MEMO: to all corporate executives and entrepreneurs who are trying to learn about all this Social Media stuff, and are confused by the divisive sniping.
RE: Calling off the Conversation
While we’re at it, let’s call off the use of every other analogy that results in misinterpretation. For now, ignore everything you’ve read about “conversation,” “audience,” “community,” “stakeholders,” “message,” and “control.” Time to get back to basics, and let’s start by defining terms.
- Universe – all potential receivers of a message
- Audience – subset of Universe with all potential receivers tuned to a particular channel
- Community – subset of Universe of potential receivers who interact with each other based on interest
- Stakeholders – subset of Universe who have a reason to care about the content of your message, whether they do or not
- Message – the one thing you want stakeholders and future stakeholders to know or remember
- Conversation – a transaction of information where parties participate as both senders and receivers
Some may quibble with the above definitions, but that’s how we’ll use them for the context of this memo.
THE OLD FORMULA SHOWS ITS AGE
If you’re a corporation that’s been around for any length of time, then you had certain strategies for reaching your stakeholders. Maximum range for minimum cost. You had a few outlets that would blanket the Universe, but had to go through gatekeepers to target an Audience (beg the journalists, or pay off the advertising venues.)
In a sense, the word “audience” tends to mislead some who only think in terms of the performer on stage doing all the talking, with the “audience” paying rapt attention with their silent butts in the seats. Truth is, Audience members can be part of Communities, Stakeholders, and take part in Conversations (even during the performance, like the Groundlings at the Globe).
Even the so-called silent majority in the Audience provides feedback: they applaud, they respond, they buy season tickets, they tell friends or write reviews.
One thing that does hold in the analogy is that you don’t get very far listening to an audience – they’re just the group tuned to the channel or in the room. You want to engage stakeholders, and if you’ve chosen your venue well, you’ll have more of them than not in the Audience.
Communities have existed and always will exist outside of your need to provide Messages. Communities can be a great guide for finding Stakeholders, and provide a rich environment for engagement. Provided, of course, you are not there to exploit.
CALLING OFF THE CONVERSATION
The great thing about identifying the right Communities of Stakeholders is you’re now in the best possible place to deliver a message. And you’re in a great place to listen. Get feedback. Improve.
Just don’t get hung up on the Conversation. Because it’s out of your control. You can’t *make* anyone else listen. It’s the wrong paradigm, if that’s all that is being preached.
If your Stakeholders are so scattered throughout the Universe, the you might be happy using traditional channels to reach them. For you, the “conversation” can be in the select focus groups and research you’ve always used.
Just be aware that your competitors just might be gleaning some key advantages:
- Embedding in a Community of Stakeholders (the cyan and white areas on the graph) is like real-time focus groups on the cheap
- Conversations have always happened independent of you. You can eavesdrop on what others are saying about you.
- Unlike conversations, “Conversations” ARE NOW EXTENDED. They don’t exist in a tiny slice of space-time. They grow, can be revisited, and can sit in the search-engine archives forever.
- You can now identify the key influencers. One substantial gripe about your product might earn four comments in a blogpost or forum. Three weeks later, it’s found by someone who shines a light on that gripe, and it’s amplified. If you know who the new influencers are, you can at least attempt to change the color of that spotlight.
- People dig authenticity. The vast majority of potential Conversations will never happen, because Stakeholders may see that others have already expressed what they wanted to say. The measure of Conversation isn’t the number of people who “talk back”, but the number of people who now know you are listening.
THE FINAL WORD
There are some who discount the notion of Conversation, noting the real business of corporate communications is to have the Final Word. They are absolutely right.
But in real life, you don’t get the Final Word unless it is granted to you by the other party in the conversation.
So, I’m officially calling off the “conversation” as the be-all end-all unit of exchange. You don’t need to have a “conversation” to succeed in business. You do need to earn the credibility required to be granted the Final Word regarding your product, performance, or service. Because people are talking, whether you’re listening or not.
(Ike Pigott regularly blogs at Occam’s RazR)
Expertly done, Ike. This is certainly one to forward to the CEO/CMO types those of us in the advertising industry work with. In fact, I’m off to do that now.
So garnering permission to have the Final Word still assumes that’s your job.Why do businesses have to have the Final Word? That’s a complete error in judgment and an assumption that the business is more superior than the people who shell out cash for its products or services. Mistake.
Relationships supersede the Final Word, and business communicators who think it’s their job to win the battle instead of the war hurt companies more than help them.
Here’s the problem, and it’s danced around throughout this post, but never directly addressed. All of the discussion revolves around audiences, stakeholders and communities like they are there to exploit. I don’t care what the label is, you need to consider people. People don’t want messages. They want value from their business relationships conducted with other people repping an entity.
