|
|
| Excuses I've heard why a company won't embrace social media
|
 |
Location: Blogs Hallman's Skull Sessions |
 |
|
Posted by: hhallman |
|
Excuses I've heard why a company won't embrace social media |
|
Over the last 2 years, as social network marketing gain popularity, I have heard hundreds of excuses by marketers for not embracing this evolving phenomenon. I thought I would jot down the top seven and write a write paper about the importance of developing a network marketing strategy. Here is the number one excuse: “I don't have time to spend on social networks - I have too much to do as it is.”
Ummm, that’s the same excuse I use for not going to the doctor. My wife says I’ll have all the time in the world when I am in the hospital. I find all kinds of things to do rather then go to the doctor. “Ahhhh, I have to arrange my socks in the drawer, the dog needs a bath, I have an appointment with the fortune teller.” The truth is I am just afraid to hear what the doctor has to say.
How about you? Are you afraid of what your customers have to say? If you want to read more you, can download my white paper at: Having a Blog Is Not a Social Media Strategy!
http://www.octanecorp.com/portals/5/whitepaper/Ablogisnotasocialnetwork.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Comments | Add Comment |
|
With the explosion of websites, blogs, intranets, web-based seminars, email and other video and text based interactive forums, it has become just as easy for employees to share confidential data, make inappropriate comments and even engage in activities that could be considered borderline criminal, as it is to engage in positive and productive social e-line networking. In your White Paper, your observation that ” . . . you trust them to write letters, emails, have personal one-on-one meetings with very important clients, represent your company at tradeshows and events, pay them to create connections, influence people and to be part of social networks, make sales, but you don’t trust them to be part of social networks,” overlooks one very important difference. The kinds of interactions you describe come with identifiably and accountability. That is, the very nature of the interactions inhibits an individual’s predilection to engage in destructive communication behavior since the comments or actions are attributable. That is not to say that these kinds of communications are not frequently abused; there a numerous examples of ‘people behaving badly” – but that is not the point. The point is that ‘net’ based communication allows for anonymity and with anonymity all ‘social brakes’ are “off.”
Consider the recent example of two Burger King Executives who were fired for posting (under assumed names) ‘defamatory’ comments on a farmer’s advocacy group blog that BK was in dispute with (presumably) to advance the BK position by influencing public opinion. ‘Not what had in mind,” you say with reference to your White Paper – and I understand and agree. But I’m hard pressed to imagine the same executives giving an interview to Channel 2 News stating their viewpoints in the same way. Why? Because their comments are attributable AND I’m sure BK Corporate have guidelines on what is acceptable – and not acceptable – in conducting interviews. The fact is companies have had to implement more and more ‘guidelines’ as the plethora of digital communication alternatives have become available; everything from “Big Brother” applications that monitor employee computer usage to what will (will not) be paid for on cell phone use and if a company is going to advocate and engage in social media they need to have policies and procedures before they encourage employees to become involved – if only for the companies own self preservation.
Looked at from a slightly different perspective, the importance of “brand” has become the Holy Grail over the past few years. To this end, companies invest millions to perpetuate the brand; everything from design and color usage (which is not brand, but a subject for a different discussion) to the “logo Nazis” who defy logic in their pursuit of conformity. Make no mistake, however, the brand can be easily, quickly and irreparably damaged by indiscriminate, undisciplined and cavalier use of social media.
In short, the rights of privacy and free speech must be balanced by the legitimate interests of an enterprise to project an image and protect its reputation. To accomplish this, corporations need to have clear cut, well understood and effectively communicated ‘requirements’ before engaging in social media to advance their business agenda. As you correctly identify in your White Paper – it’s a matter of strategy . . . and strategy without well fined tactics is little more that a wish.
Very good points, all. Companies do need some guidelines and people should be held accountable for what they say in public, about the company. In a situation where comments are anonymous, of course, you can have no accountability.
I was, however, was talking about salespeople. The idea of a salesperson being part of social networking is that they get exposure. So making anonymous statements is stupid. And, in fact, Linkedin.com, the premier B 2 B networking site, requires you are logged in and have a profile to make comments. Your profile link is added to each comment, which is exactly what you want if you desire to network. Therefore, while I agree unencumbered anonymous comments can be damaging, that was not what I was referring to.
As I said, if we trust salespeople to represent us in many ways, why not on networking sites such as Linkedin, which is afar cry from FaceBook and Myspace.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|