Agreed. Especially love point #2. I believe the appropriate "technorati" term for this behavior is "attention whore." Rest assured that you have made Mr. Jenkins day.

Steve,
Thanks for weighing in on this topic as someone who knows the people and issues involved. I don't consider myself to be a "somebody" OR a "nobody"--and the many posts and related activities about this are a diversion that keeps the focus from the more interesting (to me) question of how social media is actually impacting communications within companies.
I'm waiting for this to either die a natural death, or fade into the background, so that tbe conversation doesn't get diluted with personal attacks and counter-attacks.

Tom:

You're right. That's why I waited so long, and agonized over whether to weigh in at all. But it seemed to me that----Allan's personal attack aside, which I am not a big enough person to ignore----there were bigger issues in play here.

I'd much rather focus on social media in general, and what companies are doing with it. Because it is starting to change cultures, and we need to be aware of it.

Steve C.

OK, a few more thoughts now that I've read more of the Shel/Murray discussion.

Absolutley agree with David's point about the desperation to find the Next Big Thing. I see lots of bandwagon jumping going on. Everyone wants to be relevant - nothing wrong with that. But not everyone is, and not every moderately useful tool is that Next Big Thing. It affects *our* credibility to make claim after claim after claim in this regard.

Here at Moto - and even at home dealing with my troglodyte father - the term "blog" has come to mean 'anything appearing on-line. Anywhere. For any reason.' I have heard that term bastardized to where it lacks any real meaning these days.

I'll admit this "social media" term is new to me. And my first impression is that it's a lovely turn of phrase. Beyond that.... well, wait and see on this end. What i've seen is that MOST people in the trenches of our business - as smart and as well meaning as they are - do not have the big picture view. Neither are they expert in all aspects of our strategy, nor in what is appropriate or not appropriate to share, nor are they aware about how they might position something may get to the outside world and do damage, nor how to deal with the media, and on and on and on.

Where they seem to be most adept, frankly, is in shit-stirring. And yeah, we have a need for that. Every organization does to some degree. But when it overwhelms the positive discussion - which it can easily do as it's usually more interesting and fun - well, then we've got a problem.

It's true that more people have a voice these days - and more ways to have that voice heard. Interesting, then, that we've revealed that many of them don't have all that much to say.

Steve:

Thanks for the link. :)

You actually used the term "jerk store" in a blog post, perhaps unintentionally, but it brought to mind one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes.

"Well, the jerk store called, and they're running out of YOU!"

But seriously, there are some lessons in this "nobody" thing. I've pretty much stayed out of it but I had two thoughts at the time:

1) David shouldn't have used the term "nobody."

2) The question he asked is perfectly legitimate, and should be asked more often by many of the blogger elite. What, exactly, are we gaining from all this blogging stuff? Where are the examples that prove we are doing more than just talking amongst ourselves?

Shel's examples were spot-on and they proved something I've been wondering about for awhile -- that social media might be more impactful INSIDE the organization than as a tool to reach consumers.

Not being a communicator, but being an overall nerd/geek...I have a couple of thoughts on this...

1) AJ IS a jerk.
2) How insecure is he that he chose to focus on the fact that someone called him a "nobody" and immediately afterwards called him "smart" and he gave that no credence whatsoever. I've been a geek a long time. For awhile I was getting a rep as someone to go to on user groups for a certain open-source project. If someone would refer to me as a "nobody in the open-source" world - I would tend to agree with them. My name is not a household name in geekdom, and I contend, like I do about everything, that no one knows everything about anything, so shut up and learn more like the rest of us.

3) What a drama queen. I want to see the t-shirts for that. Can they be pink like the "popular" shirts from "Wicked"???

He is giving professional bloggers a bad name, especially those that are trying to use blogs as a viable journalistic/professional forum. Tell him you'll meet him by the 'big slide' when the teacher has her back turned...because he's turned a professional debate into a middle school pissing contest. Seriously...put them on the table boys and let's see who's is bigger.

First off, Rebecca - you may be a self-professed nerd/geek but you are damned funny and I always love seeing your comments here.

I also usually agree with you, today being another such case. Drama queen doesn't begin to cover it - Jenkins could give Paris Hilton a run for the money in the "self-aggrandizing" category. Which would be fine IF he actually had something valuable to say. Frankly, he doesn't. And the whole making stuff up aspect destroys any credibility he might hope to have in the legitimate blogosphere. I mean seriously - Who thinks that's okay?

On a side and totally irrelevant note - Even though I have only read Jenkins comments, somehow even inside my head they sound like Charlie Brown's teacher: "Wonn Wonn, Wonn, Wonn, Wonn Wonn". Which oddly is very close to "Waa Waa, Waa Waa, Waa Waa". Maybe he should put that on a button.

Steve, I'm ashamed of you. Everyone knows that nerds don't have skills these days ... they have skillz. /nodnodnod

As to the rest, I can only quote one of my contractors: "Some people's children ..."

