Category Archive

This recent account of Korn/Ferry’s rebranding efforts - which seem to be thoughtful and totally integrated across internal and external audiences - raises the question of why something so fundamental and logical as internal branding campaigns seem such a tough sell in many companies. Indeed, while many executives embrace the marketing principles behind the idea of promoting and celebrating a distinctive brand identity to customers, they often balk at applying the same logic with their own workforce. Why do we need to talk about our brand with employees? Don’t they already know who we are? Does this really help drive the business? Isn’t this just empty cheerleading? And what is the ROI of any internal brand campaign?

These are all appropriate questions, but they ignore the reality that ensuring employees understand, accept and deliver the brand promise is critical to a company’s success. And this is true whether the company sells directly to consumers or is more of a B2B operation. At the basic level, employees need to know what they must to do to deliver on the brand promise. Even better if they actually want to do their jobs well. On a higher level - perhaps harder to articulate and quantify - employees need to “live” the values and personality inherent in the brand. Ultimately, they have to be advocates of the brand across both personal and professional situations. None of this happens through osmosis or simply reheating marketing materials intended for customers.

All makes sense, right? So why is it so difficult to secure the funds for internal campaigns designed to educate employees about the brand and corporate identity, illustrate the brand attributes through examples or best practices or even celebrate the brand to generate enthusiasm and discretionary effort? It may be that executives are looking at all activities that fall under the umbrella of marketing and advertising - whether internal or external - with a more skeptical and cautious perspective these days. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, given the dubious track record and flawed logic of many marketing mantras (e.g. Super Bowl commercials are worth the cost.) Or it may be that in difficult economic times anything beyond basic communication about the nuts and bolts of the business seems superfluous.

Whatever the reasons, executives who ignore the internal profile and resonance of their brand do so at their own peril. Employees want to know who they work for and what their company stands for - not just how to do their job. And most employees want to feel proud about their company’s distinctive heritage, achievements and/or identity.   

Throughout the Microsoft-Yahoo merger dance, it’s been fascinating to try and detect how these companies were managing their internal communication strategy. There have been tantalizing hints provided through leaked memos and insider comments.

Yahoo appears to be doing things right - at least judging from this initial memo to employees (assuming it’s legitimate.) That means treating your employees like a critical audience on par with potential partners and sharholders and making sure they are informed and supportive of your position. Given the sorry track record of mergers and acquisitions - many of which are derailed due to cultural factors and lack of employee support - this would seem like a prerequisite.  The messages of Yahoo’s leadership team - pushing alternatives to Microsoft, appealing to cultural pride and suggesting Yahoo still has a promising outlook and sound strategy - are likely to be resonant among its employees. Despite Yahoo’s well documented troubles with Wall Street, it appears Yahoo employees appreciate their working environment and want to safeguard their culture.

Microsoft, on the other hand, may be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince its own workforce that the deal is worth fighting for. According to several reports, including this one and a recent expose in the Wall Street Journal (can’t read this one unless you have a subscription) there is strong opposition within Microsoft and employees are unhappy internal updates have dried up since the initial announcement. It’s difficult to tell whether this will be a critical factor in Ballmer’s decision making, but it should be.

Whether or not these insider accounts are accurate I don’t know. But the lesson here is that companies would be wise to treat their employees as a critical audience before, during and after any merger process. Is pre-merger employee anxiety to be expected? Do companies sometimes have to make tough decisions that entail difficult change in order to sustain their growth? Is dramatic change always a difficult sell? Yes, yes and yes. But executives shouldn’t ignore the comments and questions of their employees, who are often well positioned to understand the potential gains and pitfalls of any merger or acquisition. After all, they are the ones who have to make it happen.

If you needed more evidence that the hard sell on the Web is the wrong approach, check out this article in the Harvard Business Review. (Sorry but you need to buy the article. I found an excerpt in the Dallas Morning News of April 6th.) The article, by Andreas Eisingerich and Tobias Kretschmer, suggests Web retailers are thinking too narrowly - hewing closely to the traditional approach focusing on price and product - and seeing disappointing sales as a result. The suggested prescription to increase sales: try for more engagement rather than more hard selling.

According to the authors, many retailers are unhappy with their online sales and see online customers as disloyal and unwilling to spend. But the article argues these disgruntled web retailers are paying the price for having sites that focus - almost exclusively - on information about products and services for sale. Many marketing managers apparently believe that anything that diverts the consumer from an easy purchase is negative, and should be avoided. This article, along with other studies, suggests just the opposite.

From what I’ve observed - and based on my personal experience - consumers often take a circuitous path to purchase and are sometimes interested in information and services related to the core product that can help them select solutions based on their needs. That’s where contextual information and user rankings and recommendations come in. Though studies repeatedly show that consumers put peer rankings or references at the top of their decision-making criteria, many retailers are still fearful of allowing this user scorecard on their sites. (This may be a naive stance since the reviews exist on other sites anyway.) What consumers are looking for, according to these authors, is information, advice and ideas that help them think of how products can bring add value to their lives. This soft-sell approach in turn wins their loyalty and entices them to buy…sooner or later. All of this describes the concept of consumer engagement: listen to consumers, provide them with valuable information and resources, provide a forum for dialogue and sell them the products and services they want…when they want to buy.  

The research quoted in the article found that only 17 percent of e-commerce managers planned to change their sites to improve sales despite the fact almost 60 percent were disappointed with online sales. Most believed that price was the only (and best) way to attract online customers. That’s a disappointing reflection of the obstinate, insular stance of some marketing leaders. The customers that were polled, meanwhile, said they cared most about the following (in order of importance): personalized shopping; clear categorization; order tracking; in-depth products or service-related information; and, customer engagement through information on related products and services. The authors site Ralph Lauren’s website as an example of a smart, engaging online presence. Not surprisingly, sales for the RL site are strong.

Plenty of good food for thought. Let’s hope marketing executives start paying attention to all these studies and trends.  

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (which I can’t link to due to their arcane online search function) provides an interesting analysis of Ford’s recent advertising struggles, and their Sisyphean quest to find a campaign that can revive both their lagging business and their tired brand. The latest candidate: “Ford. Drive One.” Other than the obvious call to action, this is about as memorable - or distinctive - as their last few slogans: “No Boundaries”, “American Innovation” and “Bold Moves.” What are the chances this new campaign will catch on? Not very good, I would suggest. Here’s why.

