The 10 Somewhat-Flexible Laws of Blogging about Companies

We are in love with ourselves.

Not just bloggers, but everyone. Corporations are not excluded from this. They want (and need) to know what others are saying about them. Since the Internet has a long memory, if you're in the business of representing or dealing with other businesses, authenticity and openness risk scaring off potential clients.

Paul at Hee-Haw Marketing, for instance, recently ripped Kohl's a new one for a crummy in-store experience. Now, if you're a CMO for Kohl's considering hiring the company Paul works for, if you come across any of his posts on the subject, do you refuse to work with them as long as Paul works there?

Well, only if you're stupid.

Paul is very bright, and ruling out those who are like him for telling the truth as they see it would be like scuba diving in muddy water without a diving mask and oxygen tank.

I'd argue to anyone that leaders of a company NEED someone who will tell the unfiltered truth. If the truth is unpleasant, it is incumbent on the leader to fix the problem, not blame the messenger.

Greg Verdino recently asked a thought-provoking question that got me thinking about my own practice of refraining from naming companies I analyze here. I do make exceptions, and I thought it useful to publicly examine the rules to which I strive to abide and open them up for scrutiny. Please note: I'm not suggesting anyone else but me abide by them, but to me they seemed logical to adopt.

1. Never talk ill of a client or potential client.
2. Almost everyone is a potential client.
3. If you must violate rule #1, don't mention the company name.
4. If you must violate rule #3, make sure it's a well-known problem.
5. Be constructive.
6. If you mention the company name of a client, disclose that they are a client.
7. When you praise a client's competition, don't mention the company name.
8. If you must violate rule #7, try not to gush.
9. Gushing is otherwise acceptable if you do not mention the company name.
10. Draw the lessons from the company's example, whoever they are.

What do you think? - Cam Beck

Comments

[Paul McEnany]

That is an awesome list of when to reference. Hilarious, and sums it up pretty well. I try to just never talk about clients. It can get too sticky, no matter what you say.

[Polar Bear]

It kind of follows the general rule that we've always abided by as you were growing up: If you've got nothing good to say about a person, don't say anything at all. Closely associated with the Golden Rule, too! Who knows, maybe if we all practiced these simple rules, we'd all get along better! How's THAT coming from a dyed in the wool conservative?

[Harley Jebens]

What about the other side of the Paul-Kohl's coin? What happens if Paul's company finds out he has slammed a client, potential or otherwise? Do they ask/tell him to remove the offending post(s) from his blog? Do they have a right to? Should Paul be obligated to? Should the company have better things to be doing than paying attention to Paul's posts? (I can see both sides of that coin, actually.)

And, should Paul's comments be the reason that Kohl's chooses not to do business with Paul's company, how long before Paul is saying, "Funny story. I USED to work for this company and ..."

[Moda di Magno]

It is well-known that Paul McEnany will be the downfall of his company for his continued attacks on purveyors of shoddy goods. That being said - he does it with style.

[Mario Vellandi]

I think the rules are fair.
I like #5 the best on constructivity.

It's not in my personality to openly bash or condemn a company, but I don't scowl at those who do.

Critique is an art form, because although we like to speak our mind...we also like to persuade others to our line of thinking. The more reasonable we can go about it, the more we can influence.

[Cam Beck]

Harley - This conversation started initially when I pointed out on Greg's blog that Steve Rubel, an employee of Edelman (who represents Microsoft), publicly displayed his brand-spanking-new iPhone.

As I mentioned over there, I don't think he's morally obligated to use ONLY Microsoft products, but because of his visibility, I would have cautioned him against proudly displaying a competitor's product.

It's a tough responsibility, being in the public eye. But that's the risk we run. Consider it a "marketer blogging tax."

Likewise, I would caution Paul against bashing his clients, but if he did (and I know he wouldn't), it would create for him a situation where, no matter what he did, he would lose somewhere. On one hand, he could lose his job (though he could always find another), and on the other, he could lose readers if he took down the offending post (though he could always find more).

If Kohl's conditioned hiring Paul's company on his removing any of those posts, if I ran or owned his company, I'd tell Kohl's to keep looking. No company I owned would bow to coercion, and I wouldn't want to hinder any of my employees' thirst for creativity and exploration. Putting an unreasonable muzzle on them or asking them to compromise their integrity surely would.

That said, I obviously don't run his company, and they might feel differently... but let's be honest... Have you been to Paul's blog? If they haven't shut him down by now, they likely never will. :)

[james-h]

Maybe it's because I believe in the power of blogging to vindicate the shitty customer experience, but I have no trouble panning companies and brands that fail to deliver.

I have gone after both UPS and Verizon for having subpar customer service.

Then again, I don't represent an agency with my blog, and I don't have the kind of readership that makes me think I'm burning bridges.

I've always thought honesty - even brutal honesty - was a virtue. Brands aren't perfect - and they need to hear criticism.

I want the customer experience to live up to the brand promise and if it doesn't, I'll be the first to call bullshit. I think all true insights come from criticism. Constructive or otherwise.