Follow up: Out of morbid curiosity (and because I'm busily avoiding writing my current newsletter, but we won't go there) I hunted it up. Wow. Just ... Wow. Why is it that so many people seem to equate being a "nobody" (translation: basically anonymous) with being a know-nothing? Hell, I'm a Nobody ... but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant, just means I have a life that doesn't involve cameras and NYT quotes. (And thank God for small favors.) I happen to work for a Somebody (a name), and as it happens, she is extremely well versed in her field, but there are plenty of Somebodies out there who know absolutely nothing other than how to look good for a camera and sound good for the NYT quotes. So ... seriously, what's the big deal. You're a "nobody" and someone intelligent who doesn't agree with you thinks you're worth reading *anyway*? Seems like the highest form of compliment to me.

Thanks Kristen...
and DeAnna - fantastically said.

And John - you know, we've been talking about the "jerk" store for so long, I forgot actually that it was originally a Seinfeld-ism.

My friends and I have changed it over the years to:
"The beer store called - and they're all out of beer because of you" after a long night of drinking. ;) oops. (substitute wine and vodka for beer as necessary)

Hi Steve,

Here's a love letter to you from a "nobody" - me! I just stumbled across your Rocky video and laughed out loud watching it. Hoping you'll be in Chicago at the Corporate Communicators Conference on April 26th and 27th. Will I see you there?

Steve, thanks so much for a great, funny, thoughtful post. This whole thing has bothered me, too. What a strange, cliquey world we're living in, here in the communications corner of the blogosphere. This 'nobody' business is one example, and another is the Strumpette thing. A lot of inbred cyber-canoodling if you ask me.

But to the actual topic, raised by our favorite agent-provocateur Mr. Murray. It's early days, but social media is changing things, both inside and outside of the corporate world. As Shel points out, it's blurring the lines between internal and external communication. It's allowing conversations (like this one) to happen that just wouldn't occur otherwise. And it will, I think, change corporate cultures.

Look at GM. Suddenly, thanks to an enlightened approach to social media, the giant, boring, monolithic, loser, old-school automaker is now the scrappy, hip underdog. That's gotta be affecting the culture internally -- and it may be the catalyst that will ultimately save GM from extinction.

But we're a long way from this stuff being adopted by lots of corporations. It seems as if there's two per cent of big oranizations who do all the innovating and promote excellent communications, and the other 98 per cent don't. And the communicators in the 'don't' companies struggle with just getting by, looking at all the attention being paid to this cool social media stuff and muttering, "It'll never happen here."

I think David, and the rest of us, are still looking for the real, mainstream breakthrough stories that will get CEOs everywhere saying, "I want some of that." Then we'll see some changes.

Steve,

As someone who knows none of the people involved in this exchange personally (but counts themselves as a nobody) I'll reserve judgement on who is a jerk.

While I use the phrase, "people getting on their soapboxes and yelling at each other," your reference to an "electronic circle jerk" seems to just about cover it.

I agree with many of the points you make, but I think you might want to ease off the generalizations. After all, how can you make broad critical statements about the "blogosphere" and "bloggers" and then compliment a select few. Are we to assume that these are the few exceptions to the rule? I would wager that there a plenty of quality blogers out there and I think that readers should decide for themselves whether an author has anything worthwhile to say (as they should with print journalists as well.)

Most bloggers, whether they purport to be communicators or video game dorks, are largely crap. But sometimes you have to sift through the crap to find a gem.

I also dispute this idea that bloggers want to be considered real journalists. What reporting are they doing?

I couldn't give a crap if a great idea, example or conversation appears in print, online, on the radio, is written in the sky or is beemed down from outer space. If it is worth discussing, or I can learn from it, then I am interested.

Perhaps my biggest beef with Murray is the fact that he didn't seem to act like a journalist. As an editor of a communications journal I would have hoped that he would have been aware of the examples that Shel, Rod Boothy, Luis Suarez, Ron, John and even yourself have given about the uses of social media. Where was the research?

I hope that David writes a follow-up article sharing all of the examples he receives. I know I would read it, even if it was only in print

I so agree! "...it’s not about the medium. It’s about the content."

Thanks for the great content.

Jeffrey -

There are personal bloggers (myself), corporate bloggers, like our friend Steve here...and there are many, many journalistic bloggers (Anderson Cooper comes to mind) who report a number of things. One of the biggest impacts blogging had in journalism was the online live blogs taking place from both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions for the past Presidential run. Many sports journalists are using blogs as well as editorialists. To dispute the idea that bloggers want to be journalists might be a little short sighted. While these are all examples of journalists becoming bloggers, some people are blogging to get noticed and hired by companies (including newspapers).

There are many articles out there to support the notion that posting your resume online and then blogging about that company just might land you a job. I can personally attest so that as someone I know did that very thing and was contacted about a position in 4 days.

But I digress..
Not trying to start a flame war, it just seemed like you cracked Steve for making a generalization, and then made one yourself that is far from being true. Bloggers are reporting all kinds of things, you just haven't stumbled on to any yet.

Rebecca...did not know you had a blog (address please) which brings me to my simple observation as I read all of this...

Where are all the female bloggers in this PR/employee communications world. If we so outweigh the men in our field, then why are the men the only ones that seem to have blogs (or are mentioned in anyting I read)? Just a question...no underlying message or plans to join National Organization of Women...just wondering out here in Oregon.

