Silencing dissent weakens your brand
A theme I’ve heard over and over from keynotes to thought leaders to hallway conversations is the idea of control. It’s a recurring fear I hear almost every time I speak to association execs about social media—they are scared of the possibility that online engagement will go places the organization doesn’t want it to go.
I’d guess most people reading this blog have pretty much the same answer: They’re going to do it anyway, so you might as well be a part of it. That’s true, if anybody has anything to say, they’ll say it in a way that can be noticed. If somebody notices and they agree, it can magnify. You want to know about it, and you want to be sure that your message is out there as you deem appropriate.
But that’s the old answer. Now, thanks to Mr. Clay Shirky and his Q&A in the Social Engagement Lounge, here’s the new answer: Trying to cut off or silence dissent weakens your brand. Make it known what you stand for (you have to back that up, of course), and that’s all you need do. Those who share that value will stand with you, and if there is energetic and earnest debate, everyone will be better because of it.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Shirky's 90 second case study/skewering of JNJ BTW was a classic case for why we shouldn't be flocking to follow "corporate wisdom" in all of our marketing and outreach. That was one of the funniest examples I've seen for why associations SHOULD avoid the medium IF their cultures are dominated by legal/liability concerns. I still meet with associations who never implemented old fashioned listserv type e-communities because of those considerations; if their culture never evolved, they're better off not trying blogs that are rarely updated, defeat attempts at commentary, or otherwise convey that the real culture of the association is static and austere rather than dynamic and engaging.
Posted by: Kevin Whorton | August 20, 2009 7:09 AM
Kevin - I think it's pretty bold to come on a blog and talk about when an organization should avoid social media -- I like it. I totally disagree with you, of course, but I like it.
I disagree because a culture of "legal/liability concerns" is an anchor used to keep that organization in a single place against the currents pulling against it. It's a strategy that probably served many organizations well 40 or 50 years ago. But this current is way too strong, and that line to the anchor is going to snap.
I suppose I agree with you in one respect, and it's the point I think Shirky was making. Don't go into social media thinking you can do it and be completely safe. You can't. The Johnson & Johnson attempts failed because they wanted control and safety. As the JNJ example, and the Walmart examples that Charlene Li used and probably 10,000 other examples have shown, that approach is a failure before it starts. But if you approach it with authenticity and clarity of your convictions, if people find your message compelling, you will win.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | August 20, 2009 10:56 AM