I’m very late in picking up a conversational thread with Ben Martin that I dropped in
Feb(!) about how organizations can and should participate in the social web. I need to set the record straight if nothing else that Ben and I are in strong agreement on the problem – if not the solution.
In short, Ben and I agree that, as he says so eloquently, organizations are becoming "conversationally impotent in today's marketplace" to the extent that they don't let their employees and customers champion them in personal and individual ways from within the social web (and in the real world as well). Where Ben and I may not be in agreement is that I do not think the solution is to send these employees and customers forth unprepared, unmonitored and unchecked to shape the public image of the organization according to their own personality because there are very real downsides to the organization in doing this, and because some of the potential upside may be missed as well.
This fundamental dilemma - how to enable an organization's broader audience to carry forth its identity while still maintaining some level of control over the dialog and "company line" is the essential challenge for strategic marketers in the days, months and years ahead; and how we handle it will render us either essential or irrelevant to our organizations' success in the marketplace. Personally, I plan to be on the side of "essential."
My discussion with Ben started with a conversation about how organizations encourage people to act as individuals so they don't appear antisocial on the social web. I had commented that “[organizations] can’t just traipse out into the social realm in the same way that individuals like you and I can.” In response, Ben said (in summary):
“These vestigial theories [of traditional marketing and branding] are ingrained with concepts that are rendering most organizations conversationally impotent in today’s marketplace. The new marketers know this: that in the customer’s view, every person employed by an organization is the organization. This is true whether at the cashier’s desk, on the phone with the call center, and even in the web’s social media hangouts. So although organizations themselves are not living, breathing individuals, they are made up of living breathing humans. So I say organizations should give their humans the right to act like it. I’ll take it a step farther: organizations should encourage their humans to act like it - express their personality, show some empathy, deviate from the script and so on.”
I agree with Ben that traditional marketing theories are rapidly becoming useless in the social media world. In a socially mediated environment, it’s not really possible to control most of the organizational messages the way we used to - carefully crafting the puzzle of our message and presenting a tidy picture to public perception as a cohesive, perfect and compelling whole. We need to adjust. And we need to do so while also communicating to those stakeholders that still engage with us in old (unsocial) media ways. This challenge will create a lot of opportunity for smart marketers in the future, but it may not be easy getting there.
I also agree with Ben that the fundamental solution lies in enabling humans with an interest in representing the organization, including customers in addition to employees, to be themselves. (For a great example of this, read Toby Bloomberg's interview with Richard Binhammer of Dell.) Utilizing these individuals’ own creativity, talent and yes – quirks – will be critical to all organizations’ marketing success in the not-too-distant future.
Of course, this personality-driven approach sets off alarm bells for most marketers, worried that the message will become garbled in some strange game of telephone as thousands of individuals run off on their own saying whatever they want to about the organization. To some extent this is already happening and can only be managed. I'm just starting to read Rohit Bhargava's new book Personality Not Included which I expect to give lots of good ideas on how to handle this "opportunity". I also agree with Ben (and Rohit) that these uptight marketers need to chill out to avoid ulcers and inappropriate policies which will get in the way of their effectiveness. As a profession, marketers need to find new ways to enable the customers, employees and stakeholders that can help us, not muzzle their creativity and enthusiasm. I think this approach will be successful because I believe in the fundamental goodness of human beings, in their desire to participate with us in return for what Charlene and Josh call “psychic income” in their new book, Groundswell.
But here’s where I struggle with Ben’s perspective as he's articulated it. Those of us that call ourselves professional marketers (and are aware of the social media phenomenon at all) have a problem in this new world where social networks are like air (to quote Charlene Li): how do we do our jobs, promoting and presenting organizations in a cohesive and valuable way to all their stakeholders when some of them are looking to exploit its vulnerabilities? This is particularly challenging for publicly held companies which have investor communities to manage in addition to customers and employees to keep happy. Further, in a global economy where certain competitive commercial intelligence literally becomes industrial espionage, the downsides to competitive information leaks go far beyond public perception.
In the new social web reality, the vision of employee and customer enthusiasts running all over cyberspace is wonderful and we want to enable it, but it's somewhat Utopian to think that good will alone will keep us safe from negative consequences of humanity unleashed. If your organization has ever suffered a malicious public relations attack, a gut-wrenching stock drop immediately after an accidental exec misquote or a competitive product launch two weeks before your own super-secret launch, you know what I mean. The downsides can be devastating. For a peek at how the social web can enable such serious challenges to organizational survival, read Charlene and Josh's account of how the social web has already turned on its very creators: Chapter one of Groundswell documents how Digg angered its users when it complied with a legal challenge to remove a popular Rudd-O blog entry publishing protected information.
There's no going back to the good old days of marketers crafting organizational identity, I agree. Marketers no longer control (if they ever did) the message with spiffy copy and culturally appropriate graphics and have to turn to new techniques. I think these new techniques will have more to do with shaping the message and then passing it on to others in ways that enable them to expand on it most accurately (e.g., the Social Media Press Release and its evolution). But here's the catch: Marketers don't run most of the parts of the organization that will be carrying the organizational identity forward in the new world, and too often they are mistrusted by the very champions they need to enable.
Here's a perfect example: Geoff Livingston (Buzz Bin) had a problem with JetBlue last week. In a Twitter exchange with JetBlue's customer service blogger, Geoff found a sympathetic ear attached to a person who was unable to solve his problem. Is Geoff being overly critical by blogging about this and making JetBlue look bad? I don't think so. He had legitimate customer service issues that needed fixing. Is JetBlue to be completely trashed because it hasn't figured out how to give individuals using social media tools the power to fix everyone's problem immediately? Not necessarily. Granting customer service fix ability to individuals (on a responsible and trackable basis) is complicated on the back end and can easily be abused. Further, the marketing department's ability to drive customer service policies - and the procedural, training and systems changes that go along with them - is usually arm's length at best. Despite the blinding speed of social media, turning the ship of a large corporation's customer service infrastructure without tipping it over can take time and marketing doesn't always have the clout needed to prioritize these changes in the first place.
As a result of this kind of internal company dynamic, the marketing department is going to struggle to be an effective enabler of company identity in the new social media world. For marketing professionals to play a leadership role, then, things need to change. How? I'm still working on that part. It's part of my Branding in the Round theory, which is still incubating. Let's just say that I think the marketing department of the future looks a bit different than the one we all grew up in. More to come on this point.
Thanks again to Ben for keeping the conversation going. Comments and thoughts welcome. This is a conversation very worth having.
