§ Subscribe

Alternatives

Enter your email address to receive blog updates by email:

Delivered by FeedBurner

§ Podcast

• For Immediate Release
  A weekly podcast for professional communicators from Shel Holtz, ABC and Neville Hobson, ABC.
  Podcast Feed
  Vote for FIR

---

§ PR Search

---

§ Places

• Shel's link blog
• Blogs I read
• Holtz Communication + Technology
• IABC
• Ragan Communications
• Society for New Communications Research

---

§ Dead Trees

• Tactical Transparency
  
  by Shel Holtz and John C. Havens
  
  
  
  
• How to Do Everything with Podcasting
  
  by Shel Holtz with Neville Hobson
  
  
  
  
• Blogging for Business
  
  by Shel Holtz and Ted Demopoulos
  
  
  
  
• Corporate Conversations
  
  by Shel Holtz
  
  
  
  
• Public Relations on the Net
  
  by Shel Holtz
  
  
  
  

---

§ License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

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.