Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Better yet, they should be facilitating and enabling private relations across the flat plains of the net. NOT just among clients and customers, but more importantly, among the mes, the yous, the theys, the uss--and if the product is good (iRiver for example) the conversaton talks itself. How can PR help this? energize, engage, encourage, celebrate and reward participation and discussion at the lowest levels of the marketplace.

Absolutely, Jeneane. Markets are, um, conversations, as I believe that Doc fellow once said.

Yes, but, I want to see how you guys (and Edleman) are translating this into every-day practice.

Right now we have a couple of blog-related projects underway for BigCos. They come at this thing thinking they want the "I got religion" vantage point, which you provide here: "in most cases that relationship should be between the client and the public."

And then the word "risk" comes into play. Do you yawn or do you scream or do you explain the risk of not participating?

Okay, some other questions:

Ideas for the best ways to help clients enter a conversation that has been taking place for years without them--and with a lot of negatives being exchanged among users about their services/products.

The public isn't always right, but it's always public: What if competitors are rewarding users for slamming a company, sparking websites and forums that dis for the sake of dissing? Do you expose the behavior of the competitors and set the record straight while risking sounding whiny or weak? How confrontational can we get? (See the recent hoopla over BzzAgents and the subsequent apology--again the question of undoing damage).

What does the PR function of crisis management look like in a PR-Disintermediated world? Are there special swat teams that should be advising clients on the best way to respond to disasterous posts and pods and the like? Or do we send the client out there to stand on his/her own two feet and voice?

More questions if you want them. And THANKS!

P.S., sounds like you're gonna have some PR hurled your way. ;-)

You're hitting all the points that in my experience PR agencies are most reluctant to confront. As you know, Jeneane, to PR, the Web looks like a new channel for getting messages out. It's hard enough to convince them that the Web is actually a conversation, and harder still to convince them that (as you say) it's a conversation that's been doing just fine without them. Attempts to control that conversation are likely to fail and it's only worse if they succeed. (I view my role at Edelman as first and foremost a voice for the protection of the conversation.)

If your competitors are bribing people to complain about you, I don't know what the general response should be. It feels too context-dependent. But the general principles are still going to apply: Transparency, truth, unfiltered voices. (I know you agree, at least at this level of generality.) The truth is that I wouldn't be above sending a msg to customers I had a relationship with pointing out the sites where the competitor's comments are appearing: "Sally, did you see the awful things X, Inc. is saying about us at foo.com? If you wanted to jump in..." This doesn't feel evil to me. Am I wrong?

WRT crisis mgt: I think a trusted PR group would do both things you ask about: Advise their client that nasty things are being said, and advise on how to respond. I know this smacks of "spin," but it can just as likely be advice such as, "Heartfelt draft, but that's the one you throw out. Don't escalate the nastiness." I know that once when I was being mercilessly slashdotted, I showed my proposed response to the PR person at my book publisher, and she gave me pretty much exactly that advice. And she was right. Is that spin? It felt more like an act of friendship, and her advice ultimately helped the conversation.

The "don't escalate the nastiness" point is well made - that is very often the best thing you can do. When you're getting pilloried (fairly or otherwise) in public, it's normally our first instinct to want to respond with equal force and vigour. But while it's absolutely, tangibly, fundamentally true that markets are conversations - a lot of those conversations are ephemeral and only of interest to the small group of pro- and antagonists directly involved. In the long term, it's often much better to avoid fuelling the fire by blowing on the embers.

As for getting into conversations that have been going on for years outside the clients' circle of influence, I think the best advice I could give clients would be to seek entry to the conversation, proceeding with integrity, honesty and caution. As you enter the discussion, consider the following:

1. Bring something of value. Don't just jump in with both feet expecting to be welcomed - demonstrate that you have information of use to offer.

2. Be honest and direct - dump the key messages and polished positioning.

3. Once you engage, engage - you can't take a seagull management approach to this kind of dialogue. If they let you into the conversation, make sure you're willing and able to keep it going (and you should).

You also have to think carefully about the best person in the firm to get into the discussion. It's probably not going to be a PR or marketing person, in most cases. If it's a product company, you should be able to find someone who's at least as passionate and knowledgeable about the product(s) as the most vocal detractors are.

All fairly obvious stuff, I guess - and it's all been said before. In my experience, getting over the /perception/ of risk is the biggest hurdle. Not the risk itself - the concern that there might be a risk. 90% of companies lack the cojones to accept that some risk in public dialogue is both necessary and good.