You're Asking the Wrong Question

It usually starts with "how can I keep control of [you fill the blank here]?" You can't, you won't, change is inevitable, even for your spouse, your brand, your job, your life. So, now that we've gotten than out of the way, let's talk about how you can be part of the conversation; the one about your brand, your relationships, your job, and your life.

Be active, participate, be present so you can flow with it. Lest I forget to mention it, it's not enough to define yourself as a change agent to be one, you may actually need to do the change. There are a couple of terrific posts about social media that address the question that comes from narrative fallacy, if I may borrow Taleb's term, that very illusion that says you are in control.

Wendy Piersall writes the first post in a series that addresses how can you keep control of your brand with a blog and social media? My slight contribution to her short answer is that you never controlled the conversation, you only thought you did because consumers did not talk back. We haven't changed *that* much in a few years. Social media just liberated that part for more people and voices to be included actively. Wendy ends her first post of the series with a juicy bit:

In the end, a strong brand and a strong business will either engage their audience with blogs and social media, or they will be left behind.

Geoff Livingston talks about how fear kills social media efforts. The biggest fear is indeed the fear of personal (of the business and its people) change. My comment to his riff about lawyers is worth repeating here -- we've forgotten that lawyers exist to serve the business, not the other way around. Time to remember and act that way. Geoff's payoff line:

But no matter how many examples of collaboration and social media excellence a company is exposed to, it must still face itself.

"How can I keep control?" is the wrong question. People are more assertive than ever in declaring they want control over *their* lives. Yet, in a counter intuitive move, you have a secret ally -- choices. There are too many choices out there, including whether to be open to social media or not. What people really need help with is in deciding if we're going to go with your brand or not -- are they going to trust you, stick around and tell you what they think? How are they going to do that if you won't let them in?

The right question is how can I let people see as much as possible (and practical) of what's going on so they can choose for themselves? If you've ever walked by the ABC studios in Times Square you know what I mean -- it's mesmerizing, inspiring, awesome and special to feel like you're part of it. So why wait until the very end? The theater today is in the making, as it has always been.

Comments

[Geoff Livingston]

An article titled, "how can you keep control of your brand with a blog and social media?" really depicts the general business mindset. A lot of bloggers would be outraged, but if we are to get these folks here -- using our tools in the right ways -- then we need to start the conversation there. It seems like it will be a long conversation that will require patience, but posts like this begin the process. Well done, Valeria.

[Karen Hegmann]

Valeria

I agree with you in that long term brand "stickiness" will rest with companies who give their customers a chance to participate in the conversation.

Over the last few years, corporate communicators and investor relations people have invented the term "transparency" in an attempt to make the actions of a company more visible. This new way of revealing information to shareholders probably wouldn't have been necessary, had there not been companies and/or leaders who, through power, control and greed, tried to get whatever they could get - through whatever means possible.

Traditional business has always been about power and control being in the hands of the few. To let others into the equation means that the powerful few have to give up control, and that leads to fear. They will do whatever it takes to protect their resources (why does an image of jungle animals pop up in my mind all of a sudden?)

I think you got it right when you referred to the advent of social media as "theater." The new way of business is more participatory and engaging. Every member of the audience is affected in one way or another, and more accurate and widespread information leads to better decision making.

It's time that more businesses realized the power of social media. The conversation is happening out there anyway, and those who don't listen and learn will soon be left behind in a conversation of one.

[ann michael]

Hello Valeria!

What a great point. I personally apply this concept to organizational change management all the time. Change is not about spouting a strategy and getting a group of people to implement it and do things your way. It's about being open minded and helping to define a path based on the input of others (customers and internal team).

I love it when concepts can be applied across disciplines - it means you've uncovered one of life's little truths!

Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Geoff -- I've read and heard that question in so many places, especially within the walls of corporate America. I'm almost thinking that the business leader will get there before the marketers. How many CEO's and business content experts blog vs. marketers? I'm talking about client side marketers. I'd be curious to know.

