Corporate Reputation : a cocktail of rational and emotion ?

February 27, 2013 by 1 Comment

The concept of Corporate Reputation is a core element in the strategy of directors that have understood how important its impact on their activity and success is. In few years, it has elvoved from a background idea to a tangible reality that impacts each management and communication decision.

For all that, there are only few definitions of Corporate Reputation that allow understanding the global dimension of this concept.

In this new video of our Web TV “Reputation Management Decision Makers”, Thierry Wellhoff shares with us its vision of the most valued and intangible asset of organizations : reputation is the sedimentation of :

  • Image, the emotional value associated to perception of the brand
  • Opinion, rational dimension based on experiences and facts

Armed with this evidence, how should we support the reputation of our companies?

The answer is in the coherence between all the signals we emit -that determine the perception- and our communication -that determine opinions-. Having in a same media environment the company (through its website, its production of content, social footprint) and the employees, clients, NGOs and other type of stakeholders whose share of voice in the global discussion is proportional to the interest generated by their interventions and publications, can make this balance very difficult to reach.

In practice,  analyzing beforehand the missions and values of the organization, as well as its communication fundments represent a first essential diagnostic to set up a digital strategy. The adjustment of this strategy, its execution on blogs, forums and social networks are as many points I encourage you to discover in this video.

See you soon on “Reputation Management Decision Makers“

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , ,

Why managing reputation overseas matters (and how to)

September 18, 2012 by 1 Comment

In our previous “Reputation Management Decision Makers” video, Alain Cayzac explained how to use the style, personality and actions of a company to strengthen its reputation.

In this episode, Michael Jaïs and Kasper Ulf Nielsen (Executive Partner with the Reputation Institute) discuss the international implications of reputation management.

Earlier this year, the Reputation Institute published the results of their Global RepTrack™ 100, a larger surveys evaluating the reputations of the world’s 100 largest companies by interviewing consumers in the 15 largest markets. This work reveals that although 50% to 95% of revenue comes from international business, only 11 out of the 100 groups under scrutiny manage to create reputation levels as favourable abroad as it is in their home land.

Exporting reputation is indeed a difficult task for most corporations because it is necessarily based on the trust that consumers in foreign countries have in these companies and those consumers often know very little of their history or values.

Kasper Ulf Nielsen therefore recommends that foreign markets never be considered simply as export markets but as new locations for reputation crafting and interaction with local communities in order to let other drivers than product quality play an important role in reputation management and financial success.

I invite you to watch the video to learn what these other drivers are and what role social media play in this strategy.

See you soon, for new episodes.

Filed under Augure News, Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Managing the cross-channel reputation of a government institution

March 13, 2012 by Leave a comment

In spite of popular belief, Reputation Management is not restricted to high-profile companies that are likely to cause mass environmental destruction or disrupt the social balance of fragile and exotic communities. Corporate reputation has now become one of the most important criteria in the mind of ordinary people looking to buy everyday products and most report they would not do business with a company with a tarnished reputation.

But in fact, Reputation Management is not exclusively the sole preoccupation of businesses either. Even governmental institutions that have nothing to sell are preoccupied with creating and maintaining long-term trust with their stakeholders. Who these stakeholders are, how varied they are, what their main concerns related to and what communication channels they use most is explained in detail in this new episode of our “Reputation Management Decision Makers” Web TV series in which Augure CEO Michael Jaïs talks to Didier Venturini CTO of the Region PACA.

Multiple stakeholders and reputation drivers

What does a public procurement awards and CMMI certifications received by an IT department have to do with reputation ?

In very practical terms, they prove that the department is spending public money efficiently and wisely. More generally, they are just two of the numerous reputation drivers that are discussed in this video. And this is one of the most interesting aspects of this interview, in that it clearly describes that reputation management is not simply about pushing messages out to your Facebook page hoping that fans will gobble them up and buy products in their droves.

In the case of the regional institution Mr Venturini describes, reputation management hinges around creating a lasting relationship with multiple stakeholder types over multiple issues and multiples channels. In particular :

  • Stakeholders can be citizens of all ages, business owners, other administrations, the French government, the European government …
  • Issues addressed range from optimized public spending, quality of outreach, legal information, event promotion
  • Communication channels include mail (of the pulverized wood pulp type), email, the website, blogs, newsletters, Facebook and Twitter
  • People playing a role in reputation management are not limited to PR but include IT and other departments

Besides this important diversity, collaboration with the public is a strong focus and building lasting trust is envisioned as fostering personalized and interactive engagement with all.

