Hill+Knowlton Strategies

Just a reminder of tomorrow (Monday’s) second Third Monday  Ottawa Meetup with Jon Husband, co-founder of Qumana.

106 words about Jon Husband

Jon spends a lot of time thinking and speaking about how technology and people are interacting in today’s emerging workplace. He carries out ongoing research into the changing nature of work, organizational structures and dynamics in the interconnected Knowledge Age in the guise of a concept he calls “wirearchy”.

In previous careers Jon has worked as a banker, a human rights advocate, and for a decade he was Senior Principal for Hay Management Consultants in Canada and the UK. Jon has also worked as an executive for several small hi-tech companies and is also the co-founder of one of Web 2.0’s leading blog publishing companies, Qumana.

The title of this post comes from a recent Globe & Mail article examining the importance of face-to-face communication in this age of emerging social networking technology. 

It’s important. Particularly to those of us who counsel clients on the merits of social media within the broader communications context.

Not only do we, as practitioners, require appropropriate protocols for engaging audiences via social media vehicles such as blogs or social networking sites – ie. the need for personalization and transparency (or “try not to hide who you are and what you are doing” as one prominent Canadian blogger recently indicated to me when I asked him about his expectations). We must also be strategic on counselling the appropriateness of when to avoid social media (or any digital technology, for that matter), in certain situations.

This does not need to imply that we are either for or against these technologies, or the various channels that they support. Rather, it simply implies a clear understanding of where technology fits. For example, some may say that media relations is in the decline. And I tend to agree. But traditional media will still be around for a long time – perhaps smaller and/or more concentrated, or alternatively, much more fragmented - and it will continue to exert a significant influence. To ignore that fact, is folly. Likewise, we must not give in to the easy assumption that social media, albeit an enabler of “conversations” and “transparency” and “relationships” (which it is, unquestionably), is an adequate or appropriate replacement for face-to-face dialog in all instances. 

For example, does McDonald’s CSR blog absolve it of any responsibility to engage individual communities or other stakeholders at the local level? Absolutely not. But it does provide the means to communicate broad-stroke commitments and provide clarity on potentially systemic issues. Does Southwest’s blog absolve the airline of ensuring a high-quality customer experience for its passengers once they’ve entered the airport environment. No, but it does help the airline communicate it’s brand values from the mouths of its most important brand ambassadors: it’s employees. 

RadioShack’s use of email to announce layoff’s was initially panned. However, when examined within the context of their overall “downsizing” strategy – it might seem less inappropriate given that technology was utilized within the context of a broader communications strategy that included advance notice, and post-notification face-to-face meetings with managers.

PR’s alleged claim to the “social media” space will be dictated as much by the nature of our counsel as it will be by the nature of the technology itself.  Agencies that have positioned themselves to provide a holistic and integrated communications approach that transects all channels will, in my view, emerge the winner.

Yes, we have bigger fish to fry in our work day, and I certainly don’t want to create a tempest in a tea cup. However, between me, you, and a fence post, I believe it’s vitally important to separate the sheep from the goats: or in this case the bad language from the good.

Mark my words, dear communicators, if you lay down with the dog you get up with fleas. So watch those cliches, or I’ll have to knock you from here to next Wednesday. Though I’m sure that’s better than a slap in the face with a wet fish.

Interesting article in today’s LA Times. Jonathan Schwartz, Sun Microsystem’s CEO, wants to be able to disclose material information via his blog.

This is a fascinating issue, and raises some important questions. For example, the article states:

The SEC requires companies to make announcements about topics including profits, new products and mergers in a filing with the agency or a news release so all investors can learn of news simultaneously. When the proposal was passed, the SEC said in 2000 that posting information on a website would “not by itself be considered a sufficient method of public disclosure.”

To me, in 2006, this seems rather backward thinking. How, for instance, is a news release deemed more of a method of public disclosure, particularly given that the public rarely view  news releases directly (although that is changing given the increasing reliance on RSS, as well as direct-to-stakeholder communications via corporate web sites themselves), and it is at the discretion of a media outlet to “broadcast” the information contained in that release.

At the same time, and to throw the ball back into Sun’s court, to say that Sun’s website, because it garners 1 million hits per day, makes that a legitimate vehicle for disclosure also raises questions around where in the site the visitor goes (that information could easily be missed), and how do we even determine what the numeric tipping point is?

Personally, however, and despite the above questions, I agree with Michael Dillon and Michael McCoy, who are also quoted in the article:

Michael Dillon, general counsel of the Santa Clara, Calif.-based computer company, wrote in a separate blog that the Internet was the most effective means of “timely dissemination of information to the widest possible audience.”

“Disclosing information on the company’s website should be sufficient,” said Michael McCoy, a former attorney in the SEC’s corporation finance division now in private practice at Bryan Cave. “It’s reasonable to assume that an investor in a company would be just as likely to read the company’s website as they would read SEC filings.”

While your responsibility is clearly to your shareholders, is it also not your shareholders’ responsibility to regularly track ‘the companies in which they have invested? Given that the means now exist to access and receive that information directly from the source in a timely fashion, and that it could be argued that a certain “tipping point” has been reached in terms of internet ubiquity within most major markets (is 80% internet penetration not an equally valid number?), why should we rely on increasingly outdated methods of communications to disclose information? When was the last time you read an SEC filing?

Update: IRWeb Report’s Dominic Jones offers some useful commentary on how and when a company’s website should be used, and explores several scenarios. A good summary of the issues.