customer – you are not an individual, nor can you separate the person from the job. If the customer is furious at the company, you cannot take it personal – it is against the company you represent. If you take it personal, you are not effective at your job. Same things apply to PR, Marketing, and just about anything else.

    Allowing anyone who wants to get on twitter to do so on behalf of their company violates the idea of having rules, regulations, and a message to communicate for the company. If you choose to twitter about yourself, no problem – just don’t mention the company. If you want to become the voice of the company – then get trained, get the message and spread it.

    (I know, twitter is used as a customer service tool as well as feedback tool – both very close to my heart… more on that later on my blog)

    So, I am serious about spreading the value of using twitter across all functions in a company and endorse the use of it – withing the strategy you set for it. Anything else, it is either personal or out of place.

    Thanks for a very good post, thought-provoking (and allow me to ramble for some time on this)

    Esteban Kolskys last blog post..Surveys Done Right – Part 2 – Customer Satisfaction

  • http://evergance.wordpress.com Esteban Kolsky

    Amber,

    Normally I would agree with you (what, being so market and much more knowledgeable and all that), but I am having to take a contrarian view of sorts here.

    See, I have come to realize that despite all descriptions to the contrary Twitter has become one of two things: an excellent (and cheap) PR and Marketing tool, or a passable social communication platform. I cannot foresee lots of our clients (or just about any entrepreneur I know) allowing anyone who wants to say something to become the PR or Marketing voice of the company just because they have access to a platform. I am not advocating silencing your employees, far from it, I am simply saying that as you do with your formal PR and Marketing programs, you must have a purpose, a vision, and rules for execution. If your employees can abide by them – free to communicate on behalf of the company.

    Let me draw an analogy. I do customer service. Nothing turns me off the worse possible way than an employee who works in customer service and wants to differentiate between what they are and what they do. When you work customer service, you are the company servicing the customer – you are not an individual, nor can you separate the person from the job. If the customer is furious at the company, you cannot take it personal – it is against the company you represent. If you take it personal, you are not effective at your job. Same things apply to PR, Marketing, and just about anything else.

    Allowing anyone who wants to get on twitter to do so on behalf of their company violates the idea of having rules, regulations, and a message to communicate for the company. If you choose to twitter about yourself, no problem – just don’t mention the company. If you want to become the voice of the company – then get trained, get the message and spread it.

    (I know, twitter is used as a customer service tool as well as feedback tool – both very close to my heart… more on that later on my blog)

    So, I am serious about spreading the value of using twitter across all functions in a company and endorse the use of it – withing the strategy you set for it. Anything else, it is either personal or out of place.

    Thanks for a very good post, thought-provoking (and allow me to ramble for some time on this)

    Esteban Kolskys last blog post..Surveys Done Right – Part 2 – Customer Satisfaction

  • Pingback: The pain of selling social media to companies - Endesha - Where Leaders Meet

  • http://smbirdbrain.blogspot.com/ Robyn McIntyre

    Whether nonprofit or for-profit, staff SM usage sanctioned or not, it makes sense to understand the medium and your position in it and on it. Create a position paper, policy or guidelines. There is no one right way or wrong way to do social media – there’s only your way. Define what that is and be willing to regularly review that position and make necessary changes. Regardless of ROI or whether or not some groups still see SM as a joke, conversations are happening and some of them are probably about you. Pay attention or pay the consequences.

  • http://smbirdbrain.blogspot.com/ Robyn McIntyre

    Whether nonprofit or for-profit, staff SM usage sanctioned or not, it makes sense to understand the medium and your position in it and on it. Create a position paper, policy or guidelines. There is no one right way or wrong way to do social media – there’s only your way. Define what that is and be willing to regularly review that position and make necessary changes. Regardless of ROI or whether or not some groups still see SM as a joke, conversations are happening and some of them are probably about you. Pay attention or pay the consequences.

  • Pingback: Prequent Inc. Blog » Blog Archive » Breaking the Stalemate

  • http://www.providentpartners.net/blog Albert Maruggi

    your premise is incorrect, answering the phone is not the same as blogging as a representative of a company. Why?

    1) Authority to speak e.g. mailroom intern not credible source for company strategy

    2) Format, phone is not a lasting medium

    3) Attribution, verbal does not have the veracity

    among others. This is not to say that companies should or should not allow blogging, but it is not based on whether any employee picks up the phone.

  • http://www.providentpartners.net/blog Albert Maruggi

    your premise is incorrect, answering the phone is not the same as blogging as a representative of a company. Why?

    1) Authority to speak e.g. mailroom intern not credible source for company strategy

    2) Format, phone is not a lasting medium

    3) Attribution, verbal does not have the veracity

    among others. This is not to say that companies should or should not allow blogging, but it is not based on whether any employee picks up the phone.

  • Amber Naslund

    @Albert:

    1) Maybe not, but aren’t they going to talk anyway? To their friends, family, others? Why not instead treat everyone in the company as a potential communication node? They are, whether you “authorize” it or not.

    2) I get that in principle, but the *effects* of a phone call can indeed be lasting – and documented. Just because it’s not online doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and can’t be an issue. To wit: how many times have you seen someone blog about a terrible experience they had with a CSR on the phone? That’s pretty darn lasting, even if the phone call wasn’t.

    3) I totally and completely disagree with that statement.

    I understand you’re being very literal about my statement, which is fair, since I said it. But the point is that the illusion of control in communication is just that. (See all of Geoff and Jen’s discussion above). I think it’s about time we start exploring the reality that communication in a company cannot be fully “controlled”, and focus instead on building our brands enough internally that employees – whether in the mailroom or otherwise – would be much less likely to misstep.

    Control isn’t real. Risk mitigation is, but believing that online and offline communications can exist in silos is shortsighted.

  • Pingback: Small World Labs

  • http://www.rottmancreative.com Rob Whetzel

    One reason I see companies not allowing employees to blog or tweet is that there will be a record of what was typed. If something is said on the phone, its rarely recorded or noted. So if information was incorrect, it could be stated as a misunderstanding. Where if information is incorrect through blogging or tweeting, there is a record or verification of wrong information.

    Choosing who should use SM in the company is a key factor for the sole fact that they will be representing the company out in the SM world.

  • http://www.rottmancreative.com Rob Whetzel

    One reason I see companies not allowing employees to blog or tweet is that there will be a record of what was typed. If something is said on the phone, its rarely recorded or noted. So if information was incorrect, it could be stated as a misunderstanding. Where if information is incorrect through blogging or tweeting, there is a record or verification of wrong information.

    Choosing who should use SM in the company is a key factor for the sole fact that they will be representing the company out in the SM world.

  • Pingback: Riffing on David Armano’s Listen, Learn, and Adapt: Need Your Organization’s Adaption Stories! « Aaron Friedman’s Blog

  • http://patrickhadfield.wordpress.com/ Patrick

    I think it will be a slow, long journey: organisations do not like to lose control, and social media delegate control way down.

    I believe that market forces will accomplish the transformation, though – as social media-savvy competitors take customers and employees from, and create better products than, those who try to lock down change and development.

  • http://patrickhadfield.wordpress.com/ Patrick

    I think it will be a slow, long journey: organisations do not like to lose control, and social media delegate control way down.

    I believe that market forces will accomplish the transformation, though – as social media-savvy competitors take customers and employees from, and create better products than, those who try to lock down change and development.

  • Pingback: Being Social is Better than Silence | Kyle Lacy, Social Media - Indianapolis

  • Pingback: Are we really ready to move beyond Social Media 101? « Media Bullseye – A New Media and Communications Magazine

← Older Comments