Eric Schwartzman | New Media and Social Media Communications

The idea that a company is selling it’s soul by outsourcing social media is greatly exaggerated. This implies that other brand communication is lilly white pure and created by employees and key brand stakeholders. The reality is the collective brand communication of most large companies is manufactured through collaborative partnership with agencies. The notion of “integrity” in voice is a bit pollyannish.

The CMO or CEO of large brands are not sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya waxing poetic about the brand ethos. CISCO’s the “Human network” messaging framework is no more pure integrity than social dialogue. Let’s get over ourselves with this soulful bullshit. Brands want to do better, they want to differentiate and they want to develop sustainable two way dialogue with their customers. Agencies absolutely can represent the brand in social media. I realize a bit of controversy can play a role in selling books.

In my mind there is absolutely no doubt that a competent agency would do a sterling job of managing a social media presence for a brand

However, it’s become clear that there is *much* more to social media than having a successful outward facing presence. Research is now showing that companies (brands) that adopt real-time communication internally and that as a result become internally networked are becoming more productive and agile and as a result gaining market share. I believe that this is the real reason an organization should think twice before outsourcing. They are getting even further behind with this as a strategy.

The danger is that the more successful the agency is at managing an outward facing sm presence the bigger the chance that the brand will delay getting the skills they desperately need to operate in the new environment created by real-time communication technology.

To help brands I think more agencies should follow the lead of Anvil and Formic Media http://blogs.imediaconnection.com/blog/2011/03/14/outsourcing-social-media-management/

Can’t agree more on this. As an agency offering social media services I always advocate the company managing their own social media. Social media is a long-term relationship building tool that can help deepen and strengthen the bond between brand and audience. I just think how I’d feel if I found that one of the brands I follow religiously was actually just agency speak. It would be like meeting a mate in the pub only to have somebody you don’t know speak on their behalf the whole night. Can’t imagine going out for a pint with them again soon!

This being said, there are certainly situations where an agency may be batter placed than the client to handle social media. For instance where a brand has been created for the purposes of promotion or engagement as in the Compare the Meerkat campaign in the UK. I very much doubt anyone in the Company could be the voice of Aleksandr Orlov.

First time I’ve been to your blog Eric (Found through PRDaily.com) and enjoyed the controversy right from the first post Look forward to reading more.

Hi Eric. In a perfect world I agree with you 100%. Let me know if you find that world and we’ll meet for a drink. In the real world, I think it’s ok for agencies to represent the brand IF they are transparent, knowledgeable and helpful. Integrity is defined as much by the message as by the messenger. Keep up the good work.
Larry

Devil’s Advocate here … IF indeed our goal as an APR is to be a “Voice at the Management Table,” and IF we have really created a RELATIONSHIP with our clients, REALLY worked together on that Strategic Plan and identified measurable objectives together, then aren’t WE really THEM? I think you’re spot on if you just have a “drive by” relationship or just push a one-way “buy me” dialogue out there. But if you’re “in their head” you can work collaboratively to achieve your goals and help them spread an effective message.

For some organizations, I concede to your point. But for B2Bs, or really any other considered purchase, where there is a hefty appetite for details to arrive at a purchasing decision, it’s just not practical for an outside agency to build the kind of subject-matter expertise that the client has already. It’s one thing to be the voice of management. But brands don’t talk. People do. Outsourcing the corporate “voice” is a gutless move.

I’ll offer up one example of how we do it. The two partners in our agency have a collective 25+ years of relevant subject matter experience. You do realize that there are many agencies founded by folks with deep client side experience? To our clients we are experts in their space. We work with clients in B2B high-tech and our niche is info-security. Day to day I’m having deep discussions on the over-arching value prop of the brand and products. Day to day we’re developing content (white papers, technical solution briefs). So with all due respect do know there are in fact agencies who invest deeply into the client’s business. Are there agencies who care more about wearing black suits and Prada loafers? Sure but in B2B there are many good agencies busting ass to crush it for their clients.