Absent some smart ads from Volkswagon over the years and perhaps the Zeppelin-fueled Cadillac campaign, automobile advertising is hopelessly formulaic, shallow, dubious and - the worse crime of all - boring. Campaigns are introduced with great fanfare but often dropped several months later, fostering consumer confusion and inattention. The stubborn lack of imagination of typical car marketing - car driving down scenic roads, endless 3/4 shots of the gleaming metal, superficial appeal to stereotypical hooks (macho & flag imagery for trucks, quirky and green for hybrids) - makes it virtually impossible to differentiate what ad is for what car. Witness the recent blizzard of boring ads related to President’s Day in the United States. I was more bored and insulted by the insistence and vapidity of the ads than anything else (perhaps because I’m Canadian and the appeal to Americana had no relevance to me.) Too often the ads are trying hard to convince consumers of the inherent value or the latest model, a brave aspiration but one which has to be based on realistic assumptions of what consumers will believe. And to make matters worse - as the article points out - these global campaigns often have no linkage to local marketing driven by the dealers. So the result is often a confusing stew of loud, repetitive claims (which appear to me like desperate pleas), mechanical minutae, financial incentives and contradictory local campaigns. Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, many auto companies continue to spend hundreds of millions on these clarion calls in the hopes of rehabilitating their brands and driving sales.    

Like too many other campaigns - for automobiles or otherwise - this latest effort by Ford has little chance of getting their cars under”consideration” by consumers, or providing a cogent, clear image of their brand. To their credit, Ford apparently worked hard with the dealers to ensure they would help reaffirm the campaign and become local advocates. And they obviously did a fair amount of research on the brand positioning of Ford and its peers. But I don’t give the campaign a big chance of getting any traction, let alone changing the minds of consumers. The article claims the inspiration for the campaign was Nike’s legendary “Just do it” tagline, one of the most memorable advertising slogans in history. But there are so many ways Ford cannot hope to replicate the impact of Nike’s efforts. For one thing, Nike can leverage a rich, credible heritage that supports their smart, innovative marketing which conveys a consistent, positive brand experience across advertising, local marketing, online platforms, retail experience and the products themselves. And yes, the product does matter.

Ford’s new CMO apparently wants this latest campaign to help position Ford as the “smart, green, quality and safe” choice. Sound a bit ambitious? Notwithstanding the merit of trying to latch on to themes like safety - which has essentially been owned by Volvo for years - this new brand identity is diffuse and hopelessly aspirational, rather than grounded in Ford’s resonant attibutes and values. In short, it may be too much of a stretch. You’ve got to give the Ford team plenty of credit for trying and they are doing some things right, but I suspect they will be back to the drawing board within a year. I wish them well…nobody said marketing was easy.  

The folks at Dell continue to push the envelope in the area of social media and recently came out with their perspective - or manifesto of guiding principles - on supporting an increasingly mobile workforce. Check out the post here. [Full disclosure: Until several months ago, I worked at Dell in the social media team and was involved in defining and implementing the company's social media strategy.] Dell’s ideas are insightful and provide a good roadmap for any organization trying to address the ubiquity of mobile devices, digital content and peripatetic workers. Perhaps their smartest move is to look at the issue from the perspective of the end-user, rather than the IT geeks or corporate leaders.

What really hit home after reading this post is how far some companies are lagging in this race for relevance and connectivity with workers. While some companies are juggling which multimedia device or platform to use (iPhone or 3G phone?) others are simply trying to get their workforce connected to the internet…or even intranet…through clunky old computer terminals. The idea of cell phones for their workforce is still years away. There are many reasons for this digital divide - culture, cost, geography - but the biggest may simply be awareness. Keeping up with the Web 2.0 revolution is a challenge - even for IT departments - and many organizations are hard-pressed to keep updated on trends and developments, let alone try to explain them to their leaders. The saving grace of the rapid progress is that it may be possible to skip some steps in the race to get workers connected - the solution today (PDAs) may be replaced by a better one tomorrow (the next version of iPhone.) The biggest mistake, however, would be to just give up.

The latest PR fiasco for Southwest was noteworthy for its timing. During roughly the same time period, I saw two widely divergent depictions of the airline. By coincidence more than otherwise, I witnessed several examples of SWA being positioned as a legend in the PR industry - savvy, successful and carrying a boatload of wisdom and kudos. One trade group was even positioning them as a savant in the area of social media (for what achivement it wasn’t clear.) A number of conference briefs on my desk featured SWA presentations on topics ranging from their unique, ”fun” culture to their mastery of media relation metrics. And this trend has been going on for years. It’s rare you attend a conference where SWA isn’t featured as a bright light in employee engagement, media relations, marketing or even lobbying.

But this laudatory, almost obsequious stream of industry hype was in sharp contrast to what was actually happening in real life. Not content to demonstrate its reactionary, outrageous tendency to ban passengers showing a little skin (at least three times in the past year by my count), Southwest has now really stepped into the mud with reports that it ignored safety guidlines and flew planes it had not properly inspected (it was subsequently confirmed 6 of the planes had cracks in the fuselage.)

How did SWA’s incredible, leading-edge PR machine respond to these claims? At first, their website and blog (which to me is little more than a light-weight, heavily perfumed platform for their marketing machine) made no mention at all. Never happened. I suppose there was no room with all the employee profiles, leadership pep talks and self-congratulatory features. In the face of the media onslaught over the weekend, SWA belatedly and reluctantly came out with a mix of denials, clarifications and excuses - including blaming the FAA. As the weekend progressed they decided to parade CEO Gary Kelly, who said he would vigorously defend his company’s commitment to safety and that the $10 million fine levied against the airline “felt unfair.”

There are two lessons one can draw from this sorry episode. One is how not to respond to a media crisis…but I’ll leave that to another time. But the more interesting one, to my mind, is how the PR industry tends to operate in a dangerous vacuum. Southwest was never as smart or progressive as they were positioned by an industry only too happy to have a super star at the ready. Industry events and awards have always flirted with irrelevance and a sense of detachment from the business world, but now they risk losing their credibility altogether. Now we’ll have to see what they present at their next conference keynote: How to leverage social media in a crisis, perhaps?

This recent post by Steve Rubel is just the latest account of the blurring of traditional lines between advertising agencies, consulting firms, PR agencies, design shops and virtually any other organization involved in digital media and content. Steve’s post suggests we may have put the old media companies out to pasture too soon, since according to Booz Allen they are gradually beginning to offer some of the services and talents traditionally offered by ad agencies - such as media buying and even “idea generation”…what George Bush might call strategery. Witness another example in my own little world from the past week. Part of my new gig is rebuilding my company’s intranet, so I’m looking for everything from strategic counsel to design help and social media expertise (we’ll be including a blog and collaboration tools.) Where to go for help? Well, it could include one or all of the following: big PR agency, intranet design firm, local production house, social media boutique in a PR agency, local ad agency, event marketing agency, big HR consulting firm, small IT consulting firm, internal communications agency…and assorted freelancers and one-trick ponies. Everybody is encroaching into everybody’s else turf. Of course, not all of these attempts at diversification are credible or robust, but they definitely define a real trend. So… who will I get help from? I’m still not sure, but one thing I’ve learned is that people who have real chops in social media are few and far between, so in that case I’ll go to the team I used in a previous life that has actually built blogs and gone through the online wars. In this fast moving world, there is still no substitute for expertise and experience.

