Visible Technologies is Playing with Fire
By leelefever on April 17, 2007 - 8:51pm.
Sean reminded me about a local Seattle company called Visible Technologies that enables organizations to listen and respond to the commentary that is occurring across blogs, social networks and communities.
This is a fast growing niche and one that is fun to watch. Organizations of all types are growing more and more curious about what is being said about them online - and struggling to respond in the appropriate way. While I have confidence that Visible will do well as a company, I think they are playing with fire - the destructive nature of which I hope their clients fully understand.
Here's are some quotes from a recent article about them in the Seattle Times.
If a blogger badmouths the Hummer, for instance, the system could notify GM. Within the console, a PR person can draft a response, inserting key points, then get approval to post or e-mail the nettlesome blogger.
Clients pick an "author" or opt for anonymity. Visible also has a virtual army — thousands of personas registered with online forums.
What? "Thousands of personas in online forums" sounds like thousands of opportunities for organizations to do exactly the wrong thing. If a company really wants to listen and to respond responsibly, there are no shortcuts. Community members call smell bullshit from a mile away and Visible's system appears to make it easy for organizations to manufacture the stuff by the tractor load.
Graziano said the idea is to make it easier for companies to respond and participate, but it's up to clients to decide how the tools are used.
"This is a communication tool," he said. "It's not a pull-the-wool-over-anybody's-eyes tool."
Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think a communication tool is what is needed. I'm all for listening - companies need better tools for understanding perceptions and I'm sure that Visible has a great tool for listening. However, when it comes to reacting, a better communication system (i.e. a way to drop a response into a forum) is not going to help and could likely backfire in a big, big way.
What is needed is a strategy for authentic and contextual conversation and an understanding of how to work with bloggers and communities, not an easier way to for a PR person to "insert key points". No blogger or community member wants to hear the key points from a PR person and if they see it, they'll blog about it with the headline "Another company that doesn't get it". No company wants that.
I liked the way Sean ended his post:
I guess in debating if this is good, bad or it depends, I almost see this like a weapons manufacturer. The weapons themselves are neither good nor bad - it depends on who ultimately is using them and for what purposes.
I just hope that Visible's clients understand the risks before jumping in too deep. Napalm is dangerous stuff.
About This Blog
Have a suggestion? Tell us about it, please.
Comments
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
Details, Details
Licensed
powered
Monetized
Thoughts
Appreciate your dialogue on the challenges of engaging in social media conversations. Companies do want to engage. You raise great points about the authenticity of the conversation because there have been some very notable examples will it has all gone very wrong.
As social media continues to solidify its place as an important communication channel companies need a more holistic way to hear what is being said and then engage the right resources or experts within their company to provide accurate responses.
Visible provides an efficient solution for organizations to better manage that engagement process. Being transparent is key to engaging in social networks -- as you say "community members can smell it from miles away". I think that's why you see many companies rapidly adopting WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association) Ethics standards, of which we are members.
Every new form of communication creates a disruptive force that companies, some nimbly and other grudgingly, must adapt to. This revolution is happening faster than previous new channels of communication and every comment is out there for all to see and interpret.
Blake Cahill
Visible Technologies
Hi Blake
Thanks for the response - I thought I would hear something from Visible.
I appreciate your points, but I see some incongruity with Visible's message and I'm wondering if you'll address it here? Â
Do you promote the idea that "personas" in forums are a viable and meaningful way in which companies can engage in these communities? You (the person) appear to be well versed in the best practices, the value of transparency, etc. However, it seems like the company is not walking the talk. The Seattle Times article paints a different picture of your strategies, a la "1000s of personas, PR key points, etc. Â
Can you address these differences? Thanks.Â
Follow on
Lee:
We promote that companies should engage with communities in a transparent way.
As I mentioned in my previous post there are some good examples of what happens when you aren't transparent -- like Wal-Mart's "Wal-Marting Across America" and others. Although, you have to give them some credit for embracing and engaging with social media -- it just fell apart due to the lack of transparency.
I think marketing professionals heard loud and clear how NOT to engage. I personally would be very surprised to see a company risk its brand or product image by pro-actively engaging in a non-transparent way.
Blake
Visible Technologies
"Thousands of personas in online forums?"
I'm APPALLED!
The plural of forum is "fora." One would expect better of the Seattle Times.
Joking aside, Blake can you explain how Visible's use of personas is consistent with the value of transparency? The Times' language makes it sound like these personas are pre-registered and ready to be deployed as PR messengers for whomever needs them. I can't quite connect the dots from there to transparent. Frankly it sounds, in your "follow on" above, like you're doling out cases of scissors and telling us your clients know better than to run with them.
On the other hand, I can imagine "personas" as users created to explicitly participate on behalf of a particular Visible client. It's a little easier to imagine that scenario as transparent.
The devil's in the details, obviously. How does this actually work?
Response to Ryan
Ryan,
The personas reflect the person or group of persons that would be responding to a particular blog or blog post (i.e. customer service representative or a technical/product support representative from a company).
Blake
Visible Technologies
New Media Strategies all over again?
this reminds me of a 2003 case described by Dan Gillmor in his "We the Media" book at http://snipurl.com/gillmorwtm. Full text available online (see chapter 9, page 186).
I am teaching an undergraduate class on citizen journalism, and the opportunities and threats of online PR "spins" are getting a lot of attention from the budding media professionals. I personally believe spinning is easier online, but with that rise, there is also a rise in the potential of being caught and shamefully exposed by a vigilant online community. Your blog post is an example, and playing with fire an apt metaphore...
Post new comment