Perhaps its just me, but surely even the most introverted of in-house PR/marketing staff must see the need to have access to such sites. Countless articles are written each day on the importance of online brand awareness, and the requirement to monitor conversations involving your companies name. Its no longer a nicety, its a necessity. For the sake of your companies brand awareness, surely its worth a conversation with your IT department, no?
The research comes within days of news that Google has inadvertently opened the door to a PR minefield. The search giant has begun trialling a new function that allows public comments on search results.
Whilst on paper this might not sound like a big deal, for organisations and their PR deparments, it opens the door to public criticism on a grand scale. It's the equivalent of Google leaving spray cans outside the glasshouse that is an organisations brand. Recent comScore research shows that Google accounts for 64% of all searches on the Internet. With that in mind, imagine the damage a derogatory comment underneath your companies listing on Google could have to potential new customers, staff etc.
On the other hand, positive comments will obviously reflect more kindly on your business. In all honest though, how often do the public lavish praise on a business when it does something right? It's more often that not expected. We're far more inclined to moan when things go wrong, or perhaps that's just me?
Posts
3 comments:
"The research by McCann Erickson Bristol revealed that 46% of those surveyed were unable to actually access social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn whilst at work."James, as much as I admire your positive thinking manifested in your comment "surely even the most introverted of in-house PR/marketing staff must see the need to have access to such sites", I don't think it is the introverted PR/marketing staff whom to blame.
More likely, it is their employers who in their attempt to curb private communication during work hours place this type of restrictions on their staff.
Hey, we're in the 21st century. Restrictions, regulations, house rules, whatever, will only serve as proof of an organisation's last-century thinking. Many employers fail to see the real value of today's communication options: one-on-one relationships. In other words -- if you have trustworthy employees, you should let them develop personal relationships with potential clients in whatever medium they deem the best.
I recently read somewhere that all kinds of regulations and house rules will only put obstacles in the way of organisational innovation and renewal because they imply mistrust.
If employers do not trust their employees in interacting with the outside world, maybe they should take a hard look at their HR departments' capabilities. Or just go on shooting themselves in the foot.
Just my tuppence, I'm not declaring myself an authority.
Hmmmm I have to disagree. Whilst in principle you're right that their employers are the ones preventing the access, if I was an in-house comms consultant I would feel a sense of responsibility to obtain access to these new channels of communication.
You can't just turn a blind eye because your IT department has a 'blanket' block policy on social networking sites.
Organisations are employing staff to specifically monitor and produce content for social networking sites. They can't be ignored.
James, you're of course right if we assume that PR/marketing people are lazy or ignorant enough not to press the issue.
I think, however, that in the majority of cases the blanket block policy is dictated from the C suite in the fear that someone in the organisation might blurt out something to tarnish the company's image.
Which brings us back to these companies' HR capabilities: if you recruit people you need to mistrust, you're recruiting the wrong people.
Post a Comment