Comments on: Thurs. Signal: You Say Debacle, I Say Debatable http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/2010/03/thurs-signal-you-say-debacle-i-say-debatable/ FM Blog Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:50:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: John Battelle http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/2010/03/thurs-signal-you-say-debacle-i-say-debatable/comment-page-1/#comment-11064 John Battelle Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:51:00 +0000 http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/?p=2721#comment-11064 Yes Joshua, your distinction does makes sense. Of course, FM is in the business of helping brands who are not otherwise ready, get ready, so that bias is presumed! Yes Joshua, your distinction does makes sense. Of course, FM is in the business of helping brands who are not otherwise ready, get ready, so that bias is presumed!

]]> By: Mario Sgambelluri http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/2010/03/thurs-signal-you-say-debacle-i-say-debatable/comment-page-1/#comment-11063 Mario Sgambelluri Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:04:57 +0000 http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/?p=2721#comment-11063 Good post. But I don't feel you made the case this situation isn't a black mark for Nestle (as the title of the post implies). It seems what you're saying is that this actually IS a debacle (rather, a "screw up"), but a necessary one. Hm. Maybe what you're saying in the title is that the term "debacle" is a little extreme for this case. I'd agree with that. Along the spectrum of social media mistakes, I'd say this is a ways from, say, setting up a fake blog. Good post. But I don’t feel you made the case this situation isn’t a black mark for Nestle (as the title of the post implies). It seems what you’re saying is that this actually IS a debacle (rather, a “screw up”), but a necessary one. Hm. Maybe what you’re saying in the title is that the term “debacle” is a little extreme for this case. I’d agree with that. Along the spectrum of social media mistakes, I’d say this is a ways from, say, setting up a fake blog.

]]> By: Joshua-Michéle Ross http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/2010/03/thurs-signal-you-say-debacle-i-say-debatable/comment-page-1/#comment-11062 Joshua-Michéle Ross Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:03:29 +0000 http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/?p=2721#comment-11062 John, Thanks for citing my post. We are essentially in agreement but I think we are lobbying from a fundamentally different perspective. In my opinion the difference lies between theory and practice. In theory every company SHOULD get engaged for the reasons you state above. In practice many organizations aren't yet prepared (culturally and structurally) for what is involved. If you are counseling a company that will get criticism but has no internal mechanism to either respond or change - then as their counselor should you really be advising they take the dive? The result in many organizations will be personally harmful to those who you are advising (most company punish "mistakes"). Case in point: I recently counseled a client similar in size and controversial status over their FB presence. They also had very debatable policies (on social rather than environmental merits as was the case with Nestle). I advised them to develop a risk mitigation plan - essentially that that they needed to be prepared ahead of time to either defend, ignore or change in response to the potential criticism. They decided that (1) they had no influence over corporate policy (2) the policy was hard to debate on the merits, and (3) that their remit was still quite traditional marketing (brand awareness). Weighing these together they concluded that the risk outweighed the reward. I think they actually made the right decision given all the factors above. Do I think that they should be more fully engaged? Yes. Do I think that they are ready to be fully engaged? No. So while on a theoretical level I agree that all organizations SHOULD be engaged, they need to lay the groundwork first. I hope the distinction makes sense. Reading through your post helped me get clearer myself... Best - J John,
Thanks for citing my post. We are essentially in agreement but I think we are lobbying from a fundamentally different perspective. In my opinion the difference lies between theory and practice. In theory every company SHOULD get engaged for the reasons you state above. In practice many organizations aren’t yet prepared (culturally and structurally) for what is involved. If you are counseling a company that will get criticism but has no internal mechanism to either respond or change – then as their counselor should you really be advising they take the dive? The result in many organizations will be personally harmful to those who you are advising (most company punish “mistakes”).

Case in point: I recently counseled a client similar in size and controversial status over their FB presence. They also had very debatable policies (on social rather than environmental merits as was the case with Nestle). I advised them to develop a risk mitigation plan – essentially that that they needed to be prepared ahead of time to either defend, ignore or change in response to the potential criticism. They decided that (1) they had no influence over corporate policy (2) the policy was hard to debate on the merits, and (3) that their remit was still quite traditional marketing (brand awareness). Weighing these together they concluded that the risk outweighed the reward. I think they actually made the right decision given all the factors above.

Do I think that they should be more fully engaged? Yes. Do I think that they are ready to be fully engaged? No. So while on a theoretical level I agree that all organizations SHOULD be engaged, they need to lay the groundwork first. I hope the distinction makes sense. Reading through your post helped me get clearer myself…
Best – J

]]> By: app developer http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/2010/03/thurs-signal-you-say-debacle-i-say-debatable/comment-page-1/#comment-11060 app developer Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:22:10 +0000 http://www.federatedmedia.net/blog/?p=2721#comment-11060 I think advertisers are right to be interested in the iPad - nobody in the world outside of tech cares about Flash or anything else it won't do- they care about what it does do and how well it does it! People with money to spend on a great new product - in addition to their usual computer - is a great market for advertisers. I think advertisers are right to be interested in the iPad – nobody in the world outside of tech cares about Flash or anything else it won’t do- they care about what it does do and how well it does it!
People with money to spend on a great new product – in addition to their usual computer – is a great market for advertisers.

]]>