Read an interesting post by Shel Hotlz, who suggests that corporate websites (using Fast Company as an example) are adopting many of the social network tools into their sites - in essence becoming a mash-up of network and website. No surprise there, really, but what is interesting about this trend is how organizations seeking to foster an online conversation with fans and customers are trying to broaden their net. It’s pretty clear most companies can benefit from having a site that allows their customers to provide input, comments and ideas - and even to vote on what companies should focus on (like Dell’s Ideastorm crowd-sourcing site.) But does it make sense to open the door even wider and encourage casual fans and observers to share their ideas and opinions. To do that, you need a website that is easy to find - rather than a specific corporate web address - and compelling. This takes us back to two of the unsolved conundrums of the Web 2.0 environment - do you build your own network or do you try to piggy-back on existing networks? And do you remain exclusive in an effort to drive relevance and focus, or do you open the doors wide to avoid insularity and irrelevance? We’ll have to wait and see.

I’ve been watching with interest the growing debate about whether the theories behind Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point hold water. Check out this post about the polemic. I’m not sure at this point whether these new questions about the clout of so-called influentials hold water (Gladwell’s premise is that a small but highly influential group of people can spark a marketing trend more quickly and effectively than traditional mass advertising techniques) but it raises some interesting questions. For one thing, what are those of us working in employee communications to do? There’s long been an attempt to identify and harness those employees who may be highly influential in driving messages or themes across the organization, but I’ve never seen a clear cut case of how we’re supposed to identify them in the first place - let alone get them on board. This latest controversy suggests our efforts may have been misplaced, since those few movers and shakers (however we define them) may not have as much pull as we thought. Furthermore, they may change depending on the issue or campaign…making idenfication and mobilizing even more challenging. One lesson I think still holds water is that influence has little to do with formal roles or seniority. Like in the online world, credibility and influence is a nebulous and fragile thing that must be earned.

OK. I’m sitting here in a quaint coffee-shop a few minutes from Harvard Square in Cambridge this morning minding my own business - and with no intention of thinking of anything as complex or profound as employee engagement - but I can’t help myself. The trigger was this short but cogent post by David Ferrabee of Hill & Knowlton’s Change & Employee Engagement team. I agree with David’s points and think he hits the nail on the head with the obvious answer - do whatever you can to get and keep people who love their work…who believe they have a real purpose and impact. All the other criteria - distinctive culture, core values, two-way communication, progressive HR policies -they all matter, but not as much.

One of the most striking illustrations of this argument I’ve seen in my career occured at Amazon.com. My agency did a consulting gig with them a few years back during some pro-union rumblings and I remember thinking that though they worked in a typically cool, caffeinated Seattle environment (a renovated old hospital) their workplace was anything but easy or comfortable. In fact, they worked like dogs in what seemed like constant chaos, cell phones going off every minute and employees literally jogging from one meeting to the next. But they seemed to love it. Why? Not the funky cafeteria, or the brick walls or even their dynamic leader Jeff Bezos and his incredible laugh - though those all mattered - but because they believe they were creating something special…making retail history. And years later they were proven right.
Companies trying to find the magic potion for engagement should certainly try to do all the obvious things to make their workplace a positive, nurturing and productive place to work… but the real pay-off will come when they are able to generate real passion among their employees. Easier said than done.

Out on the cutting-edge fringes comes a new idea that has a great deal of appeal to me - establishing a social network within the firewalls of a company - an internal Facebook, so to speak. Check out this post to see details. (Full disclosure - thanks to Paul Walker at GCI for the tip.) Though this idea entails some technology challenges, it may be an easier pitch than trying to convince corporate leaders to let their employees access their external networks - even if they do so in informal company groups.  Typically, internal directories and collaboration tools are high on the list for employee intranets, so I suspect this kind of network would be popular and productive. Another thing to put on my list….

Given my experience at Dell - where I was lucky enough to be part of a small team that transformed the company from social media laggard to leader (not just my personal assessment) I am often asked the secret to our success…how we shifted gears so dramatically and rapidly in such a huge company. There is no magic formula, of course, but as my friend and former agency partner Paul Walker notes in his blog, the most critical factor was the leadership of Michael Dell. Without his unequivocal support and encouragement - and occasional nudges to avoid getting bogged down - I’m not sure we would have been able to do so much so fast. A close second was knowing folks like Paul who could provide education and guidance on the brave new world of social media. (As point of reference, I knew next to nothing - ok, nothing - about social media, or blogs, or wikis…before I joined the effort at Dell and started my digital boot camp.) The lesson: it’s always much easier to break some glass when your CEO is the first one to throw a brick through the window.  

Sorry for the paucity of posts the past couple of weeks, but I’ve been in a blur of travel and work assignments – one of which has taken me to a venerable tradition in many companies: the annual meeting of the sales force. I’ve had several discussions over the past week with peers and friends about the value – and sustainability – of these meetings, particularly in companies that are growing beyond the comfortable confines of 10,000 or so employees or expanding across global locations. The costs and logistics for these meetings increase exponentially as a company grows in size and reach. In my last company (Dell) the all-staff meeting had long since been replaced by live, global webcasts and smaller functional or regional meetings supplemented by various technologies (like video-conferencing.) But many companies, either hesitant to tinker with a tradition (particularly involving the sacred sales force) or convinced of the value of face-to-face interaction, continue to go through the regular ritual…complete with award dinners, social events, marketing kits and a bonanza of drink and food.

After coming into the week as a firm proponent of virtual meetings  - leveraging technology to conduct online sessions or even conducting an entire meeting in Second Life – I now have a more tempered perspective. I think there is still huge value in face-to-face interaction – even if the interaction is social as opposed to a purely business function. But I also see the inevitability of companies having to adapt when they become a certain size. Perhaps there is a compromise here – for example conducting regional meetings but linking all the participants by online events or webcasting…kind of a variation of the famous IBM “jams.”  I also think many companies could replicate the face-to-face social aspects of a team meeting with online social networking tools - ranging from Twitter alerts to an event blog. Ignoring the huge opportunities inherent in the Web – and virtual environments like Second Life – is a big mistake.