My guess is that many large company are not as mature in their own internal definition of reputation management. What do you think ?

Filed under Augure News, Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

How La Redoute turned crisis management into clever social marketing

February 3, 2012 by 2 Comments

The naked man in the picture on La Redoute's websiteFor a major online retailer, what can be worse than finding out from the Internet that one of the photographs in your online catalog shows a naked man next to young children wearing your clothes?

That’s the situation French brand La Redoute was faced with a few weeks ago, when they used a photograph of kids running on the beach to sell a new T-shirt model. It wasn’t long before site visitors using the zoom feature on the page discovered a naked man in the water just behind the group of young models. Definitely not the kind of associations that sort of business is after.

Obviously, this spread like wildfire on Twitter and Facebook, which more than whiffs of #epicfail tags attached to it.

Turning a reputation threat to your advantage

The brand needed to react and quickly. But initial response wasn’t overwhelming. A few apologies were written and the offending pictures removed, not that quickly.

However, as with every crisis, when the damage is done, it’s done, there’s no undoing, Ctrl+Z or MIB flash memory eraser. Crisis management in these situations is not about undoing but about rebound and moving on.

And this was performed brilliantly with the following video (in French).

Why is this so good ?

  • It acknowledges the issue openly and then more. While most companies responsible for a mistake usually try to minimise it or their responsibility, the message in this video not only recognizes the issue but gives examples of more mistakes in the catalog. However amusing and minimal the example given, this sends out a very open and positive message.
  • It says I’m sorry. “Again, we are very sorry for …”
  • It describes the plan in very accurate terms. “… We have placed whole teams on this. They have scanned the whole catalog and found more problems …”
  • It opens up dialogue for the future. “… But we know there are probably more mistakes left in there. We are asking you for help …” Active participation of the public totally eliminates what antagonism may have built up in the first stages of the crisis.
  • It uses crowdsourcing. There’s effectively no better way to iron out all the niggles than to unleash the unlimited power of the Internet on it. With literally thousands of visitors eager to be the first to find new blunders, the chances of there being any left in a few days absolutely minimal. For free.
  • It rewards intelligently. “… Since a naked man is responsible for this, we will reward anyone who firsts reports a boo boo by dressing him/her up from head to toes …” While many CSR programs are plagued by iffy greenwashing feelings for being totally unrelated to the social or environmental damage caused by the company, La Redoute’s initiative is spot on. The sell clothes. Their clothing adds caused an image problem. It is through closing they will make it better.
  • It’s a fantastic marketing operation. While some buyers may have been put off by the initial blooper, the video, that has now been watched over 150.000 times, is likely to get thousands of people scan through the whole catalog in search of something out-of-place. How many will actually buy, I wonder.

It may not be over, though. Initial crisis response is all about re-establishing dialogue and laying out the plan ahead. So far, so good. But the faulty company then has to walk the path. In this case, the video is so clever that some will inevitably feel it was all done in purpose. The way La Redoute addresses these worries will probably key to the complete resolution of this minor hick-up. If they make to much of a show out of it, it could flare out of up-to-now benign proportions.

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Helping your Facebook fans help you – with engagement

December 2, 2011 by 1 Comment

2011 has been a big year for Facebook. New features were launched to make the world’s largest social network an indispensable tool for companies and to monetize its continent sized fan base via new forms of engagement and advertising. A few weeks ago, I asked whether the new Timeline, which appears to be still rolling out slowly, would help PR Pros or not.

More recently, I argued that using social media exclusively as a short-term branding tool was dangerous for corporate reputation management, that engagement is key to long-term social media success and that PR should always be involved in defining the organisation’s social media strategy.

Facebook F8 presented new features for PR and marketing

In this post, I’d like to examine some of the other news from Facebook to determine whether and how these may impact PR and reputation management.

What makes your fans tick ?

Among the slew of new features announced at Facebook’s F8 conference last September are new buttons that go beyond the LIKE action. This is Facebook’s first step towards making fans share more and in more varied ways. VIEWING, SHARING and others are being made possible, and content publishers are even able to create their own button through apps to suit their own publications.

