It Takes Two to Tango

Media Guerrilla responds to the question, "How do you know when to talk back?" The answer to the question in regards to blogs seems tricky to me. Media Guerrilla seems to do a good job of creating a three pronged test, so to speak.

1. "Is the post factually accurate?



2. Is the post a fair expression of opinion?



3. Is a relationship with the author important?"

When the answer to these questions is "yes" Media Guerrilla gives some good food for thought:

"If yes, then you have to go one step further and ask yourself if talking back
via comments or the back channel will augment and extend the relationship. Only
you can answer that question.
If no, then you still have to go one step
further and ask whether or not the blog post itself can impact and influence
people's perceptions. In most cases, if a relationship with the blog author
isn't a priority, neither is the blog's readership, and therefor there's no need
to talkback. Case closed."

When the answer to the prongs are "no" it takes careful consideration on a case by case basis of what to do next. In another post, Media Guerrilla says the best way to direct your consideration is to maintain focused on what types of conversations suit your goals best. He says,


"Listening is important, no doubt, but when it comes to response and engagement, you really need to pick and choose which conversation will have the best returns and outcomes - i.e., which conversation will serve your purpose best."


I agree with this, but by no means should this be applied as a cut and dried approach. I don't think Media Guerrilla intended it to be either. Engagement is all about connecting on a personal level. You don't just do it because it benefits you. I understand you need to prioritize your resources, but social media is ideally about the two-way benefits-- not just converting trust into dollars.

Chris Schroeder relates Media Guerrilla's approach to the saying, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Again, I think this may be a superficial way of looking at social media. Call me unrealistic, but why not strive to minimize your enemies by giving your audience a reason to trust you.

*Photo from People.com at http://tinyurl.com/2h2a42

Whole Foods--A Halfway Attempt at Communications

Whole Foods has banned their top executives from online forums. The amendments to their business code of conduct is in response to the scrutiny they faced in July. Their CEO posted unfavorable comments on a forum under an alias about their competitor, Wild Oats, and now they are banning any such activity to regain control. According to their code, "
no member of Company Leadership may make any posting to any non-Company-sponsored Internet chat room, message board, web log (blog), or similar forum, concerning any matter involving the Company, its competitors or vendors, either under their name, anonymously, under a screen name, or communicating through another person."

Kristin Maverick from "Bitemarks" says, "In my opinion, Whole Foods made a mistake and took the heat. They shouldn't ban online forums completely from their company but rather move forward and set an example that transparency (the one thing that their CEO didn't comply with) can actually be positive for your company and something that they are striving to improve upon."

I also think it shows a complete misunderstanding of social media. It is a great thing to take responsibility for your mistakes and even helps to cultivate the idea that is at the very heart of two-way communication: letting the consumer know that you aren't holier than thou. Corporations make mistakes too, and the best way to correct a mistake is to improve in the future. Whole Foods has completely taken that option off the table. Plus, if they see how they can leverage social media, and decide to change their policies in the future, they may catch even more flack for their "duh" moment.

Maybe this post is useless because there will be no response from their side of the story, at least from someone in a leadership position. Is this just another example of social media misunderstood and a desire for control or does Whole Foods have a valid need for their ban?