Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under transparency...

The infamous hacked emails of some leading climate change proponents are making rounds across the world. I have read of the coverage and yes, of course it’s very difficult to estimate what really has gone on when we only have access to some out of context emails. However, I have serious problems in understanding the reaction of the very people whose comments have been revealed. It is as if they were a case study of “What Not To Do When A Crisis Hits You” –book.

The resistance of some scientists to come open with their data and research, because of the way in which the hint of a wrongdoing was found, is as if a confectionary company denied any risks to public when a shoplifter is admitted to hospital care after being poisoned by a stolen chocolate bar. This approach doesn’t stand any intellectual criticism and is, to say the least, odd.

The scientific method is based on peer reviews and transparency. It is based on exposing your version and interpretation on basis of published data for other to see and criticise. Transparency is not a simple trick, it isn’t about the spin. And it definitely shouldn’t be considered a threat. Transparency is the very reason that science has allowed us to get where we are today. We should be proud of it as a society and we should embrace it as we embrace democracy.

I personally feel disappointed to see that what we now almost consider the climate change dogma may partly be a result of inventive statistics and trickery, spin and threats against those who came up with alternative data, views and interpretation. It is not altogether surprising, but nevertheless, it saddens me.

The hacked climate change emails are a lesson not only to the scientific community but to us who communicate about complicated issues. We must be careful in our judgements, we should tell the whole truth, warts and all, if we want to progress and remain credible with our audiences. There are no double standards in transparency and in being honest.

Filed under: Transparency

A little while back I wrote a piece to an e-book which we are publishing here in Greece. In that article, I commented if or not Paul Seaman and Neville Hobson had got it right when they had their argument on business fundamentals and role that online media can play in changing it.

As part of the argument for business changing over time from closed to more transparent and open, I came up with the picture below. It measures not only the transparency, but also the level of one-directional versus collaborative communication model. The social business on top right corner is everyone’s business. But where does the everyone’s business fall in real life, what is it about and who’s controlling it? In which sectors can it survive? Will the company’s strategic direction be diluted if the management style is more and the communications are more social media driven whereby the “outsiders” have more access to the inside of the business?

Filed under: Transparency

Rodney Alfvén was the most interesting speaker at today’s IR Nordic Market Awards in my view. He told us that he has so far logged 193 hours as Nordea’s IRO (I guess he is really keeping track). Before that, he was chief analyst at Cheuvreux Nordic. Rodney’s talk focused on the transition from equity analysis to investor relations. He started out by using the Scorpion and the Frog fable to describe the destructive streak of the capital markets and the tension between companies and analysts (the frog being the IRO and the scorpion the analyst…). He then gave the IR folks in the audience some thoughts and advice from the equity analyst’s perspective:

Building your financial brand in a focused way is very important. The average asset manager in Sweden has 200-800 companies on his/her radar screen. Analysing each company in depth cannot be done, so the strength of your financial brand can be a deciding factor in the investment process. The financial brand is different from the customer brand, but if the financial brand takes enough damage, it will start affecting the customer brand negatively (apparent in banking in recent times).

Very important to build and protect your corporate reputation in good times. If your corporate reputation (and your financial brand) is damaged, it is extremely hard to rebuild in times of crisis.

You must address analysts’ and investors’ concerns. A company that does not candidly discuss analysts’ issues and concerns is going to cause enormous frustration. It does not matter if the analyst is right or wrong. What is critical is the company’s willingness to openly discuss the issues.

Proactive transparency. You need to know about and address issues before you get the question from an analyst.

IR needs to have a central position in the company. An analyst can immediately tell if IR is not a prioritised activity (they sense if the IRO is not completely up to speed). And this is very negative for your financial brand.

IR is never better than the CEO. A dispassionate CEO cannot be compensated for. Also, Rodney’s view is that the whole top management team needs to be trained to talk to the market. IR needs to take a lead on this.     

