GM and social media: damned if you do, damned if you don’t (even if you do)
We hear that most companies still haven’t jumped on the social media bandwagon and we roll our eyes in dismay and maybe even a little contempt. But there are reasons companies resist getting engaged with communities. It can be seriously perilous.
Look at General Motors. The magnitude of the company’s problems have inflamed peoples’ passions; our emotional reactions to its situation—and how GM responds—will forge its reputation for years to come.
In the midst of this classic institutional crisis, GM has committed to engage in social media at virtually every level. Say what you will about other dimensions of General Motors, from labor practices to product innovation to financial management. The companies’ communication efforts have been sincere and wide-ranging:
They were pioneers of the corporate blog. Members of the communications team participate in the auto blog communities. Communication staff have reached out to answer questions and participate in conversations wherever they are found. Employees throughout the organization have been encouraged to talk about the company’s future in conversations they encounter during their day-to-day online activities. The public was invited to join GM leaders in open conversations about controversial issues. They have hosted mommy bloggers and podcasters on a retreat. They’re on Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and Flickr. To record the company’s 100-year history, they created a wiki to which anybody can contribute.
In other words, GM has put into practice the kinds of actions most social media consultants would have advised. Still, even people engaged in the space are oblivious to those efforts, even as they insist upon them. In a comment to Joe Jaffe’s blog (in response to something I wrote), Viveka Weiley wrote, “People are already having these conversations, we don’t need GM to facilitate, centralise and filter them. It’s up to them to join our conversation, not the other way around.”
Exactly what GM has been doing.
Jaffe’s post about which Viveka and I were commenting, by the way, is a savaging of GM over a 60-second spot the company unveiled concurrent with its bankruptcy filing. In the commercial, the company brands the bankruptcy as a turning point and acknowledges that a massive rethinking of the company is required. It ends with the URL for GM Re: Invention, the repository of all things related to GM’s turnaround effort.
The site shows an understanding of the networked world, with…
- Sharing links
- RSS feed
- Links to Twitter accounts of GM designers, engineers, and other front-line employees
- Link to a Facebook fan page where critical comments are a part of the conversation
I saw the video as an invitation to come to the site, one channel for engaging consumers among many. Joe things “Somebody deserves a real hefty bitch-slap” because (among other things) “advertising is not the answer….especially during times where cathartic healing needs to take place via honest…authentic, transparent and open dialogue.”
Which, again, GM has been doing to a degree few other companies—and even fewer outside the technology world—can claim.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Perhaps the best example of this peril comes courtesy of the Huffington Post, months before the bankruptcy filing. Back in February, Huffington blogger Allison Kilkenny tweeted a message to her followers: allisonkilkenny: sees GM is phasing out the small, fuel efficient Saturn. Oil companies: 1, Earth: 0.
Kilkenny was nonplussed when she got a reply: @allisonkilkenny we don’t have indiv trash cans at ofc cubes at hq, just an ex, not sure total $ saved from small ideas, but likely large
Kilkenny was bewildered. Why would a company needing to focus on its recovery invest in people who respond to Tweets, especially those that weren’t a specific request for help or information? “No one likes that in your rush to modernize and embrace the technology of the internet (complete with Twitter experts,) you forgot how to compete with foreign car companies,” she wrote.
So Kilkenny’s complaint, on the highly-visible Huffington Post, is that GM is doing exactly what Joe Jaffe and Viveka Weiley (and scores of others) say they must do.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Make no mistake, GM is doing the right thing, even if they’re making mistakes along the way. But knowing the kinds of hits you’ll take from both sides for stepping up as GM has would deter many a CEO from taking the social media plunge.
Measurement is key. If we cannot convince business leaders that the business results of community engagement will outweigh the kinds of risk on display with GM, it’ll be hard to condemn them for their obstinence. I have no doubt that GM’s leaders are getting regular reports on the payoff for their commitment to community engagement. Given the current climate, it’s a good thing they’re in it for the long haul.
Great post, Shel. You make a dozen good points, to which I’d add only one:
In business, it’s not that you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t: You’re damned if you LOSE.
GM is taking it on the chin because it’s losing and we’re having to bail it out.
Southwest is every bit as into social media, for instance, and it’s not being criticized for its tweeting, or for very much else: That’s because Southwest is providing the goods for shareholders, for customers and employees.
