If You Can't Beat Them, Be Them?

I did the above visual not long after I first started blogging. While I illustrated a specific type of scenario (think Dell Hell or Comcast sleeper etc.), my point were that traditional and non-traditional media co-existed and had to be factored into how a company deals with the public.

More and more, I'm wondering if it's possible for organizations to act like the individuals who are often times beating them at there own game.  If people like Robert Scoble are beginning to feel like a one-man media machine (never mind social media—he's transcended that), then is it possible for the reverse?  Can companies emulate what individuals are doing and gain credibility for it?

Just hours ago, there was a huge explosion in Toronto which to no surprise began getting documented by everyday people using tools such as YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, etc. while the mainstream media outlets have to react a little slower to ensure that A. the story is newsworthy, and B. the story is factual.  These things ensure the credibility of an organization, especially in the media business.

But everyday people are now providing indisputable value when they document events like this.   We're more forgiving of the inaccuracies if there was something of value in what the individual provided, whether it be media, a perspective or thought.  It's the credibility of the individual that is at stake if we end up being misled and it actually helps traditional media as we look to it to validate.

So breaking news aside, can organizations be as fast, nimble and responsive as an individual?  Can the people who work within an organization emulate the behavior of people who are naturally inclined to produce content and document events.  Should organizations/brands/companies even try?

What do you think?  Who's doing this right and who's doing it wrong?

Comments

[Rob van Alphen]

Well, who's doing it NOT right is Delta airlines. Remember the "Delta Skelter"-affair Joseph Jaffe dealt with.

Companies can never be fast enough to handle all negatives (or positives) being put on the net.
The main issue is how to find them. Is anyone actually looking? If/when a company gets notice of a "treat" on the internet, of something that could potentially harm them, they are actually already TOO LATE.
Reacting is one thing, but reacting in time is another.

So should companies only look after the most influential bloggers, news sites,...? Does the "average" blogger not matter?!
NO, ofcourse not... but it's an impossible task to keep 'em all on your side.

[W. Evams]

"to ensure that A. the story is newsworthy, and B. the story is factual. These things ensure the credibility of an organization, especially in the media business."

You forgot C. will generate high ratings while D. Not upset the media [markets] preconceived gestalt.

Clearly, we now suspend this [news] story for this breaking event, [insert random insipid headline of no discernible news value], key 3 pundits with the intellectual acuity of the cookie monster, mix, remix, master, replay for remaining 23 hours.

[Tsahi Levent-Levi]

It is impossible to keep track of this speed.
Companies have a lot more barriers and people/media have more expectations from them.
Individuals have a lot more space to play and we will be more forgiving to their mistakes.
Your post just reminded me about the absurdity of today's situation - individuals can be on top on every company botch and gain out of it, while companies cannot return the favor in any way.

[W. Evans]

In serious, the assumed natural differentiators of MSM is [theoretically], access to resources such that they can not just report the 5Ws of journalism, but them put those into context. To the extent that they have cut their budgets, and fail at either placing [news artifact] into context and expounding upon the Why, they serve little or no value. They now are in the spectacle business, not the journalism business. News report this morning, CBS remixed and the presented a simulacra of the Olympics opening ceremony. They became the P.Diddy of journalism -- and further, have proven they rarely even get the other four Ws correct anymore.

To "So breaking news aside, can organizations be as fast, nimble and responsive as an individual?"

It depends. Very few orgs have come to terms with the "Groundswell," nor have they created a strategic plan for acting/reacting/contextualizing breaking news [even if they are the news] - so more are turning to their PR agencies who sell their ability to "Get" new media/user generated content, etc. The sad fact is - these agencies Don't get it. Case in point? Edelman sells it's experience and acumen with the new social media, and yet they are the very poster child of misuse/abuse/perversion of social media. Edelman is the cautionary tale of what Not to do, yet people still line up to pay them hefty retainers for their expertise with social media, and people like us still lined up to go to their ad:tech conference.

[Mike Arauz]

finding ways to mobilize the communicative capabilities of individuals within these corporations is an essential aspect of the challenge you raise. right now i think many corporations are missing out on a huge opportunity to be quick and nimble like you're describing, because they can't figure out how to position or frame the collected contributions of individuals within their organizations for the public.

[Adam Green]

The challenge for a company in emulating Scoble isn't a matter of speed, or total volume of flow. It is a matter of voice. You can hire plenty of people to write blog posts and tweet, but can you assure a consistent personality throughout these communications?

[Bonnie Larner]

Should organizations/brands/companies even try?

David, my answer is yes, but it will take change - something many fear. The thought of groups and individuals working closely together is exciting. It would greatly improve everyone's quality of life.

Sorry I can't give you a positive example, but I have one that failed miserably -- Virginia Tech. When the university found out there was a murderer loose on campus, they sent every student an e-mail!!!! Not a txt message, not a Twitter, but an E-mail.

Best,

bonnie

[Sean Howard]

Hey David,

Valeria posted an interesting article from a similar slant, how to better approach social media strategy vs. just spending (blindly) on media relations.
http://www.conversationagent.com/2008/08/do-you-need-trade-media-for-a-product-launch.html

Both posts have gotten me thinking about my approach to date in helping companies with how to incorporate social media technologies (for lack of a better term). And I think your question is dead on the money. I'd say, "what if..." "What if companies could respond as quickly and honestly..." What would be the value in return?

[Geoff Livingston]

It comes back to crisis PR, which is almost instantaneous and factually based. Most companies are not capable of this kind of commenting, but some are. I think we saw that twith the diacetyl popcorn crisis last fall, and with Dell, NetSol, etc. Companies that do this really need to be focussed on non-spin oriented activities.

[Michael Gass]

David,

My answer would be yes. I had a meeting with the lifestyle division of a large company on Friday of last week. The ad agency that I consult with has been producing a brand loyalty piece, a free magazine for their customers for years. The content is free of advertorials and company propanda. It contains stories of interest and how to's that are of benefit to the company's customers. Great content to use with social media.

We had a good discussion about creating a company blog based on the magazine, it would actually be the editors blog. But we immediately ran into a problem with the companies IT and eCommerce divisions who control the companies online presence.

The eCommerce division wants their own blog but one that would directly drive sales. The IT department wanted control over posting and comments on the blog. I can imagine how slow it would be waiting for IT to get around to posting the blog post or reacting to a comment. This company doesn't get it and not sure they ever will.

I suspect this is the same hurdle others come across when dealing with large companies and the use of new media. They are going to be so slow that their efforts are ineffectual.

[Bob]

My guess is, the bigger and less personality driven the company, the harder it will be to pull this off. If I were part of a major company, I might deputize a certain trusted person to be personally in charge of this, and then try to limit the danger by somehow quarantining that person from the rest of the company so that, in the event of a major foul-up, it would only be a problem for a small portion of the company

[Katie Bode]

I think the key to this problem lies not necessarily in being the fastest to get content up on the internet but rather the quality of of the dialog. Certainly speed is important when dealing with new media but if a company already has an open dialog with their consumers that is personable and approachable it makes it that much easier to present their side of the story and have it taken seriously. The example that comes to mind is Digg's handling of the DVD encryption incident. Digg as a company already had an actual dialog with their users so they were able to communicate with their base in an effective and helpful way when that base became dissatisfied with the removal of 'illegal' content. Certainly new media companies like Digg have a head start in this regard since their business model is built upon user generated content, but old-style companies should look first to create a trustworthy and truly open dialog so that when they have something to say they already have the platform to make sure their side of the story is heard.