Hiring an analyst as the IRO is becoming somewhat of a trend, at least in the Nordic countries. In the latest issue of Affärsvärlden (nr 47), it was pointed out that both TeliaSonera and ASSA ABLOY have done so recently. They have both improved their position dramatically in the IR Nordic Market Awards ranking of companies’ IR programmes. It will be interesting to see if Rodney Alfvén can improve Nordea’s position in next year’s ranking...

Filed under: transparency


The Securities and Exchange Commission is laying down the law with dark pools--or at least starting to. The regulator put out a proposal for comment recently that makes some dark pools look more like exchanges and helps the retail investor.

In this proposal, the SEC has said actionable "indications of interest" (IOI)--or messages between dark pools showing what's in their venues--will be considered quotes unless they are trading blocks of stock worth more than $200,000. Those large orders must only be sent to "those who are reasonably believed to represent current contra-side trading interest of at least $200,000", the proposal says. So if you thought you, as a big fish, could go around hunting for smaller fish without quoting to the market--think again.

Eleven of the 29 dark pools offer glimpses as "indications of interest," according to the SEC's research. To help meet the "reasonable" criteria regarding size, the SEC proposes a size-discovery IOI that would be allowed and only interact against another large order.

Preserving block trading through these large indications helps institutional investors working for mutual funds and 401(k)s trade without moving the market against themselves, says Al Berkeley, chairman of Pipeline Trading Systems. These investors need to be wary of not only trading commissions and exchange fees, which go up as you break a large order into smaller pieces, but also market impact and opportunity costs.

Market impact costs have to do with how much your trade will move the market against you, and opportunity costs relate to what other trades you could have made if there wasn't a delay in your trade. Sometimes, traders with large blocks will wait for another large block to trade against because they would prefer to trade the whole thing at once. Other times, it's better to break up a block and get it done faster.

Though preserving large block trading helps retail investors, some of the logistics may need tweaking, says Tony Barchetto, head of sales and strategy at Liquidnet. The $200,000 threshold would be better if it were share based instead of monetarily based for small-cap stock investors. Also, the idea of this reasonable expectation that you're trading against another block warrants clarification, Barchetto says.

Rate This Story

  • Your Rating
  • Overall Rating

Reader Comments

The SEC's proposal also wants to increase post-trade transparency with venues being designated on the consolidated tape. Currently, dark venues don't have their venue's name associated with their trades.

Tim Mahoney, chief executive officer of BIDS Trading (which has a partnership with NYSE Euronext ( NYX - news - people )), says there could be confusion associated with this post-trade transparency because the proposal recommends that when a trade over $200,000 is done, a venue doesn't have to report where it was done. Since most venues report their volumes monthly, there would be a discrepancy between what could be totaled up from the consolidated tape and what each venue reports.

Mahoney also encourages dark regulation across the board, including not only dark pools but also electronic communications networks and exchanges. Since the exchanges have hidden orders, he hopes future regulations will address those venues as well as fair access to dark pools.

Filed under: transparency

Transparency International has just published their new Corruption Perception Index. The index measures the perceived level of public-sector corruption in 180 countries and territories around the world. The CPI is a "survey of surveys", based on 13 different expert and business surveys.

Corruption, both in private and public sectors, hinders economic development and/or recovery. It means a loss of money, time and energy with outcomes that fall short of legitimate expectations. The results of the survey speak strongly in favour of open Governmental process, business transparency and good communication practices to all types of audiences.

To my disappointment, Finland dropped from the last year’s results (1st to 6th) and Greece dropped even more (from 57th to 71st). It’s time to clean the act up. All of us in communications business can do better in ensuring that we help to uncover issues, solve them and move ahead.

 

Filed under: Transparency

pressehofcom says...

With immediate effect the customers can publicly evaluate the online printers in their online shop and submit feedback on customer satisfaction. This is made possible by the customer evaluation portal of Trusted Shops, the leading European certifier of online shops that also certified the German website www.diedruckerei.de and the English website www.onlineprinters.com .