More significantly, and far more controversially, Facebook introduced the Ticker on the right hand side of the page, to show you what your friends are doing, who they are friending, what cafe they are checking into and what brands or products they are liking.

The facebook ticker

The ticker was met with almost universal criticism. From users, who claim it simply provides too much information into their friends’ lives. And from many many experts denouncing privacy scares.

Since the introduction that feature, many articles have been written to explain how to protect yourself from it and even how to remove it altogether (thanks to a Google Chrome extension, how surprising ;) ).

But Ticker is amajor component of Facebook’s business plan, along with Top stories and Sponsored Stories.

Beyond the obvious personal branding/reputation associated to ticker, its significance is due to the fact that it now integrates Sponsored stories in its feed. Sponsored stories are adverts in which the text is not written by the advertiser but is extracted from a fan’s update or action: Eric LIKEs the latest news from your company and all of Eric’s friends will see an advert for your news containing his “this is really interesting” update. This is significant because, according to Facebook, sponsored stories have much more impact than conventional advertising.

Top Stories, the final element in Facebook’s engagement trilogy, may be even more important to PR and reputation management professionals. Indeed, while the news feed on your Facebook page has always been presented in chronological order, top stories can be pushed up to the top of your feed is enough of your friends have liked it or commented on it. I already mentioned EdgeRank – Facebook’s feed filtering algorithm, that determines what friend and brand updates you actually see in your newsfeed – in 5 reasons not to count Fans on Facebook. The algorithm strengthens the visibility of brands you engage with and reduces it for others. Top stories push this idea one big step forward.

Finding engaging content to publish

Obviously, producing and publishing engaging content on Facebook is key to starting engagement. How do you know what your fans like best ?

Smart Insights recently published an interesting infographic describing the basic types of sharers in the UK and what content they like to share best.

But this is generic and the best way to understand what your community wants is to … listen to discussions. Listening will give you insight in major issues, major likes and dominant speakers. But I’ll tell you much, much more about this in my next post ! Stay tuned :)

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , ,

5 keys to facing social media disaster

June 20, 2011 by 3 Comments

One of your employees wrote something very disparaging on your corporate twitter feed. One of your deficient products is turning your Facebook wall into a river of hate. Your community manager mistook his private account for the company’s social outpost and publicly invited his bros to get wasted with him in the evening.

Ouch!
As described in Should companies fear social media blunders?, this is a common nightmare of CCOs entering the social highway. Although social engagement policies and guidelines go a long way towards eliminating the greatest risks, these situations do happen and should be tackled appropriately.

Here are five ways of containing the wildfire before it spreads.

Dealing with trouble on social media

1. Stay out of trouble. Pretty obvious, I know, but still true!

While damaging cases of crises born on social media do happen (Domino Pizza, Dell Hell), they are the minority. In most cases, social media is simply relaying real world bad news such as product failure, bad customer service or some form of scandal.

If you already have an online community giving you feedback, it is essential to monitor what is being said to identify sources of tension and locate the greatest risks and those who foster them: are they just whining with no following, determined detractors, is the community responding? Is the topic a pain-point likely to contaminate offline audiences and important to your business and reputation or something you can totally forget about? Are there real factors behind the rant? Is it misinformed? …

Understanding this feedback lets you steer clear of trouble or at least plan a reaction for it.

2. Be prepared. Have a plan and a community ready.
Focus
Reacting quickly and efficiently requires you to have rehearsed a corporate crisis plan for all the possible situations you can encounter on your social media outposts (see: Is your crisis management destroying your corporate reputation?). If you are constantly extinguishing fires and never find time to define and rehearse plans, you will always be fumbling and will never communicate successfully in stressful situations. Rehearsing crisis scenarios (product recall, rogue employee, internal scandal, accident …) is also a great way of discovering how you and your team react to upheaval. Be sure to evaluate and update your plan after use.

Also, do you have executive support endorsement to engage online when crisis strikes? Or will you require lengthy authorizations in order to respond on twitter, Facebook, blogs, forums … ?

3. Engage, inform and build trust. Publish great content.

Owning a community online is a great way of ensuring that any trouble will happen on your turf rather than in some uncharted corner of the social universe. It will give you the ability to react earlier and existing fans will actively defend you. But this requires establishing the community on the appropriate media (where people are already discussing your industry) and nurturing the community.

