Last year Coke Zero kicked off 2006 with a bungle. On the heels of the McDonald's Monopoly flog lots of people wrote about Edelman's Walmart flog-blog that same fall. You would think that marketers, and more specifically, PR people would have learned a good lesson.
On Tuesday the inimitable CK brought us an interesting question in her post entitled "Crappy Convos (but good lessons.)" The post is not for the faint of heart, but it is a great read for companies wondering about how to engage in social media/communities/commentary.
CK's question is "Should we encourage our colleagues and friends to comment on blogs that we produce for our clients? You would think the answer is clear by now, but I guess some clients (and their marketing buddies) aren't getting the message.
Transparency is good. Truth is better. Is that so hard?
I feel like I need an Armano chart illustrating a bad decision making process. I'll try with just words: Can you stand behind your product or service? Yes = You can probably feel good about how you will be treated in social-media land. (See Apple, be fearless.) No = "Maybe we should start a fake blog." (See Walmart.)
My question for you: What will you say to a client that is fearful of the marketplace when they ask about dipping a fake toenail into the social media pool? Can you speak truth to power (or client?) Professionals should be able to see the train coming down the tracks and save their client some grief. What will you do? What will you do? (10 points to anyone who gets the reference.)
Comments