Steve, I think you missed one additional point out of all of this -- which happens to be the primary point from where I sit. A bunch of people who basically didn't know each other came together over an issue and did something. (Ike Spigott created the logo before Allan created the blog -- in fact, Eric Eggertson was the first to post on this, and Allan joined the party late, after half a dozen or so posts. I don't believe Allan was behind the CafePress store, either.)

Whether what they did was useful, whiny, interesting, desperate, or whatever isn't the point. The same thing happened with tsunami and Katrina coverage and relief. This is new and exciting and made possible only by the expanding social computing environment. Can it be harnassed? That is, can an organization artifically create this kind of spontaneous collaboration on specific objectives among participants in the blogosphere? Not likely. But organizations need to keep an eye on it nevertheless.

Neruda, the fact that the idea of "social media" is new to you doesn't mean it isn't very important for communicators. Other terms to pay attention to: consumer generated media, citizen journalism, citizen marketing -- they all speak to the same bottom-line point: The audiences control the message. If communicators don't grasp that and figure out how to do their jobs in this fundamentally altered environment, they could end up with jobs like editor of "Journal of Employee Communications Management."

>>That is, can an organization artifically create this kind of spontaneous collaboration on specific objectives among participants in the blogosphere? Not likely. But organizations need to keep an eye on it nevertheless.<<

Amen. If for no other reason than to realize how quickly an organized threat could be mounted against an organization. Assume that the I.A.N. movement was really centered on some sort of activism with your org. as the target.

More importantly, consider who/what/how you would handle something like this and get/stay ahead of developments.

It's a sobering thought.

It's also a sobering thought that online conversations like this can turn into virtual shouting matches. All David was doing in the first place was pleading ignorance and asking for some input on the potential of social media as it relates to internal communications. A slightly crusty remark should not brand someone a Luddite. I look forward to seeing how David digests and interprets all this 'feedback' once the flames subside.

Ron, I don't think there are flames to subside. I just searched the "I Am Nobody" blog and found one reference to David Murray, from Sallie Goetsch:

"David Murray violated one of Jeffrey J. Fox's key rules of rainmaking: 'Everybody is somebody's somebody.' In other words, deal politely and respectfully with everyone you encounter, because you never know when the bratty teenager is going to turn out to be the nephew of the CEO whose business you're desperately trying to get."

Despite Steve's view, the point of the "I Am Nobody" blog doesn't seem to me a dig at David, but rather a place for people feeling similarly disenfranchised to address that issue in general. Consider Susan Getgood's recent post on feeling more like a somebody after attending a revitalizing conference.

David's ill-advised reference to Allan as a "nobody" was simply a catalyst for a spontaneous coming together of people who feel their voices aren't being heard. David himself has been all but forgotten in the evolution of the movement (if you can call it that). No shouting match there at all.

"Where are all the female bloggers in this PR/employee communications world."

Eileen, please check this list:
http://blog.basturea.com/pr-blogs-list/

What a terrific discussion. I think there are valid points all over the place. And you're right, Jeffrey . . . I shouldn't generalize. There is no "blogosphere," . . . . just a bunch of very different people blogging for very different reasons, as Rebecca said.

Shel, you are absolutely right in that this Nobody thing has moved way past David. David was the catalyst, but nobody out there has mentioned him since . . . except for maybe Allan Jenkins, in his private therapy sessions, but that is nobody's business but his own.

But I have a question for you. On the one hand, you say that "citizen journalism," social media, participatory journalism, etc., has shaken the foundations of how people get information.

You imply that the power has transferred from the institutions to the people. That regular people now have as much power as anyone else.

But if that's the case, then why is the Nobody site, as you say, "A spontaneous coming together of people who feel their voices aren't being heard."?

If their voices aren't being heard, how do they have as much power as regular institutions?

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways:

One the one hand, you say that power is shifting, and on the other hand, you say that all these people are sick of being ignored.

I'm not arguing, mind you. It's just an interesting, to me, puzzle.

And I still think, as I'm sure you do, that it all comes down to content. Yes, it's cool that within two days, this Nobody association sprang up. And that within two days, there was a store and a blog and all this other stuff.

But much of the "coolness", it seems to me, has to do with how fast it happened. How fast everyone came together, because of technology.

But if there is no content on the Nobody site, then who cares how fast it came together?

The fact that templates exist that allow for just about anyone to throw up a blog in 20 minutes, and technology is such that you can also drive a bunch of people to the new site with the click of a button, doesn't mean spit if the blog isn't worthwhile information in the first place, does it?

Steve C.

Steve, I do not think the site was ever about David. He was simply the catalyst asking a question. "He basically questioned whether it was really happening inside companies yet, or is it still a lot of hype?"

Well, the inside the companies part is hard to show you. Most, in my opinions, are intranets and unavailable. I can't give you a link. But, I can tell you of a dozen or so companies (large ones) that are using CMS to accomplish these tasks in various ways.