The new evaluation system is just as simple as it is safe. With only a few clicks the buyer rates the quality of the website, the delivery, the merchandise and the customer service on a scale between one and five points. In addition, the buyers can add to their evaluation a personal commentary. Subsequently, the...

Read article Transparent Printing on Pressehof

Filed under: transparency

Andy says...

NextGov reported on 9 Nov 2009, that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that “forecasts $3 billion in cost overruns on 16 major projects.”

What’s so of baffling is that these overruns occurred despite the agency’s use of earned value management.

According to Dave Powner, director of IT management issues at GAO, “Every one of the agencies had major problems in determining earned value management…as a result the agencies were unable to accurately identify the progress contractors had made on IT projects.”

These finding are expected to drive the 2009 Information Technology Oversight and Waste Prevention Act to increase oversight of IT investments.

This bill calls for “a Web site to publish information on the status of federal IT investments, similar to the Federal IT Dashboard,” but with more accurate data and with explanations on why projects are over budget.

Certainly, the use of measurements and dashboards to display and track these are helpful in understanding how we are doing in managing our IT investments—so they are on schedule, within budget, and to customer specification.

Clearly, we can only begin to better manage that which we measure and track. Our IT investments and their execution are no longer a black box or so it’s supposed to work.

However, to make these metrics and dashboard effective to improve IT execution, there are a number of critical success factors:

  1. Transparency—This is a concept that is in common use these days, and we need to continue to put it in action. All IT investments need to be measured, not just the “major” ones, and their success and failures need to be visible. The purpose must not to scrutinize or shame project managers, but to be able to genuinely guide projects to successful conclusions. This is what the control phase of capital planning and investment control is all about. We need to course correct projects early and often, if necessary, before they are billions of dollars out of control.
  2. Honesty in Reporting—Projects need to be reported accurately—no gaming the system. If the facts are sugarcoated or whitewashed, then no dashboard in the world is going to catch the problems that are misreported to begin with. Unfortunately with project management, the elements of scope, schedule, and cost can be manipulated to make it seem as if a project is okay, when it isn’t. One example is de-scoping the project to enable a delivery on schedule and on cost, even though what’s being delivered is not what was asked for or agreed upon.
  3. Skills Enhancement—With better measurement of IT investments, we need to provide more training to our project managers. We can’t just expect perfection day 1. We need to work with people and grow them to be better project managers. We can do this with training, mentoring, coaching, and so on. Remember, it’s generally the people that make the IT project a success or failure, not the technology—so let’s invest in our people to make them better project managers.
  4. Accountability—We shouldn’t be looking to exact a pound of flesh for genuine human foibles—mistakes do happen. But at the same time, people must be held accountable for fraud, waste, and abuse. Sometimes, people get complacent and they need a reminder that there are real implications to an IT project’s success or failure—mission and people are depending on you to do your job, so you had better do it responsibly and to the best of your ability.
  5. Continuous Improvement—Ever since business school, I’ve always loved the Japanese management practice of Kaizen—continuous improvement. This concept is right on the mark with our IT investment and project execution. We are not going to magically put up a dashboard and whoola—better IT projects. It’s going to be a process, a transformation over time. We need to incrementally improve our IT project success rate through learning measurement, and best practices implementation. Of course, time is money, and we need to move quickly, but we do not want to artificially create the appearance of short-term performance improvement at the expense of genuine long-term success.

All the power to IT performance measurement and dashboarding, but with the absolute commitment to not only track and measure, but also grow and improve our customer results. It’s not a gotcha that we need, but a how can we help you succeed.

Filed under: Transparency

Andy says...

NextGov reported on 9 Nov 2009, that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that “forecasts $3 billion in cost overruns on 16 major projects.”