I’ll offer up one example of how we do it. The two partners in our agency have a collective 25+ years of relevant subject matter experience. You do realize that there are many agencies founded by folks with deep client side experience? To our clients we are experts in their space. We work with clients in B2B high-tech and our niche is info-security. Day to day I’m having deep discussions on the over-arching value prop of the brand and products. Day to day we’re developing content (white papers, technical solution briefs). So with all due respect do know there are in fact agencies who invest deeply into the client’s business. Are there agencies who care more about wearing black suits and Prada loafers? Sure but in B2B there are many good agencies busting ass to crush it for their clients.

Thank you for the kind words Peter! We agree completely.

@Phill_W, the problem with respect to social media specifically is one of velocity. Representatives are middle men. They can never and will never “be” the person they represent. Social media is like a cocktail party. It is impossible for anyone to “represent” you in a social environment. If they tried, everytime they engaged on your behalf they’d need to run decisions by you or check in for more details. The lag in their response time would be a conversation killer, if anyone was actually willing to talk to you in a social environment through an agent. That’s the bummer with customer service outsourcing. You just want to blow through the agent to a high-level, in-house support person who knows the product. If you try to be a middle man in conversations, the discussion just goes around you. Certainly PR people can use social media to do their job on behalf of an organization, but I would argue that most people won’t settle for that as the voice of the organization. What I want to use social media to check payment or shipping terms? What if I wanted to check technical specifications? What I had a problem with a product and asked for help on Twitter? It seems to me that the logical and efficient approach is just to empower everyone on the organizations to use social media instead of one-to-one channels like phone and email whenever they communicate. If they did, their grists will be discoverable, more beneficial to the organization and its customers, and no time was lost through a middle man collecting information, getting answers and responding on behalf of the actual source. And all that helpful information left behind as a by product in full public view would have public relations value, because they company is being helpful in front of everyone.

In terms of achieving brand-messaging success, the importance of using trained professional communicators to represent your organization in all public interactions cannot be overstated. Any company that permits employees to say, write, text or post whatever they wish about their employer, its products, services, people and/or brand (while on the job *in an official capacity*) is letting them eviscerate the PR department’s careful reputation-management work.

The officers of any publicly-traded company have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to keep its secrets secret, and to protect share value—which is why only certain employees should ever be allowed to represent the company (online or off), or speak in public for the company.

Empowering every frontline employee to be a brand ambassador may have famously worked for Zappos, which resolves customer-service issues with seemingly customized responses that are probably selected from a comprehensive set of programmed options in a play book. But training customer-service agents how to handle complaints, or sales teams to keep clients happy, doesn’t make them into professional communicators who understand the company’s brand, and know how best to represent and maintain it. Not everyone has the necessary qualifications and skills to be an effective corporate communicator. Being responsive and empathetic may make you a great customer-service agent, but it doesn’t necessarily make you the best choice to represent the brand.

All brand communications should be in the hands of properly trained corporate communicators who have the company’s sanction to discuss its affairs publicly. This is why successful companies, with successful brands, have PR departments filled with professional communicators, or use agencies with trained PR practitioners.

Organizations have designated spokespeople for a very good reason. They have been schooled in the art of public discourse and know how to successfully manage media interviews, public appearances and other opportunities for brand promotion. They also know the organization’s Key Messages for public consumption and can effectively insert them into every interview and public or private interaction.

When you permit untrained employees to say and write anything about your company and its operations—to communicate freely, without inhibition—you’re also risking that they might reveal unpleasant opinions, sentiments, biases and other personal characteristics or attributes (racism, misogyny, sexism, religious bigotry, hate speech, etc.) that could adversely affect your brand. A blanket policy of allowing all employees to discuss corporate affairs publicly, without filtering, coordination or supervision of some sort, can be a recipe for brand disaster. Without a restrictive set of brand-communication procedures, garrulous staffers might disclose the inner workings of the organization or divulge corporate secrets. Think of all the fires you’ll have to put out—if you can even learn about them.

Monitoring your brand online can be problematic enough when you’re only sampling external audiences such as customers, partners, vendors, competitors, etc. Why make the task orders-of-magnitude more difficult by permitting anyone in your company to say whatever comes into her head? Unless your organization uses keystroke loggers at every computer, loosing a cacophony of employee voices across a multitude of social platforms makes keeping track of what everyone is saying about your brand nearly impossible.