@Karen -- that power and control continues to be exercised when leaders ask for something of their teams without sharing "why" they want it. Ironically, what they ask for may not be what they need. Yet we won't know until we share the why and open the process (if there is one) to everyone to see and contribute to. I may be out of line here, but I think that organizations that do that and let you "see" and participate have the competitive edge. At the end of the day, the differentiator is what it feels like to buy this product and service and dealing with the company is part of experience, too.

@Ann -- what a jewel of a comment! People will watch what you do and know how that makes them feel before they remember what you said ;-)

[Richard Becker]

Valeria,

Beautifully stated that "how can I keep control of [you fill the blank here]?" is the wrong question.

We control nothing. When it comes to communication, the best we can do is manage it. I'm less sure that the proposed is the right question though. I think the media and the public likes a tidy brand.

Best,
Rich

[Valeria Maltoni]

Rich:

How is seeing as much as practical about the brand making it not tidy? What's going on = brand (or it should;-)

In most companies I worked at the biggest seller was seeing the people at work. Sometimes that means learning about their thought process, like in a blog. Sometimes watching chocolate being made (mouth watering). Now we have more tools to make that possible.

[Marshall Sponder]

I've been finding your posts, lately, are getting shorter, and to the point; enjoying reading them.

marshall

[Richard Becker]

I think that is a great quality you have (one I happen to share), which assists you in being a great writer and communicator.

But you know, only about 25 percent of the population is analytical enough to care about the details. The rest are motivated by other factors. We see it in social media a bit...

1. Some people recommend short, pointed posts.
2. Some people recommend whatever is "hot" posts.
3. Some people recommend lift up/feel good/cool posts.
4. Some people recommend posts, poster, links, comments, twitter connections, etc., etc. et all. (Transparency works for this group).

But more than that, it's much harder for people to manage 2,000 messages and it's even harder for other people to remember 2,000 messages. So, transparency risks a lot of confusion, inference, and mangled messages, etc.

Best,
Rich

[Carolyn Ann]

I couldn't agree more with Ann's comment! But I'm screwed if short and sweet are required in comments... Ah well. (Sorry, Valeria, I have absolutely no marketing experience. I do have some funny stories, gained from being behind a counter at "craft" fairs, and trying to persuade people to buy handcrafted wooden boxes that had no discernible purpose. Not that I could discern any purpose for them. And I made them...)

So many like to think they "control" their lives. They don't. Personally, when I decided that I was simply going to enjoy this roller-coaster called "life", my stress levels went way down. I make choices, some are by choice, and some are forced on me. But, it's "me" doing the deciding.

I'll work within the constraints provided, or perceived (which is, ultimately, more important!), but I will make a decision.

Working to control ones life is a bit of a fools errand. It requires controlling the perceptions, words and deeds of others - something that not even Kings and Gods have been able to accomplish. (Queens? Well: neither have they.) It really is better to accept that we have a measure of influence in our lives, and see what happens. Of course, if "you" (that ubiquitous 'you'...) is stuck on status symbols: forget what I just suggested.

Insofar as trying to control a conversation: good luck with that. I'll not wait up for the report.

Abe Lincoln got it right when he observed that little point about people, and fooling them. Attempts to control conversations - especially when interacting with customers - is more akin to trying to fool yourself all the time than fooling anyone else. Some succeed, usually wildly, in their efforts to persuade no one but themselves. (They frequently get fired, or go bust, shortly after. At least that's what I've heard. :-) )

Conversations, like lives, have an habit of veering in surprising directions. Controlling them is for Presidential Debate moderators and fools.

Carolyn Ann

PS I wonder if there's a reason I dislike Twitter so much? My verbosity? I couldn't make a point in 140 characters if I tried. C'est la vie, I guess. :-)

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Marshall -- it's Twitter's fault ;-) Maybe Carolyn Ann should try as well. I thought it would be nearly impossible for me to write meaningful stuff in short bursts.

@Rich -- I do like the way you title your posts and your writing is easy to follow to its conclusion. Brand = signs and symbols charged with meaning by company/originator and person/other in the conversation. Motivations vary, our job is to facilitate and translate to different communications styles. Does this work? I'm learning.