Great content is one of the keys to successful community building. Publishing regular, informative (or fun, depending on your sector) sharable updates will support your PR and community growing efforts. (see: Why PR teams should use Social Media for Online Reputation Management) Today, can your online audiences understand your company’s values and vision by through online information?

4. Think global. Social Media is only a part of the picture.
Is your company purely a brand pushed along by marketing or does it have a strong PR culture? Is the social media crisis you are experiencing likely to interest more audiences than your social community?

Depending on your profile and the situation, you can focus exclusively on the community itself or need to engage proactively with the media and your other important stakeholders. In any case, stakeholder engagement is an essential pre-crisis success factor because it provides a credibility cushion. Any stakeholder you have kept informed will question bad news rather than buy into the rumour. Edelman’s 2011 Trust barometer shows how much less bad news is likely to have an impact on a company with a good reputation (and vice versa).

5. Stay calm and respond. Find the right spokesperson.

In What makes an ideal crisis manager?, Vickie Elmer identifies the three key consistent characteristics that the best leaders display when faced with impending doom. Realistic optimism, a passion for confronting reality and an ability to find order in chaos are all important. And in the previous post, I argued that PR is best suited to handle crisis management.

Whatever your company culture, social media communications require an authentic voice (turn again to Edelman’s 2011 Trust Barometer: company experts are among the most valued spokespersons) and one that brings enough knowledge to share and a good view of how the company is handling the situation.

How and what you communicate is up to you and the situation at hand. In most cases, acknowledging responsibility and planning believable recovery steps help tremendously. That will be the subject of a future post.

=========
Creative common images by lincolnblues and Checkered and aMUSEd

Rachel: – Do you have a plan?
Phoebe: – I don’t even have a pl
My apologies if you are not a “Friends” fan.

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Are your public relations agile?

February 25, 2011 by 4 Comments

How do you weave monitoring of/responding to word of mouth leaps and bounds into a 3 year communications plan?

Any Chief Communications Officer will tell you his job implies defining and implementing a long-term communications plan that supports the company’s strategic plan. This may include product launches, product communications, corporate communications, public affairs and possibly corporate reputation management. But, as online media has allowed the public to react to and spread news in real-time, the speed of interactions is necessarily higher today that it was only 5 years ago.

Not only that, but many of these socially enabled public reactions are largely unpredictable and cannot fit into a plan. You could dedicate some of your resources just to the monitoring and management of these fast-moving online episodes while the rest of your crew carry out THE PLAN. But that separates feedback of the public from the actual communications strategy so that the plan doesn’t evolve as public sentiment and customer expectations evolve. A bit strange for public relations, isn’t it?

Welcome to the SCRUM

The fine people below (say hello to the ComSuite developers and QA, by the way :) ) are taking part in a stand-up meeting, as they do every day at 11:30 AM. At that very instant, an alarm rings (actually, the Magnum PI theme music), R&D comes to a halt, and teams gather at the center of the room for a blitz (10 minutes max), Stonehenge lookalike, meeting.

Daily stand-up meeting

“What does software development have got to do with PR and reputation management?”, I hear you ask. Well, the parallel actually goes rather deep. Not that long ago, software editors had a multi-year strategic plan that aimed to occupy a specific sector of the market with a corresponding software suite. Well before any development took place, product managers would then write specifications compared to which the Tanakh could pass as a light week-end read. And developers would use these to work their magic. Whenever a sudden change in market conditions occurred, or if a custom project took the company slightly out of the planned line, or if customer feedback warranted some re-orientation, whole panes of the specs had to be discarded and rewritten (my photo is on our twitter page. That’s where the gray hair comes from !)

Then came Agile Development, an iterative project management method that introduces flexibility and increases efficiency in by relying on collective interactions rather than on a plan written on dead wood.

Agile software development methodology

From Wikipedia

It works as follows:

  • High level strategy is translated into epics. For instance “Provide Chief Reputation Strategists and Chief Communication Officers with global reputation monitoring and measurement tools”.
  • Releases (we routinely ship two of ComSuite and two of ComDecision every year, but this could change if need) contain panes of these sagas
  • Development of a release is conducted in short iterations

    • (or sprints) during which a certain number of stories are completed. A story is a fragment of a saga defined by a product manager and based on usage scenarios. It is big enough to be meaningful but small enough to be completed in less than an iteration.