Having untrained employees speaking and writing whatever they want about one’s company violates the very good reasons for having designated spokespeople in the first place. What organization would want its most junior staffer to speak on its behalf to the New York Times, the WSJ, AP, Reuters, NPR, Fox News, or any prominent online news source? So why allow the same staffer to disclose company dealings to the entire world via social media?

Marketing executives love social media because it makes competitive intelligence so simple. Every company should *already* have an internal policy prohibiting staff from speaking with the press (except to refer journalists to designated corporate media contacts). Extending that policy to prohibiting unauthorized online representation of the company is a simple matter.

So who should be the “voice” of an organization in social media? The obvious answer is the designated corporate spokespeople in the communication or PR department—assuming they have the time, the training and the skills to be effective across the variety of required messaging platforms. If they don’t, then hiring another professional communicator (such as a freelancer or consultant), or a team of them (such as an agency), is still better than letting anyone and everyone in your organization have a crack.

Outsourcing a brand’s social-media “voice” is no different, and no less legitimate, than using a ghostwriter for your autobiography, a speechwriter for your public appearances, or having your corporate PR department speak for the company’s board through a press release, complete with manufactured quotes attributed to the CEO.

Whether your social media presence is limited to tweeting and blogging, or you have someone tasked with responding to public comments throughout the social-media spectrum, you will need a trained communicator to guide, monitor and grow your brand. Entrusting your SM voice to untrained amateurs, who are given free rein to say whatever they want, is reckless and irresponsible.

I’m all for maintaining company morale and valuing employee contributions, but an organization’s brand is simply too precious to permit its entire staff to bat it about like a shuttlecock. If you’re going to permit any and all employees to represent your brand—anywhere, whether online or off—without training, guidance or supervision to ensure the brand (and corporate security) is not compromised, then AT LEAST make sure all comments are reviewed by the PR department before they go live.

No one can ever be sure which employees might already be disgruntled and planning to do or say something extremely prejudicial—even deliberately harmful—to your company, so previewing all comments is vitally important. Similarly, all external comments posted at your corporate blog should be reviewed by its moderator before being allowed to appear.

No matter who is your brand’s SM voice, members of external target publics identify better, and are more comfortable interacting, with an actual person, rather than just a brand that uses the royal “we” in its public dialogs. That’s why identifying, by name and title, the person making the comment(s) is usually a good idea. Someone who is publicly identified as the writer is able to use the more effective first-person (” I “) voice instead of the anonymous, off-putting plural “we.”

The use of ghost-tweeters has been controversial for some companies, so be careful if you assign someone to tweet in the name of a CEO or other exec who doesn’t actually write her own tweets. When ghost-tweeting, you should have an approval system permitting the supposed tweeter to review what you propose to put out in her name. Ideally, the named tweeter will preview proposed tweets, but some may only care to see reference copies of each tweet after they’ve already been tweeted.

Assigning some staffer from outside the communications or PR department to make all your social-network comments (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.), write your blog posts, and compose your tweets may seem like a good idea, especially if she is young and seems to have a passion for, and mastery of, social-media techniques. But if or when that person quits, is fired or is reassigned, the authenticity of your voice is going to suffer when someone else, with a different writing style and personality, takes over. And if you have tasked yet another staffer to monitor social media for mentions of your organization, and to respond in those external venues to any comments about your brand, then you have a classic Left Hand/Right Hand mutual-ignorance problem brewing.

All of this can be avoided by having the communications or PR department be the “voice” of your brand. Their trained communicators already know the brand and are the guardians, after all, of its (marketing-communication) style guidelines. They have the institutional memory to weather any personnel changes should the designated “voice” staffer need to be replaced. And, unlike the organization’s rank and file, they know the brand’s competitive environment. This enables them to operate across multiple channels, both internally and externally, and provide necessary context for any new communication opportunities or challenges.

Excellent advice that rings true to the B2B clients we work with.

It’s hard to get resources, which are already over-loaded, to accept additional responsibilities that traditionally where handled by the marketing department. Over time as literacy at the top level of a company improves, hopefully adequate budget will be assigned to improve internal participation in these new online communications. Until then, I expect to see continued outsourcing to manage what’s perceived as “cost”.