@Carolyn Ann -- note to self: I need to check out the new Elizabeth movie with Cate Blanchett; she was fabulous in the first one. Your comment reminds me of a conversation at The Blog Herald on the definition of success. It's very personal and should not be based on external affirmations, as nice as they are. I'm training myself to do short and sweet in the posts, realizing that people have less time to read. Not sacrificing quality, just looking for tighter writing of me ;-)

[Richard Becker]

Valeria,

Yeah, I'm learning too. :) The day I stop means I ought to retire.

Brand = Collective number of positive and negative impressions (it's the space/relationship between the object and the perception of the object by another).

Identity = signs and symbols charged with meaning by company/originator and person/other in the conversation

Management of = emphasizing the strongest positive impressions while minimizing the negative impressions so that when the person with an impression sees the identity, they feel good about the brand

We all have the propensity to create a negative impressions from time to time because we are human. What the goal of management is ... is to work so those our audience ends with a + impression.

Not my example, but an agency owner I know spelled it out like this: someone cuts us off, we flip them off, they see us, which creates a negative impression. We make it to the meeting, it turns out that the person was the prospect. They recognize us ... and are already predisposed.

Or perhaps from an online colleague of mine, just recently, Tolstoy wanted to have a sincere relationship with his wife so he showed his diary which was full of his descriptions of his relationships. To his suprise, she didn't see it as a sign of his devotion.

Best,
Rich

[Valeria Maltoni]

In my haste to compress it all in a small space I gave up some accuracy. Or maybe I gave you what my business colleagues think and see -- brand = completely in our control, which of course in not true. Intent counts, but perception reigns.

Somewhere in there stewardship meets with perceptions and comes back into the internal conversation, changed. Thank you for the break down, and the stories.

[Toby]

Long or short .. another thoughtful post! I agree with your stance; smart marketers always knew "you never controlled the conversation, you only thought you did" .. but instead of "because consumers did not talk back" I propose that customers did talk back to companies and to each other. However, technology e.g., the internet, social media has provided our customers with many opportunities for their voices to be amplified and to be heard by more people, who in turn, add their thoughts/voices and take to the "virtual streets."

The challenge for business is not only to listen and learn but to acknowledge, take specific action and become involved in a multiple dimension exchange. The impact from social media goes beyond the importance to join the "conversation" to developing new ways of conducting business including creating internal information processes, as well as, sophisticated customer feedback mechanisms.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Diva:

Consumers indeed talked back, we did ;-) Yet because our voices were diffuse and local, they did not reach the right people inside organizations (those who would do something about it) or companies found it easy to dismiss the feedback. The voices today are amplified to the point that companies are trying to figure out how to reach citizen marketers and influentials.

The challenge as you highlight is on multiple fronts. In some cases it may be appropriate to acknowledge and learn; in others it may be best to take specific action and become involved.

The internal challenge is felt strongly -- many who were just product managers in the past need to become more aware and attuned to these forces. As well, they need to become wise as to when to take appropriate action. As emerged in the discussion from other posts here, the answer is not to let consumers develop the product or services... we should continue this conversation, Toby. It is way too rich with opportunity to leave it here. Thank you so much for allowing me to develop the thought further.

[Toby]

@Valeria - You bring up an excellent point .. technology has provided the means for customers to support (each other) and reinforce (opinions) on a global basis. This type of collective influence is rather like a "virtual march on Washington." Or perhaps we might say a virtual march on a brand? Thank *you* for adding another dimension to my thoughts.

[Wendy Piersall]

Hey Valeria - what a great continuation of the conversation - both in your post and in your insightful readers' comments.

Geoff is right in that my post title is such a business-oriented question. It wasn't one that I think of frequently, but was surprised to hear it so strongly at the conference I attended last week.

And to your point, that marketers never controlled the conversation in the first place: Touché - you said it better than I did! :)

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Toby -- technology has also provided companies with more tools to follow through and show value. Transparency can also be sharing an internal process -- for example where is this customer's package? -- *with* the customer -- to check on your order, link here.

@Wendy -- companies are asking the question from the wrong attitude. It's not one more on a list of "to do's". It has become a different way we can do things. Customers are not asking us to give up on our brands, they are asking to be part of the conversation. I always find insights in your writing and the writing of others. We tend to see things more clearly when they are "distant" from us ;-)