Picked up some interesting chatter online about an ex-Apple insider criticizing the company’s philosophy - and restrictive  policies - regarding social media. Check out one of the strings here. Assuming this is credible (I have no reason to doubt the story) this post is somewhat surprising, given Apple’s leadership role in product design and marketing. But if you think about it this angle makes sense, since from everything I’ve read or heard Mr. Jobs runs a fairly tight, autocratic ship and favors a command-and-control (and secretive) PR style that is out of sync with the company’s cutting-edge image. It was particularly interesting to note that Apple apparently discourages its execs (or subject matter experts) from blogging under their Apple identity…if they blog at all, and does not support the use of online collaboration tools. This approach is totally out of sync with the emphasis on transparency, candor and collaboration that underlines the Web 2.0 environment. Add another chink in the shining Apple armour…. 

Check out this post by uber blogger Robert Scoble in Fast Company. Scoble raves about new applications that allow teams to collaborate more easily and seamlessly in a virtual “cloud”. News like this is sure to make those trying to function in command-and-control companies cry in despair. While some workers are building programs online and lifting ideas and visuals from shared sites, others can’t even get access to the internet. Unfortunately, the gap seems to be getting wider.

I just read this interesting post in TechCrunch, which suggests that an expected downturn in corporate IT spending in the U.S. is good news for the Web 2.0 trend, since the Web is full of free or low-cost alternatives to the expensive hardware and software sold by the industry leaders. Beyond the interesting good news/bad news duality of this story, it brings to light the schitzophrenic reaction of IT departments to Web 2.0 technology. In fairness, I totally understand why they are often defensive and even incredulous in the face of this trend - one could argue it threatens their very existence. If I can download a free corporate blog platform from the web, get tips and help through blogs and chat rooms, and even host the program externally using Google or Amazon servers, why do I need my IT department? Software, servers, applications, information and trouble-shooting tips…all these can be found on the Web at little or no cost. Furthermore, many IT departments have a troubling habit of promoting rules and products that are good for them, but not necessarily their internal clients or external customers. (Don’t even get me started on antiquated firewall or bandwidth rules that prevent employees from properly doing their jobs.) Smart CIOs  and IT teams will address these criticisms and help their companies navigate the shoals of the Web 2.o environment. Their expertise, support and counsel are critical to the long-term success of any corporate social media strategy. Otherwise, many marketing and PR professionals will simply work around the hurdles, and that’s usually not the best option.

I’m typically the first to tell my peers and colleagues that technology is only a means to an end, and I avoid the temptation to let a cool device come before a strategic plan. That said, technology does have a dramatic impact on how we can communicate with our stakeholders and among our own teams. So I always pay attention to the product launches at huge shows like CES - which is coming this month. According to this article in Fortune, the program this year will feature a number of technology trends:

• New products and applications designed to facilitate the transfer and playing of digital content (in this case MP3 content) like iPods and iPhones
• Devices that allow users to connect to the Internet without the use of a computer, building on the expanding ubiquity of wi-fi zones to access information as diverse as sports, news, maps or weather
• Tools that allow users to play streaming radio broadcasts
• Devices that make wireless even more…well, wireless…building on technology like Bluetooth that allows virtual connections across a wide range of tools

All of these have obvious implications for corporate communications, particularly from an internal perspective. Companies struggling to reach their front-line and remote workers - including those without computer access - should play close attention to this emerging technology. These devices also open the door to more “pull” communications and personalization - which help reduce volume and increase relevance. On the surface, all of these trends seem to have potential applications for all the PR disciplines. Technology provides the delivery channels and tools, of course,  but it also opens the door to important changes in the format and scope of content (e.g. more digital and audio).  Any communicator worth his/her salt should be aware of these basic trends and look for ways to leverage them in their own environment. Otherwise, they risk becoming increasingly irrelevant and marginalized - a criticism the PR industry is already trying to fight.

Just read an interesting post by social media guru Jeff Jarvis in which he argues that folks are unfairly piling on Facebook for various missteps related to their service and rules of engagement. As Jarvis suggests, Facebook has responded nicely to these crises - often by incorporating customer comments and suggestions. And in the long run,  many of the ideas have survived, albeit with important adjustments. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg - still in his early twenties - shouldn’t be criticized for trying new things and looking for ways to generate revenues from his service. In fact, as Jarvis states, he should be celebrated for taking risks and driving innovation in a nascent field with few guideposts or easy answers. The folks at Facebook try new things. They listen. They learn. They adjust. They even apologize and eat crow on occasion. That’s much more than most other companies - new or old.

Some have accused me of being too complimentary with Apple, so this post will likely fan those critical flames. So be it. A recent article in BusinessWeek provides an interesting analysis of what makes Apple such a marketing  (and financial) juggernaut. In a nutshell, it’s not just the fabulous, buzz-worthy products - though those certainly are the crown jewels. As BW’s Sohrab Vossoughi argues, Apple is more than just a pretty face - the company has created a seamless and impressive ecosystem that creates strong demand, generates tons of (mostly positive) attention, and generates passion among its legions of fans. The ecosystem features the suite of products, of course, but also numerous innovative accessories, software, services, customer support, a retail experience, employee training, websites, marketing, advertising and even public relations. All of these link together beautifully to create a unique and superior customer experience. Every customer touchpoint is considered and perfected…and fully branded.

No - Apple is not perfect. I’ve written about some of its PR missteps. But the company carries important lessons not just for product designers or business strategists, but for anybody interested in how successful brands can outpace the competition and resonate deeply with customers.

This short article in Fact Company provides a concise and cogent explanation of why marketing departments are still reluctant to engage in social media and embrace digital content. The reasons provided also ring true for other corporate departments - whether it’s corporate communications (which could and should leverage a whole arsenal of social media tools and digital content) and even HR (which could provide a boost to training programs through interactive, online technology.) Beyond fear and ignorance, there are many organizations and companies that have a stake in the old system…and are not ready to give up their piece of the spending pie. The lesson here: it will take time to counter the institutional inertia of CMOs and CEOs.

Picked up a post on Mashable that nicely captures choices for the key web trends for the past year. The only big one I would add - though it might seem like stating the obvious - is the increasingly dominant role of Google as an economic, cultural and technological force on the Web. For better or worse, what they decide to do (or buy) has major ripple effects on the vast internet ecosystem. Though some fear this power, I’ve yet to see any negative impact of Google’s domination in my daily interactions on the Web - quite the opposite, in fact - so I’m withholding  my judgement.

Looking beyond the core Web trends into related developments in PR, I guess the most prominent trend is simply that companies are slowly, sometimes reluctantly, adopting some of the tools and ethos of social media in their communication activities: corporate blogs, internal wikis, RSS-enabled intranet portals, islands on Second Life, crowd-sourcing sites, social press releases, Twitter networks…and so on. There’s also been a steady increase of activities that could be considered marketing - or sorry…relationship building as the CMOs would define it. 