The language used assumes that you will play by their rules to get what you want. Kind of like taking a girl to a nice dinner with the wrong motives.
Geoff – the corporation *does* have an interest in having the last word. Not in a confrontational or exploitive manner, but in a place of trust.
If you hear a rumor that WidgetCo has been dumping toxins in a river, you can either take it as truth because you don’t like WidgetCo, or you can do some online research, or talk with friends you trust.
If WidgetCo has established a trusted voice in the marketplace, it can share “the message” that WidgetCo does not pollute, and provide the relevant evidence. *IF* the Stakeholder were to find that information on the WidgetCo site and goes off satisfied, then WidgetCo has in fact had the Last Word. It’s the culmination of every individual transaction of permission marketing – acceptance. Earning the Last Word is the most basic act of opt-in.
But increasingly, organizations must earn the right to be given the Last Word. They used to shotgun the message and hope it stuck, because there were no other tools for engagement. My point, if it is not clear, is that Social Media provides a different class of tools that are more surgical in nature. Not a replacement for the old toolkit, but an addition.
We disagree again. And the disagreement does not center on permission, it centers on attitude. This is where cluetrain was spot on.
Companies don’t really exist physically. They are legal entities made of people who think it’s OK to treat other people like product. Marketers look for transactions, messages disseminated in numbers of places, and numbers of eyeballs. Yet, making messages ‘stick’ with or without permission is not the corporate or organizational objective.
That’s why social media has erupted, because people are sick of getting fed BS by companies. And that’s true when they are being force fed messages after giving permission, too. That’s why we trust each other more than what any entity tells us.
Invariably, the real objective of a company is to provide a service or product for a fee (organizations advocate for an issue). Messages need to be aligned with the core value proposition — the real value proposition — not what some focus-group driven CMO masterminds. And messages need to serve both the organization and the people, not be designed for final delivery. Regardless of media form. Leading marketing minds know this.
Let me wade in. You two are looking at this from disparate points of view, Ike from a crisis perspective and Geoff from a marketer’s perspective.
I (like Geoff) disagree with the semantics of using “the last word” because it brings to mind that pat parental reply, “because I told you so.” Instead, may I suggest that it should be the goal of companies to be the “first and best source of information?” As Ike says, for this information to be accepted there must also be trust, which is earned through a previous relationship.
From the marketing point of view, companies must find the place where the interests of the stakeholders and the company align to provide a service. I actually think that the principles of supply and demand have generally made this happen organically, but Cluetrain disciples are concerned with the idea that companies are seeking to “create demand.” This artificial creation (use this shampoo and you will attract the ladies) is what they were speaking against.
So what have I gotten out of this “conversation”?
1. It is time to look at the intersection of social media with corporate interests in a multidimensional way (i.e. it’s more than just community)
2. The attitude with which companies and organizations approach their universe, audience, communities and stakeholders is more important than what they call them
3. Companies and organizations should seek to be the “first, best and most trusted” source of information for their audience, communities and stakeholders
Geoff, we’re talking about a difference without a distinction.
Look at my 5th takeaway point: “people dig authenticity.” That requires that you be there representing your company from the bottom up. It’s not a top-down directive, because people expect more personalization in their dealings. Those who listen first know better than to cram a message down unwilling throats.
The end result is that people come to you for your take on the matter. If you’ve engaged well, been authentic, and provided value (truth) along the way, then your message will be accepted. Motives only get questioned when there is no relationship there, or a bad one. The difference between acceptance and “spin” lies within the receiver – not just the motive of the organization. A corporation that *does* only operate in a top-down message-control fashion will find less acceptance and more spin-rejection — regardless of the merits of the statement or the transparency thereof.
Here’s an example: CostCo announces its pharmacists could cure cancer with miracle healing touch, and the public would go crazy with delight. If Walmart announced it and actually backed up the claims, the public would accuse the company of putting family doctors out of business.
Kami – thanks for pointing out the elephant in the room. It’s not just marketing or crisis, it’s all wound up in communication. And these previously disparate disciplines may yet wage a turf war over who owns Social Media as a tactic. Marketers who are keen to leverage Facebook using the old-school mindset can undermine the efforts of more traditional PR and crisis communications people, who see “The Company” as having a single voice.
Let me clarify “The Last Word.” It’s the measured result of building trust, not the means of acquiring it. If you are concerned about whether I am up to no good, you can inform your opinion any number of ways. But if I have earned your trust, you come to me, I answer your question, and you search no more. That is having the Last Word.
Now, if GloboChem (I miss “The Show”) issues a news release that makes fantastic claims, some will reject it outright. Others may go to friends or trusted websites to investigate the claims further – and thus you don’t have the Last Word. Kami probably put it better — seeking to become the most trusted authority for your brand and mission.