Balancing blogs’ credibility

Share This!

In yesterday’s “For Immediate Release,” I noted that Joseph Edward Duncan had maintained a blog. Duncan, in case you’re not following the story, was found in a Coeur d’Alene, Idaho restaurant with a young girl who, along with her brother, had been missing for about six weeks following the disocvery of the bludgeoned bodies ofher mother, her mother’s boyfriend, and an older brother. The blog is no longer available, but archives of posts can be read on the Internet Archive and in IN-Forum of Fargo, North Dakota. The final two entries are, according to one commentator, “highly distressing, so don’t read them unless you want to be REALLY upset…”

The story is noteworthy as a bit of balance to the purist belief that blogs and the authentic human voice applied to posts are some sort of panacea for communication. Duncan blogged in an authentic human voice. Sick, but authentic.

Now, today comes a line buried in an AP story appearing across the web in online newspapers about the release of Karla Homolka, the notorious Canadian serial killer who was released as part of her plea bargain that resulted in her testimony against her ex-husband, Paul Bernardo. Here’s the paragraph:

Earlier Monday, one of her attorneys, Christian Lachance, told Quebec Superior Court Judge Maurice Lagace that his client was too afraid to testify at the hearing to consider a media blackout. Because Homolka’s safety could not be assured by police, he said the media must be prevented from reporting her whereabouts to protect her from threats against her life, mostly by Internet bloggers.

Homolka doesn’t deserve a pass for her horrific crimes, but it doesn’t serve the cause of blogging purists when most of the death threats are coming from bloggers. Instead, it reinforces the perception many still have of blogs as the communication vehicle of choice for people on the fringe, the not-quite-normal. Of course, this perception is wrong, but (as any PR person worth his or her salt can recite in his or her sleep), perception is reality. CEOs and other business leaders who keep reading about these ignoble uses of blogs will be more inclined to dismiss their potential as a corporate communication channel. “Why would I want to put our organization out there in the company of weirdos and perverts?”

Business blogging purists insist that a blog must conform to an ideal. Character blogs, for example, deviate from the idea and therefore must be resisted. But in the real world, where blogs are used for whatever, there is no compulsion to adhere to any idea. People use blogs for whatever they want.

Business blogs should certainly adhere to principles of effective communication. In a strategic planning process, a business goal would have to be supported by the use of a blog and measurable outcomes produced. We should understand the medium well enough to avoid embarrassing the company or earning the contempt of our audiences. But the increasing of blogs for impure purposes should help us understand that blogs are, ultimately, a tool, and like any tools, they can be used for good or (can you hear it coming?) evil. They can be used for companies to engage in a meaningful dialogue with customers, for authors to solicit feedback on comleted first drafts of chapters of their books, for soap operas, to presentnew fiction, as a way to bring a fictitious character to life, for individuals to opine about issues of the day, for death threats, and as outlets for one’s sickness. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can position blogs as tools, presenting them as solutions to specific communication problems rather than as the solution to all communication problems.

1. So you take the defense attorney’s words at face value, without question?

   I’m also interested to find some of the business blogging purists you keep referring to - God knows I’ve been accused of being one before, and even I have told companies flat-out NOT to blog, because their authentic voice is closer to a snarl or a growl. And I’ve never come across anyone peddling that panacea line, though I do come across a lot of people lamenting that it is. So to find that there are people who think that even companies that are unsuitable for blogging should be doing so, and that blog is a communications panacea, is intriguing. You’ve got me hooked, Shel!

   Posted by Jackie Danicki  on  07/05  at  05:04 AM

2. Hi, Jackie…

   Whether the defense attorney’s correct or not misses the point. AP is REPORTING what he’s saying. People who don’t read blogs read the papers that carry AP stories, so the perception is created, accurate or not.

   As for purists, consider the statement Steve Rubel made: “Blogs are PR with candor.” Or read the stuff over at The Red Couch…

   Posted by Shel  on  07/05  at  05:37 AM

3. Interesting post, Shel. We don’t always agree, though - in more cases than not - we do.

   So I was intrigued by your comments “People use blogs for whatever they want… (and later) for individuals to opine about issues of the day.”

   That really resonates with me. There are good and bad examples of company newsletters, brochures, Web sites, net newsrooms, internal memos, town hall meetings… you name it. What’s right is highly subjective. [Oh sure, one can measure to objectives, but then we’re talking an ideal, not the majority. I still see a ton of corporate communication that is leader driven - based on the leader’s perception of communication, biases, and personal likes and dislikes. Just about every communicator I know has thrown their hands up at one point or another, after being overruled on a communication issue.]

   And I suspect this is why it’s hard for some to wrap their heads around blogs: they can be anything, or nothing. Like you say, it’s just a tool.

