The perils of blogging
You may have read about the Google employee who created a firestorm when she blogged about Michael Moore’s new movie, “Sicko.” In her blog, she criticized the movie for being one-sided, not showing any of the health care system’s positive contributions. The blogosphere, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, was “outraged,” and accused Google of violating its “Do no evil” motto.
Later she admitted she was speaking for herself, not the company. Debbie Weill, a consultant and author about blogging, weighed in that partisan politics are inappropriate for corporate blog. But in supporting the use of blogs, Weill said that a well-done corporate blog, “can offer a viewpoint and a whiff of personality of the company that you can’t get otherwise.”
A Google spokesperson said that “we try to make them [blogs] interesting and not too traditional and corporate.”
Those seem like tricky guidelines. Do they mean that it’s ok to let people see your personality as long as you are sure that people will like you? Can bloggers who are attached to an organization talk only about safe topics? Aren’t the most interesting topics somewhat controversial?
It seems to me that the blogosphere is a minefield.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Yes, Julie, I agree and well put. There’s something entirely wrongheaded about the notion of blogging to offer a the desperate masses “a whiff of the personality of the company.” (Of course, most companies think their whiff don’t stink.)
For companies and for people: If you can’t offer compelling opinions and back them up in a wide-open marketplace of ideas, don’t blog.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
> It seems to me that the blogosphere is a minefield
Of course it is - that’s why it’s so popular! We all have to decide whether our comfort zone has an elastic waist (that’s registered for the 2007 Worst Metaphor Contest).
July 6th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Who get’s to decide what is, or isn’t compelling?
I’m reminded of an article I read about two years ago that told a story about how one man who was a devotee of Dr. Pepper had started a blog about all things related to Dr. Pepper. I wouldn’t exactly define this as compelling, yet according to the story (if memory serves me correct) 100,000+ people around the world did.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:20 am
The blogosphere is no more of a minefield than any arena where democracy and transparency reign supreme. It levels the playing field between those with position, authority and seniority–and those who are perceptive, articulate and persistent.
It allows good ideas to spread with speed and intensity. It reveals the difference between real voices and managed spin. Best of all, it exposes the moles and blemishes of naked emperors.
Welcome to the blogosphere…
July 7th, 2007 at 9:12 am
David, I really don’t agree with your final statement, it sounds like you’re trying to make rules about who should blog and what the content should be. Blogs are personal, they don’t have to fit a format or be compelling or attract anyone. Company blogs may, indeed, have strategic reasons for doing those things, but to say that others don’t have a right to blog for their own reasons sounds pretty elitist to me. Or did I misunderstand you?
July 8th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Barbara–
I don’t care if people or comapnies want to blog even though they don’t have interesting ideas or compelling opinions to share. I’m happy to ignore such blogs, as is everyone else.
But if I were advising a company or a person, I’d say: If you’ve got nothing to say that you don’t think will move an audience to interact with you, then put out an annual report, but don’t put a great deal of psychic energy and valuable time into blogging.
To Craig’s point, if the Dr. Pepper blog works for Dr. Pepper and helps build or bolser a cult following, then good for Dr. Pepper.
But a blog is a big job that never ends. Why start one if you can’t find an enthusiastic audience?
That’s all I’m saying.
David
July 8th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I think the fact that she used a blog to make her point was incidental. The real story is that an advertising company — Google — stepped into PR. Does it matter that she made this misstep in a blog? Would it have been better if it had been a press release? Sometimes I think we focus too much on the tools and not enough on the messages. The issue is the claim that Google could help its customers use Google adwords to influence public opinion against the theme of the movie and in favor of Google’s healthcare clients. Who cares that the claim was made in a blog?
July 8th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Well, who among us have read the original blog? Hands up.
Try http://google-health-ads.blogspot.com/2007/06/does-negative-press-make-you-sicko.html
It’s a sales pitch, not an opinion piece, designed to get people to call her up and pay Google money to run ads about health care providers.
As per, “If you’re interested in learning more about issue management campaigns or about how we can help your company better connect its assets online, email us. We’d love to hear from you! Setting up these campaigns is easy and we’re happy to share best practices. ”
So, in any discussion of blogs and minefields, we might spend a bit of time comparing blogs that are opinion and insight, blogs that are personal opnions, blogs that are sales pitches,…
I have not read the media coverage about Lauren Turner’s posting, but my suspicion is that reporters were more confused about her column than Ms. Gibson is about Mr. Murray’s commentary. Her (Ms. Turner’s) message was certainly not inaccurate. If someone had to approve it, I’d find it difficult to kill the posting because it lied, distorited, etc.
It’s nothing but a sales letter, on screen instead of on paper.
As for blogs being minefields.. as I recently watched Sir Elton and Rod Stewart sing in honor of Princess Diana, I thought a bit about her campaign to rid the world of mines.
Yup, they are dangerous, no question about that. But I’m not sure how often the danger comes from poorly thoughtout writing, and how often from poor reading comprehension, and how often from deliberate twisting.
BAK
BAK