As for the time spent here, I’ve got quite a bit of it for the moment as I’m at home looking for a new job!

And, thanks for the invitation on LinkedIn!

I agree completely with your remark about asking for people who are interested and willing. The point about writing skills is also good, but again, I would respond with a snarky remark about all the MarComPr people that could use some help with this as well….

I think the key point here is this: “I know he could do it elsewhere, but chances are that your corporate means of communication are better monitored by your competition than Facebook and Co …”

That’s probably the most important insight: this genie is already out of the bottle. There’s no way to put it back in. Given that reality, my argument would be (and is) that a company is better off engaging in “the conversation”, rather than playing see-no-evil, hear-no-evil and pretending it’s not happening.

And note: while I am all for allowing anybody to say anything they want to, there’s no reason why a company channel would (or should) be unmoderated. Moderation is easy to justify, on the grounds of preventing profanity, confidentiality and other legal breaches, and just all around insanity. Nothing wrong with moderation.

But I am arguing that everyone in the company — the CEO, the accountants, the people working in the stockroom — ought to have the option of participating. On whatever basis suits them (maybe that accountant has a brilliant post in her, but only once a year or so).

I understand the reluctance too, but in my experience, it’s rarely well thought out.

When saying that one could / should pick the people allowed to communicate outside, I’m more oriented in openly asking who would be willing to do it, then have a sort of interview to discuss the motivation and check the capabilities (not everyone has good writing skills).

As for the accountant case, it was just an example, it was nothing directed against accountants in general. This being said, I don’t really see what they could be saying that would be so interesting to the customers. Also, most of the stuff they work with everyday is potentially confidential stuff anyway. Also, from the accountants I’ve known so far, they were so entrenched in their world of accounts and figures, that they often had a distorded view of the business or the market.

On the idea of letting the whole company an open access to the outside communication; what if you have someone that was disgruntled by something, and he then goes on the corporate blog or wiki, posting confidential information …? I know he could do it elsewhere, but chances are that your corporate means of communication are better monitored by your competition than Facebook and Co …

Anyway, as in many situations there are many pros and many contras

Personally, I would prefer to see the workforce of my company interacting more directly with the customers (and suppliers) but I can understand the reluctance of some people …

Seriously. Why not give the accountant an open platform? What makes the accountant’s insights *inherently* less valuable than the CEO? Why assume the converse, for that matter?

Yes, you do have a brand image to maintain. If, however, that brand image can’t be maintained by opening the doors on your people, by trusting them, then I would have to pose the following question: is your brand the truth? Or is it a lie?

And: is the “brand” that might *emerge* from a free and open exchange inherently *less* valuable? How can we determine that, a priori?

You’re right, the wiki was internal, and you’re right I can see MarCom getting real antsy about ‘non professionnals’ communicating with the outside.

I would add that the PR people must be those who must be thinking ‘what’s going to happen with us …’

Now, I’m not in MarCom, nor PR, so I don’t really mind! ;o)

Now, back to your point, of course it won’t be IT saying that we shouldn’t open the gates.

And, as far as I’m concerned, I would keep my ‘it depends’ regarding the fact that it would be a good idea or not.

I believe that it depends on who you’re letting communicating openly, based both on their job (I don’t see the point in giving an accountant an open tribune), ,and their personality and capability (you do have a brand image to maintain, and it wouldn’t do it any good to have someone from the backoffice ranting against the folks from logistics) … so all in all yes to open the gate, but with a clear strategy in mind …

So, yes. Agreed.

The wiki you’re referring to was presumably internal? I’m thinking of things where E2.0 gets used to engage in conversations outside of (and through) the corporate firewall. Examples would be allowing employee’s to blog (and speak the truth) as, say, Sun or IBM do.

Do you find MarCom to be in favour of that?

I believe that it is a question of personality.

I’m Marketing, and at my former employer I had to convince IT that it wouldn’t require too much work for them to install a wiki …