What’s so of baffling is that these overruns occurred despite the agency’s use of earned value management.

According to Dave Powner, director of IT management issues at GAO, “Every one of the agencies had major problems in determining earned value management…as a result the agencies were unable to accurately identify the progress contractors had made on IT projects.”

These finding are expected to drive the 2009 Information Technology Oversight and Waste Prevention Act to increase oversight of IT investments.

This bill calls for “a Web site to publish information on the status of federal IT investments, similar to the Federal IT Dashboard,” but with more accurate data and with explanations on why projects are over budget.

Certainly, the use of measurements and dashboards to display and track these are helpful in understanding how we are doing in managing our IT investments—so they are on schedule, within budget, and to customer specification.

Clearly, we can only begin to better manage that which we measure and track. Our IT investments and their execution are no longer a black box or so it’s supposed to work.

However, to make these metrics and dashboard effective to improve IT execution, there are a number of critical success factors:

  1. Transparency—This is a concept that is in common use these days, and we need to continue to put it in action. All IT investments need to be measured, not just the “major” ones, and their success and failures need to be visible. The purpose must not to scrutinize or shame project managers, but to be able to genuinely guide projects to successful conclusions. This is what the control phase of capital planning and investment control is all about. We need to course correct projects early and often, if necessary, before they are billions of dollars out of control.
  2. Honesty in Reporting—Projects need to be reported accurately—no gaming the system. If the facts are sugarcoated or whitewashed, then no dashboard in the world is going to catch the problems that are misreported to begin with. Unfortunately with project management, the elements of scope, schedule, and cost can be manipulated to make it seem as if a project is okay, when it isn’t. One example is de-scoping the project to enable a delivery on schedule and on cost, even though what’s being delivered is not what was asked for or agreed upon.
  3. Skills Enhancement—With better measurement of IT investments, we need to provide more training to our project managers. We can’t just expect perfection day 1. We need to work with people and grow them to be better project managers. We can do this with training, mentoring, coaching, and so on. Remember, it’s generally the people that make the IT project a success or failure, not the technology—so let’s invest in our people to make them better project managers.
  4. Accountability—We shouldn’t be looking to exact a pound of flesh for genuine human foibles—mistakes do happen. But at the same time, people must be held accountable for fraud, waste, and abuse. Sometimes, people get complacent and they need a reminder that there are real implications to an IT project’s success or failure—mission and people are depending on you to do your job, so you had better do it responsibly and to the best of your ability.
  5. Continuous Improvement—Ever since business school, I’ve always loved the Japanese management practice of Kaizen—continuous improvement. This concept is right on the mark with our IT investment and project execution. We are not going to magically put up a dashboard and whoola—better IT projects. It’s going to be a process, a transformation over time. We need to incrementally improve our IT project success rate through learning measurement, and best practices implementation. Of course, time is money, and we need to move quickly, but we do not want to artificially create the appearance of short-term performance improvement at the expense of genuine long-term success.

All the power to IT performance measurement and dashboarding, but with the absolute commitment to not only track and measure, but also grow and improve our customer results. It’s not a gotcha that we need, but a how can we help you succeed.

Filed under: Transparency

techguerilla says...

business-puzzleSoren Gordhamer writes and consults on ways we can more creatively and effectively use the technologies of our age, including social media. He is the author of “Wisdom 2.0″ (HarperOne, 2009). You can follow him on Twitter at @SorenG.

Social media is helping to forge a new era in business transparency and engagement, creating both new challenges and opportunities. Gone are the days when companies could rely on carefully crafted press releases or flashy ad campaigns to communicate with their customers, often in an attempt to convince people that their products are the best in the field. In the age of social media, the rules have changed radically, and people today demand a more honest and direct relationship with the companies with which they do business.

Companies now face a clear choice: wall themselves in and become increasingly controlled and hidden, or use social media and other means to reveal their human side, welcome transparency, and forge new relationships with their customers. The old game is undoubtedly over, and the question now is, “what can businesses do to transition and succeed in this new era?”