The information is out there and easily searchable. That was one of David's mistakes, and the mistake made by some that tend to attack an idea. You know, the same attention getting statements you make about Allan can just as easily be applied to David's editorial, too. Come on.

Hey, I am not a blog evangelist. I do think it can be a useful tool / tactic in the right situation. It isn't the next big thing. It is already here. It was, perhaps, the next big tool or tactic when it appeared years ago.

The Nobodies site, to me, is an example. It does have content. They are examples of how social media / WOM have already been used. It is also tongue-in-cheek, in my opinion, too. That is my view and I'm sticking with it.

David asked for essays explaining WOM / social media. The I.A.N. blog, and those of the contributors, serve as an essay "loosely joined" (to use David Weinberger's phrase). Now, you may say what you wish about any one, or all, of them. But, they all write about this and are grappling with the same questions and issues.

There are hundreds / thousands of blogs writing about these issues every day. If David, or anyone else, wants a spoon-fed lesson plan, I feel for them. The opinions about social media are out there. Books, blogs, wikis, podcasts and more. Read them. Listen to them.

I will say this about you and David. It does always surprise me when someone spanks the hand they are asking for help in understanding something. He spanked without being prodded. You spanked with as much personal ire in your post above as anyone else has online, to my memory.

Steve, whatever feelings you might have about Allan, he had nothing to do with kickstarting "the Nobodies." I picked up off a couple of posts by Andrea Weckerle and Eric Eggertson and the meme was off. Allan's contribution was giving us the Typepad space. He didn't create the button, the logo, or the store. He didn't set up the wiki, he didn't set up the squidoo lens.

The notion of being a "nobody" isn't cliquish, nor is it threatening. With the vast universe of fields and specialties, we are all "nobody" at something.

For me, being a "nobody" is a liberating recognition, because I am just one of the great unwashed. Alone, I am just a voice. Together, a collective group of Nobodies can coalesce for an ephemeral cause and drift right out again. They can congeal, execute, and fade away. This is the power of social media tech. It's not about creating something permanent, it's about building a temporary solution to a temporary problem.

While none of us shine very bright, we are the majority. We are the dark matter that binds the universe together, only less organized. You may characterize it any way you'd like, but I liken it to a fire drill. Every so often, it's useful to see what motivates people to cooperate, nothing more.

Robert and Ike:

Thanks for joining the discussion out here. It's been great on many levels.

Robert: I am a BIG believer in CGM or whatever we decide to call it. And, actually, I CAN point to examples of how companies are using it internally. I teach seven or eight of those examples in my seminars. So I don't need any convincing.

And neither does Ragan. That's the frustrating thing about this. Mark Ragan, owner and CEO of Ragan, is as on top of this as anyone else.

Ragan is doing scads of teleseminars on the topic; we're writing lots of great articles in our dead tree publications on socia media, blogs, wikis, etc.; Ragan is dedicating entire conferences to the subject; in fact, I would say Ragan is covering it better than anyone else out there.

That's why it's so frustrating when, just because one editorial writer of one Ragan publication questions whether this is all smoke and no fire, people start bashing Ragan as behind the times.

It's like the McCarthy Senate hearings: If you even dare to QUESTION the power of the new tools, you get your ass handed to you.

After David's post, I read about a dozen negative references to Ragan . . . from people who obviously don't know the organization at all.

And yes, that does make a point about how powerful this stuff could be. A potential future customer of Ragan, if they were learning about the company for the first time via the Nobody site or Allan Jenkins' site, would have the impression that Ragan is stuck in the 80s when it comes to communication tools.

It wouldn't be true . . . but there you have it.

Steve C.

Constantin - thank you for the link for female PR bloggers. Unfortunately, the hospital I work for has the entire site blocked for inappropriate material (but Rebecca's site came through beautifully! complete with F-bombs - so go figure).

I will check it out at home. Thanks again.

Steve, a couple of things.

First, I realize that you are aware and do not wish to imply that you are not. David, on the other hand, well I believe he may be more aware than he is letting on and the editorial was meant to kick up a fuss. Congrats, David. It did.

Second, the McCarthy statement is overblown bordering on hysteria. Come on, please.

It was the way David questioned the tools with his irrational attack on someone that wasn't even addressing him. It was a sort of "blog-by low blow" - if there is such a thing.

Steve, it is one thing to write critically. It is another to write ... well, mean. David was mean and over the top.

Now, finally, we can get to what you are really talking about. How to deal with the blogosphere. The Ragan Communications situation is now a perfect example. Seems like a sort of impromptu (unintended) in-house training on how to deal with it is taking place - in the blogosphere. (Yes, I don't like that term either.)

Honestly, this whole fiasco, as unfair as it may be for Ragan, may now be turned into something positive. How about Ragan Communications inviting in Allan and some others to talk about this in articles. I'd read them. Or, you could do what HigherEd BlogCon and Global PR Blog Week have done and put on a one week (public, no costwall) event where you feature invited authors. David, Allan and Shel come to mind here. Oh, and allow comments on these in the open.

Just a suggestion.

Oh, and the realization that Constantin's blog - of all places - is being blocked by anyone is hilarious. How foolish. The guy is a teddy bear and I can't imagine a single word (or words) in there being offensive. Um, except maybe "public relations" to some people. (Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

Eileen, send the hospital administrator and IT person over to Shel Holtz's blog (blog.holtz.com) and tell her/him to read all the posts about blocking RSS, blog access, and all the other foolish acts by businesses re: blocking employee web access.

I'm going to hold on to this one. That is just too funny.

I can't wait to work the phrase "electronic circle jerk" into my next convesation about Consumer Generated Media.

Robert,

I'm curious about something you said...

Namely, that all of this effort in creating the International Association of Nobodies, the wiki, the blog, the store (with its link to a single t-shirt)was "a temporary solution to a temporary problem."

What was the problem exactly, and how was it "solved?"

Are you saying that a problem arose because a single columnist writing on a dead tree called a single blogger "a nobody?" If this dead tree is so out of step with citizen journalism, why did so many bloggers spend so much time and energy attacking it? If something is irrelevant than it shouldn't be necessary to address it at all, right?

To go on...

So this "problem" (David Murray's one-liner) was "solved" by having somone create a bunch of snazzy online tools in 24 hours, including a button that you're all going to wear to IABC?

I guess I don't get it....maybe after I attend the first Nobodies convention and read the first Nobodies case study and hear the first Nobodies podcast, maybe then I'll get it.

And what, pray tell, will all of those content vehicles be talking about? How to measure the effectiveness of being a Nobody? How to deliver content over an Intranet if you're a Nobody? How to write and edit an Intranet in the Nobody style? How to be a Nobody when you're representing your company in a crisis? How to write a speech for the boss if you're a Nobody?

Please let me know because I may want to participate in this worldwide movement.

By the way, has anyone ordered a t-shirt yet?

Mark Ragan

Robert:

I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote. And yes, the references to the McCarthy hearings was silly. I watched Good Night and Good Luck last night, and now I'm all pumped up about it. Sorry about that.

Timmy, you go ahead and use that . . .it's especially fun to use with IT people. Try to work it into a reference where you also refer to and IT Person "playing with his mouse." It's big stuff.

Steve C.

Steve C.

Correction to my posting...

I was responding to Ike--not Robert...

Mark

Good Tidings, Ladies and Gentlemen!

I am sorry I have not weighed in here until now. I have been in Mexico on vacation. The Mexicans were distracted by Easter, and to my great surprise, not one person recognized me as the Dinosaur Who Launched Two Dozen Nobodies. It was a refreshing interval, I must say!

I've been thinking of writing a great big long response to all this--an old-fashioned instinct, I'm sure, to have the final word, from the cobweb-covered perspective of one who still believes it inadvisable to argue with an ancient white male who buys ink by the barrel.

But where should I publish this screed? On this blog? On the Nobodies International Blog?

But then I think of the poor powerless multitudes in our profession--the voiceless thousands even more ignorant than I, even more anonymous than Nobodies. The poor closeted communicators who have no idea this whole "meme," as we all so preciously call it, has even taken place.

What of THEM?

Perhaps I shall write something in ye olde Ragan Report. Mark, Steve, have you seen my quill?

Cordially,

David Rutherford Murray

David, I'm so glad you finally appeared, like a ghost rider, on a horse breathing fire (with overtones of ancho chile), your black cape rippling in the night wind.

While you're sharpening your quill, let me pick up on the conversation that was galloping along without you.

I think that the Nobody Movement is a great illustration of what people these days are calling "the long tail" -- which is the multitude of online citizens out there, blogging, vlogging, podcasting, composing podsafe music and contributing to wikis and so on. And, although most of them/us will only be heard or seen by our little mini-communities of electro-jerking cyber-associates, every once in a while there's a spike in the long tail -- an emergence of a thought, an idea, a story, a melody -- that resonates with a much broader group and that has the potential to cross over into conventional media and actually make a brief impact on the collective consciousness.

It's not reaching too far to predict that the Nobody Movement could catch the attention of a mainstream blogger and get mentioned in Business Week or CNBC, and then end up getting 14 inches in the Wall Street Journal or NYT, and then spreading, for a brief day or two, into the hands of the Great Unwashed.

But the long tail, as it is currently defined, does not apply to the corporate world, where most tails are bobbed before they get more than a few inches long in the first place. The question of how mainstream corporations will adopt social media is largely still unanswered. The handful of examples show promise, but they don't yet constitute a full-fledged movement.

Happy to oblige, Mark:

I truly am a "nobody," in the sense that I write for myself and the two-dozen people who stop by. I'd like to tell you that there's something more profound than that, but there isn't.

We don't have an agenda.
We don't (yet) have a cause.
We don't even think as a "we."

What I dubbed a "temporary solution to a temporary problem" was merely a mutual expression of commonly-held notion. The "movement" (which isn't moving) was an outlet for many people who held the same idea.

Take off the corporate blinders for a moment. The vast vast great unwashed masses of bloggers do NOT do so for profit, or even eventual monetization. They don't fret about their metrics, or how to make their pages sticky.

They blog to express themselves. That expression is empowering, even if no one is listening.

This whole counter-reaction isn't about who was an a$$hole to whom at some point in time -- it's a smack at the idea that you're only a "somebody" if the Holy Site Monitors grade you as well-trafficked. There are a hell of a lot of us out there who do what we do, and some fairly innovative stuff at that, without worrying about getting Boinged, Dugg, or Slashdotted. (I have been Farked, but that's a different issue entirely.)

So now we have a small group of people who are cool with being nobodies, because we know what really matters.

And if I have to tell you, then you just aren't getting it. The truth is out there, but you have to listen to catch it.

p.s. -- we are so jazzed about the store that we haven't bothered to check it in several days. Since you asked, we've sold a cap, a tee, a jersey, a mug, an apron, a magnet, a journal, and several buttons.

Thanks, Ike. I appreciate your response.

Let's check back in with the association, the Wiki, the store, etc. in a few months and see how they're doing.

In fact, this will make a great case study for The Journal of Employee Communication Management, which covers all of these tools.

And by the way, I completely understand your argument about blogs being an outlet for individual expression, i.e., that to you (and others), it matters little whether anyone is reading it or what its rankings are.

But that isn't the argument that people have made during this debate. Go back and review all of the posts on this and other sites about the immense power of blogs to replace traditional journalism and dead-tree publications.

David and others believe in blogs as a tool to accomplish many things, but we think the claims are a bit overblown (at least at this moment in time).

And that, of course, was the whole point behind David Murray's column.

Mark

Mark, these two comments make me shake my head a bit.

"Let's check back in with the association, the Wiki, the store, etc. in a few months and see how they're doing.

In fact, this will make a great case study for The Journal of Employee Communication Management, which covers all of these tools."

If you are thinking about that one site as the issue, or poster child, I fear you are missing something. You would be looking in the wrong place.

Most of the people in this thread were talking about all social media / WOM taking place in wikis, blogs, portals, photo/multimedia sharing and more. The IAN site, again, was an *example* of how social media / WOM have already been used. It was tongue-in-cheek, too. Satire, to some degree.

If you come back with a "case study" and apply it solely to that site by saying "it is no longer active, etc.," I fear yet another meme of posts saying Ragan is missing the point. Mark, creating a long running group was not the point. Isn't now. Wasn't then.

Sure, there are "overblown" expectations and claims by some. Koolaid is flowing and many are drinking. But, I think there are more people trying to provide some rational ideas and discussion about when/if new media can work - and where.

And, some blogs sites (micro-blogs, event blogs, etc.) are never meant that way.

Just one example is: HigherEd BlogCon at http://tinyurl.com/l9jkf or higheredblogcon.com

It is a month long event blog in the spirit of Global PR Blog Week. They are using wikis, online chat, podcasts, video, and other multimedia, too.

There they are focusing on social media internally and externally by colleges and universities in Comm/PR/Marcom. Other sections focus on libraries and teaching. Yes, it is a bit shameless. My apologies. I've been involved with it a tiny bit, but focusing on aspects like that will serve us all better.

Yes, there are communicators who dismiss print publications entirely. Even worse, there appear to be an increasing number of them who dismiss or underestimate the need for employee communications altogether.

I’ve been a communicator for more than 15 years, but it didn’t take me anywhere near that long to realize that internal communications is considered the ugly stepsister of media and shareholder relations. It is a realization that’s been reinforced lo these many years, but most recently when, after 12 years at the helm of my company newsletter, I ventured into the land of marketing communications. My editor’s chair was barely cold before my VP turned the publication from a monthly into a quarterly, and from a printed publication judged by a national news magazine as one of Canada’s “10 Best” employee newsletters into an afterthought distributed “electronically” via e-mail as a pdf attachment. Ugh. Four years later, it’s distributed the same way, although there’s now a plan to move toward an employee intranet.

Every company I’ve worked for has made a statement akin to, “employees are our greatest asset.” So why is it that while every one of these companies spared no expense when it came to communicating with the media, customers, and shareholders, they viewed any expenditure on employee communications (particularly print) as a “cost center” in dire need of a budget trim? Maybe it’s like the Mills Brothers sang: “You always hurt the one you love.” More likely, it’s indicative of the fact that too many companies view employee communications as an onus rather than an opportunity. They forget that the desire to communicate is every bit as important as the ability to do so, or the medium in which you choose to do it -- likely more so. That, coupled with the tendency to communicate at –- and not with -- employees, is why the state of internal communications is in decline in an unacceptably high number of organizations.

The move toward electronic communication has been a mixed blessing for many organizations. We can all accept that electronic media represent important new tools in the communicator’s toolbox. However, there are too many who confuse electronic media’s immediacy and expedience with efficacy, and that’s a slippery slope toward mediocrity.

You’re absolutely right, Steve. It’s not about the medium, it’s about the message. It’s also about having passion for communication, and not simply for technology. The “print is dead” crowd is taking a very powerful and effective tool out of the toolbox, much to the detriment of the industry and to the employees they are trying to reach. They’re also running the risk of transforming from true communicators to “content providers” whose sole purpose is to supply a constant stream of fodder to their electronic masters.

Print, electronic, face-to-face –- they all have a role to play.

Mike, I'm standing and cheering at my desk.

"They forget that the desire to communicate is every bit as important as the ability to do so, or the medium in which you choose to do it--likely more so. That, coupled with the tendency to communicate at–-and not with--employees, is why the state of internal communications is in decline in an unacceptably high number of organizations."

Contrary to indications I have obviously given by my own crustiness, I feel no anomisity whatsoever to the onset of social media and I look forward to the contribution they can make.

I have a quarrel with what feels to me like misplaced hope on social media to solve FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN (AND POLITICAL AND ECNOMIC AND SOCIAL) PROBLEMS that seem to me to be hurting internal communication much more than blogs and wikis are helping it.

Very generally speaking, I see management as less interested in exchanging ideas with and broadcasting ideas to employees than it was 15 years ago; I see companies taking fewer chances and having less fruitful exchanges with employees; I see internal communicators less hopeful of making a difference with communication than they were 15 years ago; I see companies with less meaningful relationships with their workforces than they had 15 years ago.

Yet, social media seems to be the subject area where all the passion lies. And I wish, for all of our sakes, that this weren't so.

Really enjoyed the last 4 or 5 notes on this thread.

To add to Mike's point, there was an effort in some parts of my company to re-name (or, more to the point, re-brand) my discipline from "Employee Communications" to "Internal Marketing."

A part of me died.

While I accept part of what we do is, in fact, internal marketing, it does not - and cannot, if we are to remain relevant - define our role.

Thankfully, this effort seems to have moderated a bit to settle on the term "Internal Communications."

I enjoyed Ike's post and his point that blogging is about people expressing themselves, with or without an audience. That rings true to me... at least for many "personal" or "vanity" bloggers. But not all.

Success, for some, in the internet realm isn't measured by providing real value or worth... it's a big ol high school popularity contest. Size matters. Stats, hits, accesses, message board "kudos" and "karma" and "trolls." People want to feel important - that their opinion matters. Some do this by trying to provide useful, valuable relevant content... and others by screeching. Hey, it's just like the real world!

The underdog, up-and-comers (in this discussion, the "next-big-thing" crowd) HAVE to claim the King is Dead. Otherwise, who would pay attention?

Of course, they may be right this time. If not, we can look forward to the next-next big thing coming down the pike in 3....2....1...

Interesting post, and I thank Eric Eggertson for bringing it to my attention.

Steve, you misrepresent me in your post, but I am sure it's friendly hyperbole. But I'd like to clear up a couple of points for your readers who don't know me.

First, while I responded tartly to David Murray on my blog, the message should be clear: I know of no credible communicator who sees social media as immediately revolutionary, but I know a hundred who are fitfully working toward an idea of what it will mean for internal communication over five to ten years.. In short, I answered "We don't know what it means, yet, but you are welcome to come out and help."

Ragan Communication could, if it wanted, help that discussion. As Robert French points out, the Global PR Blog Week could be an inspiration.

Second, I know of no credible communication blogger who disses any medium for conveying a message effectively. There may be bloggers out there who claim "print is dead", but not anyone I know. I challenge you or your readers to find a professional communicator who writes anything close to that on their blog.

Instead, the professional communicators I know embrace any medium that helps their client send a message effectively and listen to the audience. If we focus on social media in our blog posts, it is because they are new media -- the first textbooks are just now being written. Our interest in new media is not a dismissal of old media.

Third, as others have pointed out, I didn't come up with the "Nobodies" idea. But, if nothing else, 25 communication professionals linked up to share ideas. IABC Fellows, Gold Quill winners, PRSA leaders, Ragan Seminar speakers -- these are all somebodies who are happy to be nobodies in David's book if it suits him. But if you are are communicator on a budget, just read those blogs... saves you the price of a conference, and it's free.

Finally, Steve, I apologize unreservedly for any offense I caused you in my post. I have edited the paragraph in question, and inserted a "mea culpa."

Allan:

Thanks for the apology. I do appreciate it. And allow me to offer one of my own. I was over the top in my description of why you blog, and certainly over the top in calling the supermarket tabloid of bloggers.

I know you put a lot of thought and effort into your blog . . . and the fact that you throw bombs once in a while and piss people off . . . well, I can certainly relate to that.

I hope this whole thing moves way past me and you and Murray and any individual, because the discussion/debate has been fantastic.

You know what's funny? Any of the problems that flared up in this whole episode happened because people----first David, then you, then me----didn't follow the basic rules of polite society.

Whenever I teach about blogs and discussion forums and other social media to employee communicators in my seminars for Ragan, and I show examples of UNMODERATED discussions happening behind firewalls, a shudder always goes through the room.

"But . . . but . . ." someone will say, "You're saying that company lets employees talk freely out there, with no moderation!?!?!"

And nobody can believe it.

And I always say the same thing:

Companies don't monitor the cafeteria, do they? They don't monitor the water cooler; they don't go to all the Happy Hours where employees gather; they don't sit in on all the company meetings.

Why should online be any different? Do you really think conversations that happen out there aren't taking place throughout the company anyway?

Do you think that just because someone is online they are going to suddenly turn into a raging lunatic? Do you think that otherwise professional people are suddenly going to start swearing and being unprofessional just because they are on a work-related wiki, or a discussion forum tied to the employee publication? Do you think they are suddenly going to start posting company secrets?

Of course not, I say. People are professionals. They're professionals face to face, they're professionals in their e-mails; they're professionals in meetings.

They will be professional online in public discussion areas, too, I say.

But this whole flame-up is an example of how I could be wrong.

I doubt this fight happens face to face. I can't see David calling you a nobody at the IABC cocktail party; I can't see you calling me an obnoxious drunk; and I can't see me calling you the supermarket tabloid of bloggers.

It IS easier to be unprofessional and even rude online. And I think it's something to be aware of.

Steve C.

And Steve, it is certainly easier to be rude when using usernames, handles, and pseudonyms. There are no consequences for throwing bombs, because no one knows where to hurl the retaliatory volley.

Maybe this is some of the fear within the corporate context -- the past experiences with online forums and message boards where anonymity was not only tolerated, but encouraged. There is a concern that anonymous insiders could air company laundry without penalty, like on the Yahoo! stockpicker groups -- or that discussions could get ugly to the point of embarrassment or slander. I have found the level of civility to be in direct correlation to the level of transparency. But what do I know? I am a nobody.

As a nobody, I can be myself and use my name. If I slip up down the road and become a somebody, then part of me worries about "my reputation," and that affects my choices and actions. Sometimes this is good, as a reminder to act in secret the way you would in public. Other times, it goes to your head, like an athlete referring to himself in the third person. The "personae" literally detaches, and has a ego and need of its own.

Even if I do become a somebody one day, I want to still behave like a nobody. In my humble opinion, that is what has struck a central chord within this little circle of strangers. And it's an important perspective to carry into any discussion or participation in social media. It's okay to be a nobody. It's encouraged. It's when you do your best work, and with the purest motive.

Steve...

Hmmmmmm...
I think I may disagree with you about this certain point:
"Of course not, I say. People are professionals. They're professionals face to face, they're professionals in their e-mails; they're professionals in meetings."

People are professionals, but at any given time, even professionals behave unprofessionally. Face to face, in meetings, and especially, and I speak from personal experience here...in their emails.

So I guess I come out in support of your worry "But this whole flame-up is an example of how I could be wrong." I am not one to ever try and squash the flow of information, certainly (I'm the one with the orange glow sticks waving the traffic through on the superhighway) - BUT - with all due respect, you don't have as large an audience in the cafeteria, at the water cooler, or the happy hours establishment. There isn't a hyperlink to a video feed of all the discussion at the water cooler so that every person in the company has simultaneous and repeated access to Joe Schmoe the copy guy's comments about how he feels about the company. People can and will throw a nutty when given the chance.

The other problem is, people do not communicate well. Especially 'non-communicators'. Even me. (hmmmmm, especially me) Innocent posts or emails can be completely misinterpreted by the way we read it in our heads, just by the way we phrase it, or emphasize it as we read along.

And it is easier to be rude online. Although, I find it easy enough to be just as crass in person. It's a gift.

The whole thing did move past me, you, David, when Eric, Andrea, and Ike kicked off the IAN thing... and put this "conflict" to so productive good (if only humor).

Now, David wrote me and said he'd buy me a beer in Vancouver, and you offered to buy me a coffee in Copenhagen. How's this in Vancouver: three rounds (not in a boxing ring), you, me, and David, of whatever beverage? With any nobodies around welcome to join?

Yes, yes, yes: Beer, beer, beer.

Steve, I do think you're ultimately right that people won't get into these kind of flame wars inside corporations, for much the same reason that few people if anyone with corporate jobs said truly inflammatory things in this whole debate. It was dominated by sole practitioners and professional pundits. Nobody wants to risk the old livelihood to win a screaming match.

And on to Vancouver.

I'm with Rebecca on her comment,
"I think I may disagree with you about this certain point:
'Of course not, I say. People are professionals. They're professionals face to face, they're professionals in their e-mails; they're professionals in meetings.'"

We have a dedicated e-mail address for our daily electronic employee newsletter. This allows are employees to send us comments on the day's edition, respond to the daily company-related trivia question and/or suggest story ideas. The vast majority of the e-mails sent to that inbox are professional. There are some however are way beyond the pale. I never cease to be amazed at what some employees will write in an e-mail.

I think it's just as you said in your last post, Steve. It IS easier to be unprofessional - even rude - amidst the facelessness of blogs and wikis.

And, as you pointed out, David, most of us employed by corporations aren't as likely to write outrageous or inflammatory responses. We know we represent our company, even if you don't know what company that is. I can't speak for the others but I like my job, I like my company and I plan on remaining on its payroll for many more years.

Steve et al:

I was despairing of any rational thought resulting from this discussion. Very pleased to see a good back-and-forth about a range of related issues.

I tried to wade in on the comments earlier, but all three attempts were swallowed up mysteriously.

I'm all for debate and disagreement, but I prefer when it's done with respect, not rancour. Good on all of you for coming back from the abyss of disrespect.