Flackster’s rules
The ever pungent Michael O’Connor Clarke (that’s a comment on his tart style, not his personal aroma — I can tell you from personal experience that Michael smells lightly of frankincense and library paste) suggests rules that “corporate PR people might want to tell their in-house bloggers.” Nicely done.
I’d take issue with #3 which argues that readers will assume that you speak for your company, especially if you’re the CEO. While readers will certainly assume some association, I think that by writing carefully and inserting the appropriate metadata, readers can be reminded that there is a delightful gap between blog and company, even when you’re the CEO. “The company c’est moi” never was a helpful rule and blogs give us a way to wedge open the distinction.
Categories: Uncategorized dw
True, it’s relatively easy to make a clear distinction between the hat one is wearing when writing different kinds of post – but I’d stand by my original point, for a couple of reasons.
If you’re an employee blogger, and you’re open about your day job, I think most readers will fully expect to get an idea of the kind of company you work for from the tone, personality, and character of your blog posts. It’s not necessarily a valid inference, but it’s not too surprising.
This rubs both ways. If you’re a barking moonbat, forever blogging about your latest 36-hour drinking binge, that reflects on your company. Some people might sympathise and be naturally drawn to you as a soulmate, others will judge you (and by inference your company) with some distaste.
OTOH, if you’re the incandescent Ozymandias of your circle of blog friends, a corporate genius and example to all — some people will still think you’re a nork. And it’s not an unnatural leap for them to conclude that the company you work for is the sum of its norkish parts. Other readers might think you’re a higher being, sent to enlighten and emancipate the slaves of the cube farm through the power of your prose alone. We shouldn’t be surprised if these readers also assume that the company you work for must totally rock, for them to be able to hire and retain you.
If you’re the CEO, this effect is going to be magnified. Every interaction with your market is a data point about you and, I’d submit, about the company you run – whether you’re writing about company stuff or not.
The Dallas Mavericks is much more than Mark Cuban – but Mark Cuban on his blog IS the soul and voice of the Mavs.
Robert Hess, a fairly senior dude at Microsoft, maintains a site all about cocktail mixes – but nowhere on his site does he refer to his day job. Drinkboy.com has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft in any way whatsoever. He’s not a corporate blogger in plain sight, by my definition.
And yet, I now know that this Microsoft exec also happens to be an expert in cocktail making. That leads me to certain conclusions about Robert – although I’ve never met him (largely favourable ones, in my case – YMMV). And it leads me to think he must be a fun guy to work with, so it reflects well on his employer.
It’s entirely possible I’ve misunderstood, or just completely missed your point. Wouldn’t be the first time. But try as I might, I can’t think of a good example of a corporate blog (particularly a CEO one) where the separation of blog and company is sufficient to negate what I think is a natural association.
Help me to understand the distinction here, David, and I’ll promise to do something about that whiff of library paste.
As usual, not only do I agree with you, Michael, but envy your way with a phrase.
So, here’s the middle ground (which you may deny is middle or ground): The CEO’s comments will indeed always reflect some light back onto the company because we humans (happily) can’t compartmentalize that well. But, suppose the CEO carefully says, “NOTE: This blog is mine, about the stuff I care about. Don’t assume anyone else in the company cares about the same stuff. And, despite what you might think, just because I’m the CEO doesn’t mean what I think my company should do is in fact what my company will do. We have too many smart people here for that.” (Or some such.) And when she’s about to blog something that she thinks readers will assume speaks for the company, she can reiterate the disclaimer. I think that would give her more room than I took your post to imply was possible.
So, I want to be able to hear what Ray OZzie has to say about, say, RDF without having to assume that he’s constrained to pronounce only Groove’s official position.