A Lesson in Blogger Outreach for the 4As
I hate to put myself up on a pedestal and presume to teach the 4As anything. I'm just a humble marketing podcast host, after all. And unlike the many bloggers who actually care enough about the organization to criticize them, I personally find the organization to be completely irrelevant to me and my business.However, in the educational spirit of The BeanCast, and in light of their CEO's comments at their recent conference, I thought they could use a few pointers. Watch the video for yourself, then go to my comments below:
Critics Sometimes Care
If someone calls your meetings a "wank-fest," the correct response is not to chastise them. That's called a flame war. You may have heard of it. And when you engage in flaming, you fan more flames and come off looking like...well...a wanker. Instead engage them on their turf and be better than them. At best they really care and were looking for the debate. At worst, they're grand-standing and will be exposed for what they are. (And no, inviting them to your turf is not the same thing. Nice try, though.)Encourage Debate
The worst thing that can happen to your organization is not that some people criticize you . The worst thing is to be completely left out of the conversation. You have already become irrelevant to me, because you are an organization of big wigs at high-profile agencies that want to put me out of business. Don't make that same mistake with people who still give a crap. Telling bloggers to quit criticizing your organization is the same as saying, "Your opinions don't matter, so shut up." Way to be relevant!Don't Prove People Right
The funniest thing about the denial of being a "wanker-fest" is that your CEO, Nancy Hill, could not have said a more "wanker" thing than what was said at the close of this clip. I too think it's silly to blame advertisers for the recession. But lashing back with sarcasm and saying you, "guess advertising really does work," cements the impression that your organization is elitist and out of touch. The correct response was not to dismiss but to treat it as a serious PR threat and guide the organization into outreach.Listen Before You Speak
Look, I would never suggest that you should take every criticism seriously. But for God sakes, have the good sense to be part of the conversation when the essence of the criticism is that you are elitist and not part of the conversation. Seems like a no-brainer to me. You may have realized that if you had taken time to listen to the criticisms instead of dismissing them out of hand.So those are my pointers. Have at it. Or not. I don't care.
Image: 4As
Video: Ad Age
Comment
-
Comment by Bob Knorpp on May 5, 2009 at 9:22pm -
And I want to be clear that while I'm critical of Ms. Hill's specific comment in the last section, I tried to steer this away from a personal attack on her. You all are right in your assessments and I apologize for any besmirching of her character...and for using her photo which makes her seem my target.
My comments were definitely meant for the organization which she represents. It's the organization that people have an issue with. They do come off as elitist and out of touch. And a lot of that could be solved if they took a more conciliatory tone throughout their communications and made a concerted effort to participate in the conversation at large. Maybe not AdScam per se, but still, the general blogging public. They should be a friend to the industry and instead they look like the "in-club." That sucks and the statements in this video did not help this image.
Something Bill Green said really stands out for me. My take away from his statement was that they're all over sending you their press releases, but not actually commenting and participating on your blog. Until they get past that, they are simply irrelevant.
Thanks for the comments, guys!
-
Comment by Ben Kunz on May 5, 2009 at 9:00pm -
Great comment by Kelly. I confess after hearing it I visited Abscam, which I never read, and laughed. The guy is so irate and vulgar he's hardly a credible critic.
The interesting story here in my mind is how poorly any speaker can come off when she or he is talking to a sympathetic audience and then the video is later released to the masses on the internet. Poor Nancy Hill may have been right on point given the context of the talk and the vibe in the audience, but when this clip is segmented out, she comes off as a shrill and negative spokesperson for the industry.
Video is a horrible thing. It's like a photo taken when you don't control it, perhaps when you first wake up in the morning, not at your best. Out of context we all look harsh. Will someone please turn off the internet, unless I have good lighting and an appropriate lead-in?
-
Comment by Bob Knorpp on May 5, 2009 at 3:05pm
- I hate it when the comments are better than the post. :)
-
Comment by Kelly Eidson on May 5, 2009 at 2:57pm
-
I like Nancy Hill, or at least what she represents. I think she's honestly trying to reform the 4As, as evident with their recent rebranding and her comments in the speech. For her organization (and arguably the industry at large) that's a good thing. Given her audience & her position, it makes sense that she would defend big advertising in this speech.
My criticism of her approach to the speech is that she was clearly directing her frustration toward one blogger in particular: George Parker from AdScam. Most of her comments were pulled directly from his rhetoric (the big dumb agencies, "wank fest", well-intentioned) and in my opinion it came off as a little snide. If you're going to target someone, come out and name them. I think she would have been better off addressing the negative blogging issue as a whole, instead of focusing her frustration on one major player.
You're right about the flame war - AdScam was all over this. If anything, this has fueled his readership. One could argue that this speech, designed to appeal to her audience at the Leadership, has effectively poured kerosene on Parker's already incendiary movement and further divided the industry, placing the Parker-ites on one side and the "bigwigs" on the other. Sets a dangerous stage, and as you mentioned, gives the "incessantly negative" blogosphere more fodder in their rants that the "wankers" are out of touch.
The dismissive tone is probably what the room wanted to hear, but it's not necessarily what they needed. I think that though Parker and the rest of the negative blogosphere can often be a little crazy and perhaps overly critical, it doesn't mean their criticism of the industry isn't valid or constructive. The issues Parker points out in this business are serious indeed. If agencies are smart, they'll try to engage these dissenting voices and learn from them, rather than getting pissed off about the name-calling. Instead of starting a war of words with the revolutionaries, they should be hiring them on to their advisory boards.
About
© 2010 Created by Bob Knorpp.
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of The BeanCast | The Best Marketing Podcast Anywhere to add comments!
Join The BeanCast | The Best Marketing Podcast Anywhere