“Creating a conversation” and corporate blogging
“The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose…
…words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different“
George Orwell, ‘Politics and the English Language‘
Within social media marketing, “creating a conversation” has become, what BrainJuicer’s Tom Ewing recently referred to as, a ‘handwave cliche’ in which “the reader rushes to fill the gap with their own understanding of what a word means”.
In this way, “creating a conversation” is frequently interchanged with “engagement” and often just means receiving a reply to a tweet or a comment on a blog. Who they are and what they have to say apparently deemed irrelevant.
However, I think it is actually quite useful to think of a corporate blog as being a conversation: one of the goals being to encourage debate both outside and within the organisation itself.
This helps to encourage critical thinking and, in the process, demonstrate the thought process that takes place at the company.
This isn’t simply reflected in the number of comments below the post or tweets gained in response either – effectively an inverse form of digital dualism in which only online praise or complaints matter because there’s a possibility other people might see them.
The conversation can also see members of a company exchange opinions; reflecting the fact the blog is a collection of the thoughts and ideas of individuals within an organisation, not always the company itself.
In that sense, I’d like to follow up on Andrew’s last post in which he quoted content marketing consultant Sarah Mitchell in stating that “while traditional newspapers may be in trouble, journalists will easily transition to online, corporate environments.” He suggested this would make it a “good year for journalists“.
Having spent three years studying for a Master’s degree in Journalism (and having worked for some small local newspapers in Ohio in the process), I find these words quite troubling and strongly disagree with his conclusion that this makes it “a good year for journalists”.
I don’t think I really need to elaborate on why society thrives on strong investigative journalism that can only ever function without competing interests.
You only need to look to Watergate to see evidence of why that’s the case.
I don’t actually see anything fundamentally wrong with individual journalists moving into the corporate environment either. However, I don’t think any of us would like to live in a world in which our best writers are compelled to leave declining newspapers to write for companies instead.
I also want to make it clear that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with writing for a corporate blog either, not least because I’m writing this on one.
However, I think the people doing it should have a relevant background and experience in what they’re writing about, otherwise the blog just becomes a series of press releases and the focus exclusively on self-promotion; an approach that’s unlikely to ever achieve real success.
There are a plenty of posts written about good blog writing and many merely encourage tactics like linkbaiting or the compilation of lists, with scant regard for the content itself.
While I think making the writing and ideas accessible and the blog easy to read is extremely important, most recommendations of this type appear to focus solely on maximising the number of views and volume of social sharing, as though these were the end goals in themselves.
A good corporate blog can only hope to create positive perceptions about an organisation if it aims to have something original to say and isn’t afraid of sharing an opinion that not all of its readers may necessarily agree with.
It’s also the most effective way of creating a conversation.
aifnelson
Darryl Sparey
Gaelle Bertrand
Gareth Price
Kris Nordgren
Pingback: A few ‘social media analysis’ tips | DisCoverage
Hi Gareth,
You’re absolutely right; most businesses are focused on the wrong success measurements for social media and blogging. Until the focus moves from distribution (social media) to journalism (content), we’ll continue to be lambasted with articles on ‘engagement’ and ‘conversation’. When the content improves, everything else is easier. But as you well know, creating consistently good quality content is much harder than setting up a Facebook page and posting funny photos.
I am very encouraged brands are hiring journalists. While we could debate whether it’s good for journalists, it’s certainly a welcome change for the consumer. As with journalism, marketing content is only as good as the publisher and editor. If a business wants to produce pulp, hiring journalists is probably a waste of money. If an organisation is serious about producing highly readable, well-researched content, I say let the journalists loose and don’t interfere too much.
Thanks for taking the time to respond at length, Sarah – much appreciated.
I definitely agree that journalists needs to be “let loose” and not interfered with – unfortunately I get the sense most organisations don’t see it that way.
A “safety first” mindset prevails, which is why we do see so much “pulp” recycled on corporate blogs.
Many companies just want to be seen to be blogging and measure their success in likes and tweets.
It’s quite often the content that doesn’t really have much to say and merely reiterates a series of bland pronouncements (eg. “brands needs to produce great content and share it on social media” or “brands need to engage their customers in a conversation”) that get more widely shared on Twitter; for the simple reason that many professionals also play it safe with what they tweet (and rather than reading the article to learn more or challenge their own viewpoint, scan it for a checklist of points that they believe helps them underline their value).
I wrote a little more about this here last year if you’re interested: http://precisebrandinsight.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/whos-afraid-of-the-big-other/
On the subject clarity of writing, this is an excellent post on making academic writing accessible (that applies to anyone slipping into jargon or the ‘handwave cliches’ I referred to): http://thefrailestthing.com/2013/01/26/writing-academic-and-otherwise/
Hi Gareth,
The encouraging thing for me is I’m beginning to see businesses that understand the importance of quality content. When I first started in content marketing, it was impossible to get someone to understand why you would write a white paper or a blog post and not fill it full of marketing blather. About 18 months ago, that started to change. Now I have clients who attend editorial meetings to find out the best way to gain influence and establish their authority – not direct how it’s going to be done. The fact that we’re even conducting editorial meetings in business is a huge shift.
I’ve always maintained great content is an asset to your business and one that pays dividends days, months or even years later. A case in point is the excellent post you shared about the Big Other. I hadn’t seen it when it was published last year and was so happy to find it. That’s unlikely to happen with newspaper articles or corporate brochures.
Thanks, again. You have yourself a new reader.
Thanks, Sarah – fully agree with everything you’ve said. As you say, in relation to paying dividends, businesses have to appreciate patience is vitally important too.