Browse > Home / Business Strategy / The difficulty of participation by the corporation

| Subcribe via RSS

The difficulty of participation by the corporation

March 16th, 2008 Posted in Business Strategy

OK, let’s get this out of the way right up front – being a member of a corporation and participating in the Social Web is difficult. There’s so much fear wrapped up in the idea of opening yourself up that it scares far too many off of participating.

In our recent SXSW panel, “Managing Effective Communities”, someone in the audience asked “What’s the biggest community killer”. “That’s easy”, I said. “Fear.”

Perhaps if we highlight the core issues that generate this fear, we can begin to combat it. Jeremiah does a fantastic job highlighting at least three key issues:

The 3 Impossible Conversations for Corporations

#1: Asking for Feedback
It’s so hard for companies to ask for feedback. Take a look around, how many ‘corporate’ blogs ask for raw, unfiltered product feedback. It’s scary for a few reasons: 1) Most companies want to talk about how great they are, not expose themselves to weaknesses. 2) Most companies don’t have the appetite to listen to the feedback, then do anything with it. 3) Most companies don’t know how to respond to the feedback, they don’t want to promise it will happen, nor acknowledge a weakness.

#2: Saying positive things about your competitors
Customers aren’t stupid. In fact, they know who your competition is, and they talk about amongst each other. Yet, for some reason, this is very, very difficult for companies to swallow. There’s some unwritten law that companies shouldn’t talk about their competition (unless you’re criticizing them), it’s welded deeply into nearly every corporate culture. The thing is, customers and prospects talk about your competition, and they will often be analyzing you, and them, and not everything said will be negatives. Companies that recognize that their worthy competition has some strengths have the hardest time admitting it in public –yet those that do, become more relevant, trusted, and authentic than ever before.

#3: Admitting you were wrong
Corporations should always show their happiest face to the market –at least that’s what corporate communications team tells us. Yet in reality, no company, (none, nil, zilch) are perfect. Why pretend to be the absolute best in everything that you do when the rest of the market (including those who are buying and deciding on services) know better. Companies have a hard time admitting they’re wrong, instead, choose to spin, redirect, or ignore what most are saying.


  • Jon Clausen
    @Stephen - If were going to be completely open and honest around the ROI we have to calculate the long-term and the short-term effects on that - the latter which may not always be positive.

    For any publicly traded corporation, long-term ROI has to be balanced with shorter-term shareholder equity and that is a very slippery slope to tread. The embracing of any online community introduces new risks (e.g. - user revolts which become public, messy, even viral.). These can introduce negative ROI and momentum on the street and those are significant. You'll get no argument from me on the long-term ROI of opening yourself up, but I it's a risk/reward scenario that isn't always favorable in the short-term.

    On the outside looking in, we can call it fear and scoff but there are real risks that can justify a conservative approach to opening yourself up as a corporation. I'm not saying it's the right decision. I am saying, getting beyond labeling it as simply "fear" and having a frank dialogue about the risk/rewards - not all of which are positive - is an important part of the process of guiding a corporation to embrace the Social Web.

    In my previous life, I was part of a large-scale change initiative that, initially, failed because we painted a picture of the summit with broad brush, but didn't have a frank and honest discussion about the rigors and risks of the climb.
  • Steven, I don't disagree with you at all - but I think there's a dynamic that we simply can't ignore: human nature. We've been trained for at least several generations to keep things secret as a default (see my blog post on this tomorrow). Add to that the fact that we human creatures live all too often in a state of fear about losing our jobs. Nobody wants to be the guy that causes the "No injuries for ___ days" counter to reset.
  • Jake - thats pretty funny. Things that are impossible for corporations to do. Who would have thought that the most important entities in our economic world have limitations?

    @ Jon I would have disagree with you on a lot of your points. This is not about being safe, its about evolving market conditions and making smart business decisions. As corporations look into their client/customer/product relationship it becomes apparent that there is always room for improvement.

    The above advice rings true for any company looking to improve that relationship. As Jeremiah Owyang says its a conversation and those companies that don't recognize that relationship will lose traction to other companies who will engage in a conversation with their customer.

    So, to me its not about risks or opening up, its about ROI. What will opening up by admitting a course correction return for the business?
  • Jon Clausen
    In applying these three thoughts to my previous career I think it's a little more complicated than that in many cases.

    I think most halfway decent companies are open to all three of the above, but they want to do those things in a traditional (read: safe) manner which accepts everything which comes in and filters what comes back out to the customers, employees, and shareholders.

    I think of the, literally, millions of dollars that my previous company spent on gathering customer feedback, competition analysis, and exploration of strategic initiatives which might not pay any dividends and those three things don't ring entirely true.

    The bigger you get, the more risk there is in opening yourself up to a community which, in the digital age, can turn on you and disseminate negative information which affects shareholder value. I'm not saying I agree with that perspective and think there is a way to do it right, but I don't think it can be quantified that easily. Just saying...
  • Thanks Jake.
blog comments powered by Disqus