If GM actually manages to turn itself around, Joe Jaffe will shut up. Until then, GM’s tweeting will sound like bleating.
A few other thoughts here:
http://writingboots.typepad.com/writing_boots/2009/06/gm-can-communicators-help.html
Posted by David Murray on 06/03 at 03:25 AMThe example is quite timely for me, Shel. So thanks for that!
Posted by Dagan Henderson on 06/03 at 06:31 AMShel, these are good arguments, and I agree with you that GM Communications have done a great job.
However, there’s an adapted definition of public relations coming all the way from Quintilian that explains what might be going on here:
** PR = the good organization speaking well **
GM might be speaking well, but that’s not enough.
Posted by Mihaela (Dr. V) on 06/03 at 07:58 AMShel:
Great post, as usual. I think that you are spot on. So many people in the social media world complain that companies don’t get involved. What do they mean by involved? If GM isn’t involved in social media, I don’t know who is.
It’s funny how, until their struggles of late, GM was heralded as one of the “pioneers” in social media and one of the corporations that “got it” and now it’s the complete opposite.
I think that no matter what GM does, they will be criticized, so they are doing the right thing - choosing a strategy and sticking to it.
I also agree with your comment on Jaffe’s blog. Advertising has become more an “introduction” to deeper experiences like social media and less of a sales tool. I think running an ad to show their strategy and invite the public to see what’s happening inside this American icon of a company that is fighting to stay alive is the definition of “transparency.”
Posted by Kevin Behringer on 06/03 at 08:16 AMJudging from the latest comments on GM’s blog, I’d have to at least give them credit for engaging in the conversation. There are quite a few negative and unfavorable comments posted there. I have to believe they realize it’s important for them to hear and ultimately address these concerns if they are ever going to pull out of this and regain consumers’ trust.
Posted by Ray Atkinson, ABC, APR on 06/03 at 10:50 AMThank you, Shel, for highlighting the challenge involved here—and not just for GM. I think David has a good point above; were we not in our current situation, people might be less inclined to be so brutally critical. But, I’d argue that right now is EXACTLY the time that we need to be out there more than ever.
Kevin, you’re right… we are a popular target right now (much of it our own doing, admittedly), and we are going to be criticized—harshly—no matter what we do. So the only thing to do is to keep doing the right thing.
The real proof in the pudding for us will be whether we follow up with the promise we’re making here. If the effort ends with an advertisement, then #epicfail on us. But if, as Shel points out, this site and these ads are an invitation or a path to bigger conversations, then they serve exactly the purpose they’re intended to serve. We need to back it up and earn the faith we’re asking for—but we *are* trying to do the right thing. Our leadership *is* committed to community engagement, and we’ll stay in this now as just a way of doing business going forward. If people want to say they’ll believe it when they see it, that’s fine with me—because we will back it up and I’ll look forward to earning the belief.
Thanks for giving pixel time to a very important issue, Shel.
Posted by Christopher Barger on 06/03 at 01:56 PMThis post may not be popular but it is dead on. If I had a nickel for every “crisis pr specialist” who has been in the media saying GM needs to “speak directly to consumers and be more transparent” and “needs to use social networking tools like twitter and facebook” etc, I’d not have to go to work for a couple of weeks. The downside of social media is people don’t have to know anything to say anything so people shoot from the hip when 10 minutes on google often embarrassingly disproves their own post. Thanks for exposing alot of critics for what they are—uninformed. No matter what you think of this company, the federal aid or their products and history, they have put in a standout effort in social networking to reach through advertising filters with honest communications. On that front they should be applauded.
Posted by John on 06/05 at 05:21 AMThank you Shel for bringing to the forefront GM’s incredible efforts to communicate openly and honestly with their customers and the public. GM has dealt with a frenzy of bad media and months of negative headlines.
In today’s world the more transparent a company is the more the public trusts them. With all the social media tools GM is using to create this transparency it baffles me that as a public relations student, who is constantly monitoring the media, I have never heard of any of these efforts.
My question is to why none of these efforts are getting any media coverage? I have yet to see a positive headline about GM. I believe this reflects poorly on our media.
Also regarding advertisements, the public needs to understand that if they don’t spend their money on getting their message out GM will not be able to rebuild themeselves. Although advertising is paid for it still is a method of communication. At this point GM needs to use every medium possible, and this should not be frowned upon.
Posted by Sasha Bricel on 06/11 at 08:12 PM