   How business uses them depends on what is effective in a particular instance. If a character blog draws an audience, so be it. We are all adults and can choose what to read, and what not to read.

   Personally, I don’t always care what other people opine about. Which is ironic, since that’s my opinion. The amount of opinion found in blogs may be what some people find disconcerting or challenging. This technology opens the door to informal communication more than some others.

   Perhaps blogs are like soap boxes. People have made the connection to conversations and dialogs, and I agree they can be whatever the hell the writer wants them to be - noble or not.

   Many parks, notably Hyde Park in London, have speaker’s corners. Perhaps blogs are the next iteration of an age old human endeavor - speaking out.

   Posted by Charles Pizzo  on  07/05  at  07:06 AM

4. So how is a blog different from any other medium that has come down the pike over the last 100 years? It is no different. It is new and it will take some time for the dust to settle and for corporate communicators to discover the value a blog might bring to the organization’s communication arsenal. Might be that blogs don’t serve a useful purpose in one company, but a highly useful purpose in another.  Sort of like IMs, face-to-face meetings, print publications, huddles on the shop floor, whatever.

   It’s too early to declare the blog a panacea or a failure. But it’s exciting to be on the front end of a new medium. Rather than jump on—or off—the blogging bandwagon, how about if communicators do the necessary work of strategic communication planning to determine if there is a place for such a tool in their organizations?

   That might be asking too much! 

   Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/05  at  11:04 AM

5. Hi, Robert.

   Well, yeah, it’s no different than other tools, if you lump the printing press in there with “tools” (which, of course, it is). It’s a very powerful tool, but a tool nonetheless. It’s the strategic planning bit that I keep hammering on. When I hear “Blogs will replace press releases” or “Blogs can replace PR,” I just tense up and want to grab someone by the lapels and shout, “You’re talking TACTICS! How do you know they’ll produce the OUTCOMES?? You need to be STRATEGIC!!!”

   Posted by Shel Holtz  on  07/05  at  11:21 AM

6. Amen, brother!!!

   Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/05  at  11:25 AM

7. Ditto. Thrilled to see you SHOUT about it, Shel.

   I still hear a lot of people talk about outputs, not outcomes, e.g., how many newsletters or press releases, versus the impact they generated.

   Maybe that distinction is lost - something communication associations and publishers need to bring home. Alas, I’m preaching to the choir.

   Posted by Charles Pizzo  on  07/05  at  01:24 PM

8. Yes, you are preaching to the choir, Charles. Unfortunately, many of our associations and other marketers of seminars/workshops are still too focused on tactics because that’s what they say their customers want. So does that mean we should dumb down the profession by just talking tactics all the time? I think we should be raising the conversation to a higher level instead.

   Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/05  at  01:41 PM

9. Robert, .et .al, does anyone else get a sense reading this interchange of “deja vu all over again?”

   Agree that the conversation should be at a higher level. But the strategy vs. tactics debate has been going on for 15 years (with us leading the way in advocating strategy every step of the way).

   What’s it going to take to get people in the profession to live up to their potential or is it really a lost cause?

   Posted by Craig Jolley  on  07/07  at  05:03 AM

10. Well, of COURSE this is deja vu!! I think all of us who have taken the time to educate ourselves in strategic communication over the years recognize that.

    But as long as influential people and organizations keep beating the drum about “who has time for strategy when there’s so much work to do,” we’ll see the debate continue.

    For example, I cannot believe the Ragan publications keep talking about strategy like it’s some kind of intellectual exercise with no practical application (i.e., a total waste of communicators’ time). My personal belief is they’re just trying to “sell papers,” but Ragan editors also need to realize they (and others like IABC, PRSA, etc.) help set the agenda for our profession. That’s what I mean when I say we have a responsibility to raise the conversation to a higher level. As long as I’m part of the profession, I’ll do my part, but it’s definitely an uphill battle to get people in our profession to live up to our potential.

    Until we do, we collectively don’t have a lot of room to complain when we find ourselves with little or no influence in our organizations.

    Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/07  at  05:17 AM

11. Just to be fair to IABC, the association does beat the strategy drum. The likes of Les Potter, Roger D’Aprix, and Paul Sanchez routinely speak at conferences and produce manuals and other products for IABC. Could they do better? Sure; who couldn’t? But IABC is, frankly, where I learned about communication strategy in the first place!

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  07/07  at  05:23 AM

12. True. IABC is where I learned strategy, too. I suppose my criticism is more directed to Ragan at the present. IABC does lead the way when it comes to keeping strategy on the agenda.

    Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/07  at  05:28 AM

13. What I think is missing is that if you think about it, communications is the one profession that lacks a high profile advocate on the national/international business stage.  This struck me this morning glancing through Forbes and seeing an ad for a two-day strategic leadership conference.

    The typical star cast will present, Trump, Peters, Rudy Giuliani, Forbes, etc., but also leaders from new media (Seth Godin for example). When was the last time any of the communication luminaries you mentioned shared this type of stage? Has it ever happened outside of the Conference Board?

    Imagine the impact on the profession, both internally and externally, if Les or Roger were to follow Tom Peters and precede Donald Trump on a stage at the Waldoff-Astoria in front of a tony group of Fortune 500 CEOs.

    IMHO helping to elevate a strategic communicator to that level of exposure and acceptance in the business community would deliver more value to IABC, PRSA, CCM, etc. in terms of serving their membership, elevating the profession, and attracting members than just about anything else I’ve seen in the past decade.

    But this is waaaaay outside the box thinking which is why it would never be considered in a thousand years.

    Posted by Craig Jolley  on  07/07  at  05:45 AM

14. Like the celebrity CEO, you’re suggesting a “celebrity communicator.” I agree, it’s not likely to happen because, let’s face it, good solid strategic communication isn’t sexy. But it’s absolutely necessary for a business to succeed. And that’s the message we need to get out there.

    Some of the debate and discussion taking place among IABC members lately is nudging IABC toward an increased advocacy role. Maybe that’s the first step.

    Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/07  at  05:51 AM

15. Good morning, choir members. All sing together now…

    Seriously, I need to say this: there is a demand for tactics, for how-to information, because people are not getting training on the job. One result of down-sizing, doing less with more, et al., is far fewer in-house resources to teach people. Call it institutional memory, knowledge management, mentoring, etc. - it ain’t happening.

    Ever the centrist, there is a middle ground. People can’t become strategic unless they firmly grasp and master tactics. The two go hand in hand. Think of it like language class, with differing levels. Even mathematics is taught that way.

    Whether it’s an association or a publisher, those groups have to reach out to their audience - and I believe that the audience is increasingly fractured, fragmented, segmented and specialized.

    At conferences, I run into people who are adamant about only wanting to know a narrow slice of the pie, vertical information, that applies to their specific job or task. Anything more doesn’t register with their management team - and thus their evaluations and compensation.

    Big picture thinking is not everyone’s cup of tea. There will always be task oriented communicators who are production oriented. People have to master the basics before they can get their brain around higher level concepts.

    Some people will remain workers, some will become managers, and some will rise to vice presidents. We need ‘em all.

    Should we lead people toward advanced knowledge? Of course. But not every horse will drink that water. There will always be work horses, a few racehorses, and lots of jackasses

    Posted by Charles Pizzo  on  07/07  at  06:13 AM

16. I agree, Charles. It’s funny how I’m frequently cited as being one of those in the “strategic camp” (David Murray loves to pigeonhole me there) because I view myself as very much a centric on this issue.  In fact, every workshop and presentation I’ve done on strategic communication emphasizes the need for both.

    I’m not disputing the fact that we need to do the tactical things very well because all the strategy in the world is useless if it isn’t executed well.

    However, I will continue to criticize those who dismiss strategy as a waste of time or just an exercise for brainiacs as they sit around and sip sherry.    Unless we have a solid grounding in strategy—in WHY we are doing the tactical things the way we’re doing them—then our profession will forever be relegated to the cube farm with the other “creatives.” (And don’t get me wrong here—it’s not about getting the corner office, but it IS about having more influence simply because we all know the tremendous business value of communication.)

    What I’m calling for is an end to the whole “strategic/schmategic” debate as portrayed in one of the recent Ragan publications. (And they’re not the only ones perpetuating the debate.)  I think we have a responsibility to say both strategy and tactics are necessary and, yes, professional communicators need to know both.

    Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/07  at  06:21 AM

17. Well said Robert. Your definition of the imperative of understanding the strategic context, even if all you are delivering is tactics, brings to mind a favorite saying:

    “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.”

    The mental picture I have of Charles’ conference contacts who only want to feast on a narrow slice of the pie is a bunch communicators wandering aimlessly in the wilderness, yet convinced they are getting somewhere. <G>

    Posted by Craig Jolley  on  07/07  at  10:08 AM

18. I’ve heard that quote before! But I’m going to steal that mental image and use it, Craig.  With attribution, of course.

    Posted by Robert J Holland  on  07/07  at  02:17 PM

19. Strategy without tactics sits on a shelf collecting dust. Tactics without strategy blow through a lot of money to no good effect. By the way, that was Alice in “Through the Looking Glass” who uttered the line about “any road…”

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  07/07  at  05:26 PM