No Blog Zone?

Update: Max Kelehoff provides his rationale

 Greg Verdino recently wrote:

"Today, I am off to Nielsen BuzzMetrics' clients-only CGM Summit 2006.  The agenda is cram packed with sessions covering all aspects of Consumer Generated Media (CGM) including an overview of where we are today, why people do this stuff, where CGM is going in the future, and how exactly marketers can leverage and measure this powerful channel.  Ironically, the confirmation email I received for the event includes this warning:

"Off The Record: the CGM Summit is off the record, so please no blogging, reporting, recording or broadcasting."

Now after recently going to a Forrester conference where blogging was encouraged, this puzzles me.  I'm assuming that they have a good reason, but as Greg states in his post:

"So how can you host an event about consumer generated media and not let your consumers, um, generate media?"

It is a valid question I think.  How is it that a fairly conservative entity like Forrester can open themselves up but Nielsen BuzzMetrics won't?  Again, there might be a good reason, but this is a fair question.  When I invited bloggers to the Digitas Blog's Eye View conference I explained to our PR people that they could not control what would be said in the blogosphere.  And it was a bold move having our employees mix it up with bloggers from all different walks of life. 

And not everyone is going to say wonderful things about you.  Noah Brier was one of the bloggers in attendance and respectfully challenged my vision of "Influence Ripples".  He brings some good food for thought to the table and I personally see value in this.

So again, there may be a very good reason behind their move to keep the event off the record—but I personally think the question that Greg raises is worth asking.

Comments

[Graham Hill]

David

Puzzling isn't it. And just a wee bit arrogant. Who do they think they are?

The customers present should just ignore NBM and simply blog what they hear if they really think it appropriate.

What are NBM going to do? Fire their customers? I don't think so. Not invite them back next year? Pedantic, self-destructive and I don't think so either?

Are you going to set an example and blog about the event?

Graham Hill

[DA]

Graham, I won't be there, but you can go over to Greg's blog and pose the question to him.

[Steve Portigal]

Please do not take notes. No pens and paper, please. We ask you not to pay attention or absorb any information which may be repeated elsewhere. Keeps arms and hands inside the ride at all times, please.

[Gavin Heaton]

It is a very interesting take on core strategic difference. Forrester's business is built around analysing and communicating -- whereas NBM are about analysing and keeping secrets.

I totally get the need to protect your IP and insight. But for a company who SHOULD understand the changing landscape (hey, they should be playing a leading role), they are showing a distinct mistrust (of their audiences) and degree of short-sightedness.

[Christopher Fahey]

What could NBM do about it if one did, in fact, blog the living daylights out of the whole event? Unless participants actually sign an NDA, their "request" to be "off the record" is meaningless. Without an NDA, anyone who conforms to the request, then, is basically cowering to NBM.

"Off the record" is a shady enough ethical concept when practiced by journalists talking to politicians, but in the realm of business journalism I'm not sure such a thing even exists. "Handshake NDAs", where things are kept off the record out of courtesy, are one thing. But keeping silent about a conference simply because the participants want to make the event more exclusive, well, that's another thing. I guess it depends on the level of intimacy of the conference: If it's under, say, 20 -50 people, I can understand the informal level of discretion (secrecy) assumed by the participants. But trying to silence news reports of an event with over, say, 100 participants is, IMHO, folly akin to censorship. Without a formal/legal agreement (i.e., an NDA), anything with 100+ people in attendance is de facto "public".

[Joe Duck]

Crazy. I'd rather see *blogging ban conferences* than this development!

[DA]

Well, seems like there are a few strong opinions here about this. I'd be careful not to overly-roast NBM over this. Max K. provided some additional context on a recent post (see update on this post) where he states that clients specifically preferred this format.

We all know that we have to walk a fine line with client requests. My bigger point of this post was that I thought Greg's question was valid. How do you hold a conference about CGM without allowing it?

See Max's post for the additional context.

http://attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_hist.html

[Eric Kintz]

David- did you see Pete's post on that topic?
Eric

http://notetaker.typepad.com/cgm/2006/10/who_comes_first.html

[DA]

I have not. Just looked at it—thanks. Actually, I like their CEO's position. He defends the move but also entertains the idea that some portions could potentially be blogged by clients (maybe in the future)?

http://nielsenbuzzmetrics.com/mouthpiece/archives/point_of_view/index.html

" I don't know that we got it right, so I am eager to get more feedback. One approach that we discussed was to have proactive blogging of certain sessions which BuzzMetrics was presenting, but then make the customer panels and worksessions "off the record". Would this have been better? Are there other models which organizations are using which are effective?"

Check out the comments on Greg Verdino's blog as he attended the actual summit.

http://gregverdino.typepad.com/greg_verdinos_blog/2006/10/social_media_fi.html#comments

[Natasha Robinson]

I personally love when bloggers blog events that I cannot attend as this also makes me want to go to these events when they next occur even more. There are plenty of events I would have never attended if it had not been for reading blogger perspectives that made me want to actually experience the event for myself.

My company had a similiar event where I couldn't even write about who attended, due to confidentiality ... so I can understand the CEO of NBM's points... especially since:

"In this particular case, for this particular event, the agenda was primarily focused on presentations by clients, of their companies' case studies."

I can understand if prior consent was given by the clients who were presenting to allow blogging (and maybe this should have been explored) however, if it is a private event where confidentiality is expected then by all means a "no Blogging Policy" is just fine.

[P-Air]

This conversation seemed like a big hubbub over nothing. Since this was a client event it implies some basic issues.
1) client agreements are generally contain a confidentiality clause
2) bloggers in attendance are in a client capacity if they're attending this event
3) so long as the company advises that this is an event bound by the confidentiality clause (saying it's off-the-record is enough) then it's considered confidential material. It doesn't matter if it's w/one or 1000 people attending so long as they're all clients they are subject to that agreement clause or separate NDA.

Those who choose to be bloggers on their personal time should instantly think they have some sort of special right here. This event was never positioned as anything other than a forum for NBM's clients, so that's what it is. Now, why all the noise, isnt there enough other things to blog about? ;-)

[VokVoigreemen]

Nice site keep it up!

--------------------------------------
http://www.dasofte.com