I see most if not all of these trends are positive developments. The twin disciplines of PR and marketing (as well as advertising to a lesser extent) have already greatly benefited, I would suggest, from being blown inside-out with the liberating gusts of Web 2.0 ideas and tools. PR, in particular, was (is?) in need of a major overhaul; name another profession with such a dubious reputation, stifling inertia, propensity to flirt with the dark side of ethics and insular thinking. Let the winds of freedom blow…. 

A recent post by David Armano on the increasing mobility of digital content convincingly captures the trend towards digital freedom, allowing us to access (or send) content anywhere, anytime and through an expanding range of tools. Still, even as Web access becomes more ubiquitous and portable through the expansion of access points (free wi-fi), portable devices (3-G phones) and evolving cultural norms (virtual workers) there is a stubborn gap in digital mobility - particularly across corporations. While one company arms its workers with the latest Blackberry or multi-purpose cameras and essentially obviates the need for permanent offices, others struggle to provide wireless access to their workers in their own facilities…and wouldn’t dream of providing mobile devices to anybody beyond their top executives. And that’s just in the larger cities of North America.

Though a part of this lag is likely due to the economics of obtaining and implementing new technology, I suspect the larger reason is cultural. Companies sticking closer to the chained-to-the-desk, firewall mentality seem more concerned about what employees will do with their new-found freedom than about costs. We’ve all heard the typical concerns:

- “What if employees start leaking information… or surfing bad sites?”

- “Won’t some employees  say bad things about the company?”

- “What if they spend all their time going to Facebook or YouTube?”

 These concerns reflect a paranoia which is misplaced, and also a touch of executive arrogance. Trying to stall technology to keep workers in line totally misses the point of the huge advantages inherent in the new mobile technology, and of the futility of trying to bury or avoid digital conversations. What these companies need is not a new CIO, but a cultural overhaul.

I’ve been reading a fair deal lately about the technological savvy - or lack thereof - of the candidates vying for the Republican and Democractic slots in the upcoming president elections. On the one hand, there are kudos being thrown around for the smart websites and blogs of many of the candidates - with some like Ron Paul and Barrack Obama being singled out for astute use of these tools to generate buzz and raise money. But I’ve also read/heard some criticisms about the stunning lack of personal awareness (let alone understanding) of emerging technology by some of these same candidates. (There was an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, but can’t link as it’s subscription-only access.) Apparently some of these folks - notably John McCain and Mitt Romney - are unfamiliar with the basic mechanics and tools of the Web 2.0 environment - including MySpace. Some of this is blamed on the generation gap - after all most of these folks are well past their teen years - but whatever the reason this is cause for concern: it’s not a good scenario when the leadership of the country is woefully out of sync with developments related to the internet and evolving communication patterns. 

These politicians can likely bluff their way by and hire specialists and consultants to brief them and point them in the right direction. What worries me even more is the stubborn gap in the communications field, where I still run into senior practitioners who zealously avoid computers or are years behind in terms of tracking developments on the Web. These are the people who are paid to counsel organizations on how to communicate and market effectively, so their knowledge gaps raise serious quality and credibility problems. Age can forgive some of this lag, but not all of it. Insularity, institutional inertia and the rapid pace of change are other potential reasons. Either way, there is no excuse: no serious communications expert can be out of touch with major Web trends and innovations. This is where that old HR chestnut lifelong learning becomes a reality.   

With all the buzz about the latest hot topics related to employee engagement - namely how to leverage social media tools with internal audiences - one fundamental requirement for effective employee communications is often forgotten: the need for alignment across all “touch points” that reach employees. My friend David Kippen, who specializes in employment brand strategy at TMP Worldwide, discussed this point at a recent Conference Board workshop…talking about how various iterations of the company’s positioning as an employer was too often inconsistent, and even contradictory.

Thinking about my own career, I can think of several instances where the external employment (or recruitment) brand was totally different from my interviewing experience, and even more so from the initial orientation and on-boarding. So either the corporate brand was misrepresented, or it was not effectively conveyed to prospects and/or hew hires. And that doesn’t even touch on the messages and positioning that are shared with established employees - which are too often aspirational cheer-leading rather than a reflection of reality or cogent strategy. Furthermore, the actual work experience (an ocean of cubicles?) and HR programs (such as benefits or performance evaluations) sometimes don’t jibe with the company’s stated identity or culture. Add in typically woeful efforts to reach out to alumni, who are potential recruits and brand ambassadors, and you have a very disjointed employee experience. And we wonder why most employee campaigns are met with skepticism and are dead on arrival. Needless to say, it’s difficult if not impossible to have a clear, compelling external image as an employer if the situation is as sclerotic as described above.

Enlightened companies should put much more effort into defining and promoting a consistent brand positioning with prospects, new hires, employees and alumni. This will by necessity need to involve folks from various teams and agencies, and it may take some hard work to define the employment brand - both real and desired. But it’s work well worth doing. Otherwise, employees and prospects will continue to view corporate positioning efforts with cynicism and scorn.

An article in the venerable Globe & Mail provides one of many anecdotes of how companies are struggling to adapt their marketing to social networking - in this case Molson (of beer fame) creating a dubious photo contest on Facebook. Apparently the campaign raised the ire of self-appointed critics by implicitly encouraging drinking. Really?!? There are several lessons here - some old and some new. On the old front, we can see companies are still not completly getting the Web 2.0 environment, so to speak. The Molson marketing folks quoted in the story seem intent on talking ”with” their customers on Facebook, but it’s clear they want to do most of the talking and have spent little or no time listening to their customers. They want to sell beer and came up with this thinly-veiled “cool” contest to generate buzz and make their  product seem hip. Smart companies will one day realize that some (most?) forays into social media should have absolutely no marketing purpose - explicit or otherwise. None. Heresy? Maybe….They can provide info, tools, contests and perks, but not push product or badly disguised advertising (such as user-created videos.) The key to marketing online is to pick the right time and place to market…and to be totally transparent about the purpose and benefits of the program. Too often marketers fail to do this, clumsily creating websites or campaigns on social networks that are totally out of sync with informal rules of engagement and have little chance of attracting a sustained audience.

The new lesson in this story, if I can be a contrarian, is that the marketers didn’t listen to the right audience when they decided to pull the campaign. From what I can determine, the chorus of complaints came from pundits and government officials, not the folks on Facebook. It’s not clear if the students on Facebook - the target audience - had any complaints at all about the campaign. The lesson here: figure out who matters and who you are trying to please. If I were on Facebook, I would think Molson is not only clueless, but timid. 

I don’t want to be too hard on Molson, since there are often no easy answers. But they are more likely to find them by spending more time online - where their customers are - and less time brainstorming over Red Bull.  