So, while we have an 18+ month roadmap, the more distant elements are more blurry and likely to shift in definition and planning than those in the current iteration. As feedback and market changes occur, it is far more simple for product marketing, product management and the R&D to re-orient collectively than when it was necessary to force a product manager to rewrite months of specs through torture and menace.

How does agile project management apply to public relations?

The Agile methodology is not the sole domain of software editors. It is a project management tool that can be applied to communications just as easily. The Plan remains the Plan. Releases are major events and launches. Feedback is gathered through monitoring. The specifics of how you implement iterations and stories depends entirely on your structure and preferences.

If you’re interested, drop us a line in the comments and I will work on another article with our resident Agile evangelist Jean-Charles.

Daily stand-up meeting

Filed under Industry debate, Team Tagged with , , , , , ,

Is social search impacting your reputation?

January 21, 2011 by 2 Comments

It has often been written that your reputation is what Google says it is. A fact supported by search statistics showing that over 2/3 of all internet searches transit via the Mountain View giant’s servers. However, that would be missing one major point: conversations between internet users are one of the highest sources of influence on buying decisions and reputation factors.

Flickr image by Lee Haywood

Google may not always dominate search

Social consumer are using their networks more and more to ask for and share recommendations about companies and their products. Much as the more traditional internet goers, they use traditional search (read Google, and sprinkle a pinch of Bing, if you don’t live in China) to find information. But once initial awareness of a product has been gained, much word of mouth is exchanged on forums, Facebook and other social networks. Quora seems poised to become a crucial actor in this field, for instance.

Of course, Google has added many social features to its social search and integrated social presence to its social search results. But Facebook sees things differently and, as the Palo Alto rival approaches the demographic limits of new user acquisition, its strategy for future expansion seems to suck discussions about the world’s brands onto its own turf. “Like” buttons and Fan page serve exactly this purpose and while some Fan pages have rapidly become enormous, some (many?) have not grown fast enough to compensate for the corresponding decline in traffic of corporate websites. That alone can constitute a threat to your reputation management efforts. But if Facebook succeeds in attracting the world’s brand-centric conversations, its search may well dethrone Google’s as purveyor of image and reputation.

Influencer engagement and social CRM

This interesting post discusses whether you should embark on the much hyped real-time route and, since social has gained so much momentum, the question is certainly valid for reputation management. The author argues that influencer engagement is a selective PR exercise, at the risk of seeming biased, while the latter requires a more profound transformation of the company, particularly if you wish to engage in interactions, not simply provide asynchronous responses to questions and issues.

For reputation management purposes, it makes sense to focus on influential stakeholders and on answering the most representative issues rather than engage in systematic real-time interactions (marketing and crisis management are different, of course).

So how do you manage your reputation in a social world?

First, integrate offline, online and social in your monitoring plan. Social may be the new buzz-king, leading surveys (see for instance Edelman’s 2010 Trust Barometer) indicate that top influencers are industry experts, who do not express their views through a “XXX sucks” Facebook update.

Second, use engagement best practises to identify stakeholder groups and their respective issues.

Third, feed your social CRM with reports of your interactions to enrich it as you go and create a priceless engagement repository that will let your plan campaigns with far greater accuracy and confidence.

SO, is social search impacting your reputation, and how are you addressing that? Please describe your experience in comments.

Filed under Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Public Relations, Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Reputation

January 7, 2011 by 3 Comments

On this blog, we’ve been talking alternatively about Public Relations, Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Reputation Management. But comments have shown just how these activities relate.

It is no longer news that reputation has a huge impact on business. Companies with higher reputations have more numerous and more loyal customers, recruit better employees and see a lower turnover, establish more fruitful partnerships, are more easily supported by their stakeholders when controversy strikes …

In fact, it has been established that corporate reputation, as an intangible asset, amounts to over 60% of the market value of a company. In a recent post, I described the financial value of reputation. And, according to Leslie Gaines Ross, nearly one half of a company’s reputation is tied to that of its CEO.