Good post Eric. I thought your position at that SXSW was honest and on point for large organizations.

more expert advice from someone with a tiny digital footprint. Go work in the trenches for a while and then come tell me what you think.

Thanks for your comment. Been working the trenches for the last 20 years or so, as a director at a major agency, at start-ups, government agencies, non-profits and for major brands.

Eric,

There’s a middle ground – outsourcing your social media communications to a small firm that takes the time to learn the client’s business and serves as an advisor and not just as a mouthpiece. In many cases, the small firm is often better positioned to communicate the social media message for the following reasons:

1. The company has not appointed an individual or department as the voice of the company
2. Internal communicators, unfortunately, may not enjoy access to senior leaders
3. The company may not assign credibility to the internal communicators
4. The company may not provide the technology or online access needed to carry out the work
5. The internal staff may be overstretched
6. Internal turf wars may prevent the work from getting done
7. Internal policies and procedures may make it impossible to complete the work in-house

In the ideal world, all companies would grant internal communicators the tools, funds and credibility they need to direct their firm’s social media efforts. Until that happens, businesses can turn to small agencies for help.

Rick Alcantara
@jerseycoach
jerseycoachonline.com

Eric

Providing social media access to everyone in the company is fraught with risk. For example:

1. Premature disclosure of material information that could affect company stock prices
2. Inadvertent or intentional disclosure of intellectual property
3. Sexual harassment
4. Slander or libel

In the ideal world, everyone would comport themselves with integrity and none of these situations would ever arise. Just to try to convince legal counsel that they have nothing to worry about.

What’s needed are policies that define who can use social media in the company and, more importantly, who can speak on behalf of the company.

Rick Alcantara
@jerseycoach
jerseycoachonline.com

I tend to agree with you, Eric–and I’ve done ghost blogging work before. I don’t think my client in that case sold its soul, but that’s partly because it was a corporate rather than an individual blog and partly because I’d worked for the client in other capacities and felt I did know both the people and the business. And I still thought they were treading a fine line in not disclosing.

As I shared once in a contribution to FIR, I once received an e-mail message from a local consultant who had decided to expand his business from more traditional areas of “thought leadership” like coaxing books out of experts into representing clients on Facebook and Twitter. The whole phrasing of his offering felt not just slimy, but faintly ridiculous. My response was “Oh, really? Will you also take my mother out to dinner and sleep with my boyfriend for me?”

It’s not possible to delegate relationships, and for individuals, at least, social media presence is about relationships. A company that’s just announcing its latest specials could outsource that job or assign it to an intern, but if you’re actually doing anything social with social media, then you need to do it yourself.

[...] a recent blog post, Eric Schwartzman said that companies that outsource their voice are outsourcing their integrity. In the ideal world [...]

very interesting and true. all advertising and outsourced brand relationships have a degree of that without properly understanding, caring, and internalizing the value of the company but like any good publicist, you can represent your client better than a client can themselves if done properly. i do agree that it should definitely include training your client to speak for themselves – throughout the entire organization in fact – but i decided to specialize in storytelling because i think that does have integrity. you can tell someone else’s story. it’s all about taking the time to listen and if you don’t take that time, you really shouldn’t bother being in business representing anyone in any way. i am a big proponent of ethnography (deep cultural dives) and taking an immersive approach and then you can produce polished content that your client doesn’t have time for or may not have the proper amount of perspective for. i think you can offer a combination game of training and production so that you act as an advocate while doing some of the heavy lifting of diagnosing, sense making and communication. i’m at http://www.showloveworld.com

lol

it’s that birds eye view that sometimes you just do need. again, as i posted above it’s a cocktail and the moment to moment social can be executed by the stakeholders themselves if taught properly and the big polished storytelling by a consultant who cares and has knowledge in the category

Well stated Rick. I agree.  Many businesses can’t afford a full time hire or don’t have the time to monitor every engagement.  We use a great company called Ghost
Post (http://ghostpost.com) and they’ve been terrific so far.  If you can find the right company or person that is reliable, affordable and willing to listen, it’s a fruitful collaboration.