It seems as if control is becoming the center of conversation when it comes to communications strategy planning lately. It could be a debate on who "owns" or "controls" the brand. It is referenced when talking about how audiences want to control how they consume media. It most certainly is a factor when talking about how a company (or brand) will or will not relinquish control when strategizing on a viral or social media communications campaign. And herein lies the struggle of the social media communicator. How do you balance the control issue?
I've spoken to groups and have attended others' presentations and have found that this is still an unanswered question. I've had people comment that they won't work with companies that just don't "get it." But what if your top client has requested that you provide a strategy to them utilizing social media to blend into the integrated campaign you are already doing for them? You can't simply say "No, thanks."
I've heard others comment that they limit the campaign to blog activity since you can better "control" the conversation. And though I agree that you can moderate comments that would be damaging, or otherwise just in poor taste, heavily censoring blog conversation defeats the purpose of doing a social media campaign in the first place. And what do you say to the PR firm that wants to focus group test viral videos? My suggestion is to assume that firm doesn't know how to engage in social media and can only end up hurting the reputation they have been paid to protect. How many bloggers have been turned off of the young PR flack who did not bother to read anything in their blog and fail to engage in the conversation?
On the other hand, there are those that want to relinquish all control to the audience. We've seen this in mash-up applications and companies in the "vanguard of communications." I applaud the willingness to let go, but think that if we look at this as a conversation, we will see that it is a gentle ebb and flow of control. Companies and brands need a voice in the conversation. It adds credibility and often times can be the rudder that steers the billowing sails.
So how do you "sell" an executive that doesn't want to relinquish any control of his/her brand to the world? Well, case studies and ROI are definitely one way. However, if carefully walked through how to steer the conversation--how to "let go," only to quietly lead the conversation in the direction you generally want it to go--I've found that people are willing to listen. Otherwise, the audience will gain control and probably not in the way you want.
Case in point: a local utility company passed on a reputation management project recently to focus on a message they could better "control" with the general public. (shunning dialogue for monologue). They wanted to show how they are spending over $1B to trim trees and bury power lines. Part of the response was a backlash in the social networks with photos and blog posts on how the company is butchering their trees and lowering home values. So audiences are going to find control in their ways. Companies just need to engage in those conversations to bring the healthy tension and back and forth that an engaging conversation will have.