What is less clear is the role of communications and stakeholder engagement in creating, maintaining and recovering a reputation:

  • And yet, the definition of an enterprise’s reputation is the global trust its various stakeholders have in it. So it becomes evident that engaging with these communities of stakeholders to identify their needs and align business practises with the most salient ones is an essential aspect of any business. As a KRC survey of 200 executives of major companies shows, Community action and communications work best together.
  • And, while it is true that “reputation wounds are self-inflicted” and that corporate misconduct, bad products, accidents are the source of reputation failings, their reconstruction is almost the exclusive territory of communication. Immediate, transparent and relentless communication.

The continuous emergence of new channels and forms of communications has made this a daunting process for many but we believe that best practises are to be found in the methodology described in engagement standards such as the AA1000SES and GRI G3. To help understand these matters, we are offering two FREE white papers that can be used as guides:

And these are the beginning of a series. Chief executives are almost unanimous in recognising that corporate reputation plays an important role in the achievement of business objectives, yet few have a formal measurement system in place to evaluate it. Our next two white papers will deal with measuring reputation and the tools that need to be used for this.

We hope you enjoy these two first documents and look forward to your comments.

A Happy, Successful and Engaged New Year to you all !!

Filed under Augure News, Engagement, Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

The Tree, the Clique and the Enchanted Forest: a Public Relation Christmas Tale

December 24, 2010 by Leave a comment

A day before Santa’s visit, an elf just told me this important story of the past, present and future of public relations and corporate reputation!

Once upon a time, communicators of all countries told their story in industry jargon to an elite of intermediaries called the media in the hope these would relay it in common terms to the good people of the public. In graph theory terms, this one to few to many message propagation model is represented by a tree.

A tree structure

This situation lasted up to the first half of the noughties and the rise of the Web 2.0 and its citizen-empowering cortege of social media. This publishing revolution brought with it the age of the clique. In graph theory terms, a clique is a structure in which every vertex is connected to every other (to be precise, that’s a maximum clique, but you get my drift) and it corresponds to the widely spread idea that social media, blogs and other forms of user-generated contents make it possible for anyone to reach every one else. Consequently, individuals could potentially make their voice heard by industry experts, members of parliament and other essential stakeholders of business organisations, and vice versa, without the need for an intermediate level. A corollary was the CEO’s bedside horror bestseller The angry customer who destroyed an industrial empire. Another was (still is) that the larger the network in this global clique, the more important it had to be for businesses (what, you still don’t have a Facebook page?)

The clique structure

While certainly possible, the operative word here is potentlially. As Reputation Management master Jedi Leslie Gaines Ross puts it, a great majority of reputation wounds are self-inflicted, and seminal cases such as Jeff Jarvis’ Dell Hell were certainly not the act of an isolated individual (but a tightly wound network of blogs) and mainly revealed existing shortcomings (at the time) in Dell’s customer service.

For the true Force that fuels Reputation Management and Public Relations, the force that ended the perceived age of the clique is Influence. The dark side of the Force lies within the hands of those trading briefcases for the impunity of nefarious bidding. Masters of the bright side are those who understand the true nature of the communication landscape and use it to match business activity to stakeholder expectations.

Which brings us to the present. A present in which groups of like-minded people gather in physical or cyber places under the influence of one or more thought leaders. Each group (a Facebook support group, a patient association, an NGO and its followers, your customers …) is similar to a little tree with its leader(s), its relays and its ordinary members. Together, throughout countries, demographics and media types, these constitute a vast planetary forest.

Creative Commons picture by lrargerich

Your organisation is one of these trees, and the forest is enchanted. Because the trees, or maybe they are Ents, communicate with one another. Not each member of each tree with every other, as suggested by the clique model, but some members with some others. NGOs can influence laws, journalists read blogs, bloggers read newspapers, student associations have bent corporate will and PR campaigns can be used to help PA.

At the end of the story, the elf gave me some glimpses of the future of public relations: he told me that, in 2011 PR professionals would have to deal with more channels than ever before. He added that efficiency and ROI would take center stage and that, in order to be successful, it would be necessary to focus their attention not on the zillion members of the forest, but on the important trees for their organisations. And in those trees, on the members with influence. Not the purely algorithmic influence based on follower counts, but those whose words change outcomes and make others act. Those who lead the trees and those who create bridges between them.

What do you think?

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Filed under Engagement, Industry debate Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,501 other followers

%d bloggers like this: