Comments on: A Blog Council Isn’t Wrong, But Could Be Spooky

By: Judy Gombita

Judy Gombita — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:02:11 +0000

Well, social media is *not* a regulated profession–or even that defined a discipline as yet– (it shares this trait with public relations, marketing, etc.). By that I mean there is no government legislation or any government statute-sanctioned regulating bodies (similar to medicine, law, professional accounting bodies, etc.).

Ergo, the new council could go ahead and draw up/set standards, but adoption will be purely optional. Just like it is with the industry association relating to public relations and marketing.

I think it is more akin to a power networking body, similar to the Canadian Council of Public Relations Firms (http://ccprf.ca/). There was no hue-and-cry from sole practitioners and small shop consultants/agencies when that body was established. Nor, as far as I can tell (at least from its moribund blog), has it set or (publicly) published standards that could be adopted by any non-member firms.

Why is this different? Because it concerns social media, meaning the early adopters and evangelists should and must be included, or at least consulted? Honestly, the blogosphere has become so bloated with egos, as evidenced by all of these outraged and sanctimonious postings. (And no, I am not saying your posting was outraged or sanctimonious. I wouldn’t have commented here if I thought it was.)

But as is the same for most things, time will tell.

By: Colin

Colin — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:24:56 +0000

Actually, Judy, I think the creation of the Council is another step to the corporate adoption of social media - and by corporate, I mean corporations that aren’t tech-driven.

The point I was making was about the influence such a Council could have on standards-setting, if it wanted to.

By: Judy Gombita

Judy Gombita — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:22:22 +0000

What’s the big deal and why do so many bloggers care so much about the formation of this council? Honestly, it’s not like the idea is going to implode, just because smaller shops can’t play a part or someone (ahem) thinks it is part of a bigger-picture conspiracy theory.

People who really want to get in on the council’s “conversations” should think about applying for a position in the social media department at one of the council member companies. Otherwise, I’d suggest you move on to discussions where you actually might contribute information or influence things.

Of course I could also stop reading posts on this topic. Which I think I wi….

By: Bob LeDrew

Bob LeDrew — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:54:36 +0000

Where I think you’re right, Colin, and some of the response to this is wrong, is to make the facile leap to say that this is simply “Andy Sernovitz’s Next Big Thing”, linkbait, blah blah blah. These companies don’t do ANYTHING just for another meeting (who needs that). This council will do SOMEthing. It would behoove (how do you like that word, eh?) us all to keep this on our radar.

By: JohnP@Dell

JohnP@Dell — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:11:46 +0000

Hi Colin — For Dell, the impetus to join the Blog Council was our desire to participate in an additional forum of our peers — in this case large companies already engaged in blogging — where we could listen, learn and improve. Garnering influence isn’t really part of the equation. Rather it’s about focusing on skills and tools that can help us have a better two-way dialogue with our customers.

In today’s Web 2.0-enabled marketplace, it is they who have the influence and control.

By: Kami Huyse

Kami Huyse — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:15:17 +0000

First, I must say that I did not say the council was naive, but I see that you were trying to link to everyone who talked about this, so I appreciate being included. I actually said that I saw clearly the reasoning and appeal for the formation of the organization and that I hoped they would use the forum for the good of the entire community.

Now to your conspiracy theory.

You forget something, the council is a networking group, and their founding docs don’t include anything about regulation or advocacy. Working and living in DC, as I did for 13 years, this group doesn’t even remotely resemble the picture you’ve painted above.

Still, your thinking reminds me that the PR crowd is very creative group with a wonderful imagination. Big business is still not trusted, and this makes it clear.

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:39:33 +0000

I don’t know if the conclusions are tragic. I just see the possibility that social media could be co-opted as part of its very inclusion in the mainstream. As Des points out, government policy makers like familiar voices that can explain new ideas and challenges clearly.

By: Des Walsh

Des Walsh — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:18:53 +0000

Without wanting to indulge unduly in, to use Jake’s great phrase, “overthinking”, those of us who have worked in government know how easy it is for a group like this to be seen as a boon to government policy makers and regulators. Ah, there’s this group of Fortune 500 companies that blog: better to talk with them about regulation than to involve all that rabble out there who can’t seem to agree on anything. And the suitably named Blog Council is suitably impressed with the blandishments of government officials, commissions a paper and hands it over. Nice job all round, folks. Where did you say we were having lunch? Cynical? Maybe. But I plead guilty to having played, more than once, with zeal and - on the face of it - success, the game of government “consulting with industry”.
The price of liberty etc

By: Jake McKee

Jake McKee — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:48:12 +0000

I think this may be WAY over thinking things. Yes, anything taken to an extreme can be dangerous, but I guess the piece I’m missing is what makes you think this is going to go that way, other than the name.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t seem to connect the dots between what’s happening now and the tragic conclusions you’re worried about.

(Good post though!)