Too often during discussions about branding - both internal and external applications - PR or marketing folks forget the most critical requisite for a relevant, sustainable and credible brand. No, it’s not delivering on the brand promise, though that is an essential factor if you hope to survive for more than 10 minutes. And no, it’s not a dazzling logo or award-winning creative, though those can also make an impact. And it’s not consumer insight, though that is a critical ingredient if you hope to be resonant. I would even argue it’s not the specific product or service you are marketing, though that will determine if you have a viable business. Ultimately, it’s about having something that is distinctive to sell… and say. It’s about being memorable, and standing out from the crowd. Word-of-mouth guru Andy Sernovitz makes this case (with bonus laughs) in a recent blog post. I can’t begin to count the awkward discussions I’ve had with executives who ask for my opinion on their hopelessly generic and trite corporate values. You know the kind: customers are king, we love employees, let’s be honest, etc….typically displayed on dusty table tents and fading posters. Even if they are all true, these tenets hardly hardly provide employees with a snapshot of the company’s DNA or unique value proposition. And they are unlikely to foster pride and engagement. The same storm of cliches happens outside the firewall. As Andy points out, far too many ads can be transposed across numerous competitors  - and most customers would be hard pressed to know the difference. In the rush to develop ads, or print a bunch of internal posters, communicators too often skip over the importance of defining what is truly different - and special - about a company or product. What is the company’s essence or cultural DNA? What will make people pay attention? What will make them care? What will make them associate a product or service (or related marketing campaign) with a specific company? What will foster buzz and even passion? If you can’t answer these questions with crystal clear answers, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.  

PR pundit Shel Holtz recently blogged on the ongoing debate of who should ”own” - or manage and lead - social media strategy. The post is a good snapshot of the conflicting arguments on this issue - which is much more than a theoretical polemic, since figuring out who does what is often a huge stumbling block to many organizations considering getting involved in social media. The question comes up in almost every presentation or conversation I have on the topic. For what it’s worth, I agree with two key arguments presented by Holtz:

- Specialized agencies should not own or lead social media projects, since giving up control to external teams - no matter how talented, smart and well-intentioned they are - takes decision-making too far from the critical teams inside the organization

- Social media strategic planning and execution should be directed by a cross-functional team, since various players should have a stake in the program but all have biases and shortcomings that could derail the effort without a broader perspective

The second point is the most important, from my perspective. It’s very tempting to try and leverage social media for narrow, tactical gains that ignore the broader implications and strategic priorities.  Marketing, for example, has plenty of expertise in digital content and online marketing, but they might be too tempted to push the selling envelope. IT is too often focused on its own internal roadmaps and might resist applications and programs that were created outside the firewall. PR might want to reinvent the press release to the detriment of larger branding initiatives or outreach beyond traditional media. In short, the team format is probably required to strike the right balance across diverse (and often competing) priorities and steer the effort in the right direction.

The best examples of companies engaging in social media (e.g. Dell, Procter & Gamble, Nike) seem to share bold, englightened leadership, strong agency support and broad, cross-functional programming. Probably not a coincidence.

A recent BusinessWeek article does a good job of capturing the debate and developments around the issue of building social networks for employees. The article highlights two of the central questions related to this topic:

• One is whether to build an employee network - or even to allow employees to access existing corporate networks outside the firewall (e.g. virtually every major company has a Facebook network…though many are not sponsored or supervised)
• Assuming you want to proceed, a central question becomes whether to leverage the existing external networks, to create a new network on the internet or to build a network within the firewall

On the first question, I would argue that denying employee access to Facebook and/or ignoring the trend towards networking is akin to sticking a finger in a massive dike…the decision is short-sighted and unrealistic.

On the latter question, there is merit to all three options, but also distinctive challenges. For those companies who fear breaches of confidentiality or have a workforce that is grumpy and likely to be highly critical, it may make more sense to initially create an in-house network. For others - particularly companies whose employees are likely to be advocates and already have a high profile on the net, it probably makes sense to create an external site.

But the important point here is to recognize that employees are already active on networks, and that there are already conversations going on about the company. So the question becomes whether there is benefit in harnessing that employee networking for the company’s benefit. Furthermore, the tools that make social networks so attractive can be leveraged to drive collaboration and alignment across an organization. With that background, it seems like keeping the digital door shut tight is an exercise in futility, and probably bad for business.  

I just returned from presenting at a Conference Board event in Chicago, which was focused on engaging employees in the brand. The workshop I facilitated with my good friend David Kippen at TMP Worldwide was about how to manage a brand in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. It’s always an interesting gauge to compare notes with peers at an industry conference or event, and this one was no different. Here are some of my main observations:

• At this point virtually all companies or organizations in the session were aware of social media - though some only peripherally - and are thinking about if and how they get involved. From my unscientific poll of attendees, most seem intent on doing something, though what exactly they are not sure. A few had already started down the path of setting up wikis or blogs.
• There appears to be much more focus on how the Web 2.0 tools can be leveraged with (and for) an internal audience. This is great news, given the huge potential to leverage these tools to engage employees in relevant conversation, foster collaboration and leverage internal best practices and ideas.
• The IT and Legal departments are universally seen as the biggest barriers (perceived or real) to getting involved in social media. On the Legal side, the complaint is understandable - though I made a case at the conference that Legal’s resistance is often overstated and it’s not an onerous task to define clear rules of engagement (either for internal or external tools.) Still, there are numerous nervous discussions about worst case scenarios (what if our employees share secrets or badmouth the CEO?) despite the fact this can already happen over the phone, email, etc. The IT criticism is more problematic, and is certainly in line with my own experience and observations. The department that should be leading the charge in exploring and adopting new tools and technology is too often a laggard, stubbornly resisting change of any sort with little or no valid reasoning (is it really valid to suggest it takes several months for a project to get on the “roadmap”?)
• Folks from a wide range of departments - Corporate Communications, HR, Marketing, Internal Communications - were represented at the event and actively involved in the discussions. This is an excellent trend, since in most cases it will take a robust cross-functional effort to devise and implement a social media strategy.
• In some cases, Marketing seems to be leading the corporate charge in social media. On the one hand this is good, since the marketing folks are typically savvy in online trends and technology and certainly know their way around digital content (like videos and websites.) On the other hand, this should raise some red flags, since though smart and well-intentioned, folks in marketing are the most likely to ignore the informal rules of engagement and push the envelope into pushy and ill-advised pitching.

All in all, it was good to see this topic front and center in yet another industry event. Slowly but surely, seems like the PR industry is catching on that this is most definitely not a fad.

One of the most interesting lessons from the Citibank debacle and recent firing of CEO Charles Prince is the importance of culture as a make-or-break factor in business success. As noted in this WSJ cover story, Prince and his leadership team were never able to unite the disparate fiefdoms in the sprawling Citibank empire, and as a result could not hope to achieve the strategic goal of providing a one-stop shop of financial services. The article mentions defiant Citigroup bond traders still answering their phones as “Salomon” years after the brand was ostensibly retired, and also highlights the dysfunctional and even antagonistic relationship between the various business segments and brands. It’s interesting to note that Citi apparently put considerable energy behind an internal branding campaign promoting “One Citi”, but as in many similar exercises this apparently was more an empty (and aspirational) slogan than a robust, change management effort. By all accounts there was no such thing as a coherent Citi culture, so there was nothing cultivated to replace the various cultures left over from the Travellers & Citibank merger. Companies that seek to promote a unified culture need to remember a few golden rules:

- You can’t artifically create a culture out of a vacuum, but should rather build on existing norms and values

- Employees need an incentive to embrace or support a culture, with clear “benefits of membership” rather than just platitudes

- Talk and slogans are often not enough to encourage alignment and drive cultural change - usually the effort must include personal incentives (or “sticks”) to change behaviors, structural and strategic adjustments, new orientation and training programs, and so on

- Much like consumers shape the external brand through their perceptions and opinions, employees ultimately own the corporate identity

The ultimate lesson is that any CEO trying to impose or promote a culture without considerable due diligence and follow-through is doomed to failure. Yet another reminder that a strategy is nothing without people.

The attached article in BusinessWeek on Intel’s office redesign program reminded me that a workplace’s design and layout is too often the forgotten aspect of employee engagement strategies. As much as benefits, compensation, training and managers matter to job satisfaction, perhaps nothing has as much of a sustained impact on worker psychology and productivity as their office environment.  It’s one thing to have to make a living in the gulag-like drab, grey cubicles. But even worse, in too many cases (some of which I’ve experienced myself) the working environment is woefully misaligned with the prevailing office culture or company aspirations. So you end up with uninspired employees who do their job in spite of their office environment. You want some examples?

• A company promoting creativity and innovation that has not a hint of color and whimsy in the office
• An organization where frequent collaboration and multiple meetings are the norm with a chronic shortage of meeting rooms and no central areas
• A company where laptops are ubiquitous with no wireless wi-fi or ethernet cables
• An office where small teams are the creative force but where individuals are isolated in high cubicles scattered across the building
• An organization promoting outside-in thinking and consumer insights that has firewalls so tight the outside world is virtually inaccessible

One of the excuses I have heard is that it costs money to “dress up” an office. But it’s not about perks, and much can be done without any incremental cost (how about green instead of grey?) It just makes business sense. Companies that want productive, efficient and loyal employees need to invest in the right working environment if they hope to be attract and keep their talent. At minimum, they need to ensure that their office is consistent with - and supportive of - their culture and strategic objectives.  Not everybody needs a basketball court in the lobby or free food in the cafeteria, but give me the tools and space I need to do my job properly and…just maybe…get some enjoyment out of it.

I read two articles over the weekend that both relate to challenges of measuring the popularity and impact of marketing activities online.

A recent New York Times report on the annual conference of the Association of National Advertisers - apparently a very big shindig for the ad community in the U.S. - notes that the topic du jour was consumer behavior as the guiding star of effective marketing. There was violent agreement among speakers, apparently, that basing marketing pitches on consumer behaviors - as opposed to attitudes or perceptions - was the right approach. Behaviorial targeting is in, and demographic pitches and opinion surveys are out. Of course, one of the inherent advantages of the Web is the ability to track consumer behavior online in minute detail - all the way down to individual customer purchase history and site visits. So companies left and right are now trying to read the data to make their marketing pitch more immediate and relevant. That’s good news for consumers, I would think. The more you know me the better chance you have of being relevant and credible.

For a different twist on the same topic, check out this post by the Bivings Report on a recent PR conference on measurement. Now I’m the first to admit I am quite cynical about PR conferences in general and read their output with a grain (rock?) of salt the size of a small car - largely for their propensity to solve all the PR world’s problems in 3-step plans or magic bullets…for a small fee. But what caught my eye here is the discussion on how to measure the impact of blogs and other consumer-generated media. The consensus: there is no definitive formula (yet) that will provide hard evidence of impact. But at least they are talking about it. I think Chuck Fitzpatrick of the Bivings Group hits the nail on the head when he says “the whole point of social media is the conversations it creates, which are hard to measure at all.” Bingo! At some point, we need to acknowledge that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to capture the nebulous impact of thousands of online discussions and individual contacts. But hasn’t that always been the case with off-line efforts? How much is it worth for a company employee to defuse a weekend BBQ debate on faulty customer service? Or for service reps to smile at folks when they enter the store? Or to provide exemplary service over the phone? At some point we need to accept on the basis of logic and faith there is a strong relationship between how a company acts with its customers and partners (individually and collectively, online and in person) and the popularity and success of that company. I’ve witnessed some pretty effective tracking that can measure the scope and tonality of online posts, tabulate a company’s outreach efforts and ultimately try to link that back to an increase in brand reputation and product sales. But it’s not a perfect science, and likely never will be. That should not stop companies from doing the right thing - one customer at a time.

I’ve got to give him credit. Richard Edelman - CEO of his eponymous PR agency - seems to get it. Social media…that is. Although his agency has been involved in some celebrated snafus involving social media (check out this post by BL Ochman for an accounting of the latest mess) Edelman’s personal blog - which summarizes his recent presentation at a Forrester Consumer Forum - says all the right things and reflects a solid understanding of the nuances and norms of social media. Perhaps Edelman’s most salient point is in his headline - “be it, don’t buy it.” It’s a refreshing, timely plug for building credibility through candor and behavior rather than hype.  But as Edelman alludes to in his blog, the real challenge lies in convincing deep-pocket clients to forego the carpet-bombing PR campaigns and take a leap of faith into the messy, uncontrolled and egalitarian world of social media. And getting folks in his own agency to avoid tripping on their shoelaces should help too.

If industry conferences and pundits are any indication, the PR industry is finally waking up to the new world of online social networks, and the futility of trying to fit their outdated tactics in this new paradigm. This cogent blog by Sally Falkow is one several I’ve read recently from PR pundits and insiders that are embracing the Web 2.0 changes. But I am still a bit cynical about the deathbed conversion. I sense that many of these folks are simply figuring out how to change their tactics - and reluctantly accepting they must give up some control over the communication process - but not really changing their philosophy. Folks, it’s not about trying to come up with new “social” ways to generate a headline…it’s accepting that the headline itself does not mean what it used to. The whole game has changed - how people get their news, what influences their purchasing habits, how they perceive marketing and advertising, how they make friends, and how they share information with their peers and friends. A simplistic new formula designed to boost SEO results or engage a few influential bloggers is not the answer, though these steps may be a good part of a larger plan. Organizations (and their PR teams) should first accept they now must contribute to an ongoing conversation about their company or products in which they are one voice among many - and that’s if they are already active online. They need to be transparent and contribute value and insight or they will remain irrelevant, no matter what tools or channels they use.  And to start, as Sally points out in her blog, they have to listen - really listen - before they start to spurt out messages or marketing programs. That may be the hardest lesson to learn.

Update: Never let it be said that I’m obtuse. My Canadian friend at Canuckflak makes an excellent point on this blog that the Web 2.0 revolution  - so obvious and prominent in the wi-fi hotbeds like San Jose, Austin or Stockholm is still a twinkle in the stars in many other countries with far more limited broadband and computer distribution. Point taken. So PR as we know it may not be dead - or dying - in these parts of the world. But I’m willing to bet it will be dramatically different in the near future.

Had a great discussion at work last week about emerging best practices in PR - with a focus on companies that are doing innovative things in the area of social media to drive their marketing efforts. At the top of the list was Nokia. An increasing number of companies (including mine) are using fully-loaded social media news releases - complete with links, bookmarks, tags and options for feedback and questions - but Nokia is leading the way in terms of outreach to influential bloggers. As detailed in this good summary post, Nokia is supporting product launches with targeted outreach to dozens of influential bloggers. Here is a post by Steve Rubel on the program. Not only do they send the bloggers the trial product in advance of launch - in this case the new N90 video phones - but they also set up a dedicated website where the bloggers can access additional information and materials, share comments with peers and engage in dialogue (online or off) with Nokia product reps. Beyond the dialogue on the Nokia blog, of course, these VIP bloggers posted comments on their own blogs. (One was so positive it was misidentified by BusinessWeek as a sponsored corporate blog.) Along the same lines, Nokia also recently launched a moblog (for mobile blogging) inviting users of the new NSeries phone to download their videos.

Consider this an evolved version of the traditional distribution of product samples for beat writers. But beyond using bloggers rather than journalists, the process has the added aspect of conversation and is inherently transparent - beefs and warts are there for all to see and discuss. It’s a courageous approach that is a big step in the right direction. As my good buddy Paul Walker from GCI says, however, Nokia still has room for improvement. Though Nokia seems to have mastered these social product launches, they still need work in fostering a more sustained conversation with consumers - not just the VIP bloggers - beyond the big launches.  Still, some good lessons there for the PR and marketing troops.

I had some interesting  conversations last week on the topic of employee communications, notably if and how organizations are adopting the lessons of social networks and the Web into their internal strategies. I think the verdict is decidedly mixed. Some companies continue to hesitate on making the shift from traditional communication to dynamic conversations. In some cases the caution is valid (for example in unionized manufacturing environments) but in many it’s a function of ignorance and/or inertia. Other organizations have made good progress - introducing internal blogs, wikis, RSS capability, customized intranet portals, robust search engines, digital content production, interactive training modules…among many others. And the point of these tools is not the technology, but rather the philosophy behind them - to foster candid dialogue, faciliate peer-to-peer collaboration, encourage employee input and innovation, provide relevant and interesting training, allow for time-shifting of information, and leverage existing or potential networks of like-minded workers. But often these successes focus on the basic internal mandate - helping employees do their jobs efficiently and effectively.  

What I don’t see nearly as often is companies that strive to make their employees fans of their company, and ultimately active ambassadors outside the organization. From my experience, these are areas where few companies dare to tread and even fewer succeed. The companies that do this well - Nike, Apple, Patagonia - have found a formula that fosters legitimate commitment and passion among their employees. It starts with liking (loving?) the products and services provided by the company, of course, but also includes strong affinity with the vision and beliefs of the organization. How do the companies do it? I think it starts with the basics - make sure your employees use (and like) your own products.  Let them define and represent the brand inside and outside the work environment. Foster a true sense of community. Treat them like your main marketing asset, not an after-thought.

Once you have this well informed, excited group of employees the next step is leveraging them as advocates for the company (and brand.) Let them interact with customers or share their thoughts on the company blog - or their own blog. Give them the tools to create and share their own marketing materials (like viral videos.) Make them the focus of external events or presentations. And of course, let them use and promote your products.  

Why does all this matter? Can’t we just focus on making sure they do their jobs and drive revenue? Think of it this way. Even with effective internal communication, you can have a workforce that is either invisible or critical outside the company. The ideal is to have a majority of employees act as your de-facto marketing army, spreading the good word with customers and peers alike. No matter where your organization is on this spectrum, it all starts with empathy and respect for the employees. Passion and alignment cannot be forced or manufactured. Maybe it’s just about treating your employees like customers…your best customers.

Update: What is a company’s worst nightmare? Employees that turn against the company and corrode the brand reputation - think of them as “kryptonite” ambassadors. See this  BusinessWeek article on the problems at Wal-Mart stemming from disgruntled and cynical employees.

My fellow Canadian at Canuckflack recently had a post about the Foreign Office in the UK government opening its doors - quite wide - to external blogging. I’d also read recently that some enlightened departments in the Canadian government were also blogging. And I’m sure there are more in other parts of the world. I give these guys kudos, but I wonder what this says about corporations that are afraid to dip their toe into the big conversation. If a government department can do it - those bastions of bureaucracy, secrecy and caution - why not companies? For the UK blog it appears the format will allow a wide range of people to blog - not just a moderator or restricted group. I think this approach makes sense, with the following caveats:

• Anybody who blogs should be trained to understand the rules of engagement, legal tripwires, web etiquette, etc.
• Folks should be selected on the potential value they can provide to readers, not just their personal desire to be famous (or semi-famous?) The modus operandi where I work is to focus on SMEs - or subject matter experts - who can provide insights and information that will be relevant to the blog community or specific categories.
• Participants should be committed to posting on a regular basis, and also reviewing comments on their blog posts and beyond. There is no greater sin for a blogger than not be listening to the conversation and being irrelevant.
• Participants should be themselves and post in an informal, candid and conversational tone. Keep it short and relevant. Easy to say…but apparently for some harder to do.
• Think multi-media - a blog can feature photos, video and podcasts.

A special report in the latest BusinessWeek details a trend among online players to add social networking features to their sites - in effect creating their own versions of Facebook of MySpace. The impetus is obvious - these companies (notably Yahoo, eBay and Playboy) want to attract users and keep them on their sites as long as possible. And the way to do that is to foster online communities - where like-minded people with specific interests can create identities, share and create content and meet or make friends. In short, they can come to socialize, rather than just browse or shop. As BusinessWeek points out, this trend is not new - numerous sites have introduced message boards for example - but the scale and speed of adoption is unprecedented.

What interested me about this article is not just the evolving competitive landscape among web giants, but the obvious implications for companies trying to engage their employees. Taking the trend in-house, so to speak. Presumably, one can assume many employees - particularly those under 30 - are looking for some interaction and personalization from their company intranet. They want more than static headlines and stilted messaging. The