Below are the top four broad shifts that social media is causing in business. Please feel free to share any others you have observed in the comments.

1. From “Trying to Sell” to “Making Connections”

In order to change the context of customer relationships from trying to sell to seeking to engage and connect with customers, companies need to use various means, including sites like Facebook (Facebook

) and Twitter (Twitter

), to socially interact with people. The most popular brands in social media tend to post less about their products or services and more about things that help their customers get to know the people and personality of a company. Their goal is less about “selling” and more “engaging” — and, as a result, through such engagement people feel more comfortable doing business with those companies.

timberland

Jeff Swartz, who is the President and CEO of the Timberland Company, is a great example of this. Swartz uses his Twitter account to show his personality by tweeting about his life and the social issues he is passionate about, rather than the shoes his company makes. He also links from his Twitter bio to Timberland’s Earthkeeper project that supports environmental awareness, rather than to the company homepage, in an effort to make a connection with people around something that goes beyond just the products Timberland (timberland

) sells.

Lesson: Release fewer “official statements” and more personal ones that help you make a connection to your customers and audience.

2. From “Large Campaigns” to “Small Acts”

With sites like Facebook and Twitter, we all essentially have our own broadcasting network, and businesses are beginning to see that rather than spending millions of dollars on traditional ad campaigns, small acts can be more valuable because people will inevitably share such experiences through the social web.

In the past, if we had a very bad or very good experience with a company, it could take days or weeks to tell all of our friends and relatives about it. Today, in a matter of minutes, we can let all our friends on Facebook or followers on Twitter know about what happened. When every customer experience can be easily and widely broadcast, small issues become super important.

Loic Le Meur, CEO of startup software company Seesmic (Seesmic

), once told me that one of the most important jobs of a CEO today is to hear what people are saying about the company’s product across social media channels, and to respond to them directly. In fact, much of his Twitter stream is @replies to people commenting on his company’s product.

southwest

Bigger companies, such as Southwest Airlines and Comcast are using Twitter in the same way, making sure customers’ concerns are addressed. Because bad experiences are broadcast just as fast and just as easily as the good, it pays for companies to pay attention to the one-on-one customer relationships forged via social media.

Lesson: Instead of only relying on big campaigns, make authentic, helpful relationships and communication the new campaign.

3. From “Controlling Our Image” to “Being Ourselves”

Of course companies need to have employee policies, and there is such a thing as bad press, but look at the most popular companies in the era of social media, and you’ll generally find the ones that give their employees freedom to be themselves in online spaces. The goal should no longer be to create a very controlled and polished image that everyone in a company tries to reinforce, but rather to give employees the means necessary to be human beings that can put a friendly face on the corporation.

I am not sure how NBC directs the social media efforts of their employees, but in watching NBC newscaster Ann Curry (@AnnCurry) on Twitter it is clear that she is not simply trying to get people to watch her shows. Curry is someone who speaks out about women’s rights, deeply cares about justice, and likes to quote the Persian poet, Rumi — there is a person there, not a company representative, and as such, I am much more likely to pay attention when and if she does talk about any of her television shows.

adobe

John Nack, the Principal Product Manager for Photoshop at Adobe, offers another great example. Adobe is a company that smartly encourages and provides the means for their employees to blog, and anyone who reads Nack’s blog will notice that Adobe doesn’t put many restrictions on what people write about. Nack’s blog is focused almost exclusively on his area of interest — graphic design and photo manipulation — but he doesn’t post solely about Adobe products. Many of the interesting art projects and articles he links to have nothing to do with Adobe and some may even have been created using software from competing companies.

Lesson: Forget the unified company image, give staff the freedom to be themselves, and trust that the relationships that they build will help the company in the long run.

4. From “Hard to Reach” to “Available Everywhere”

To engage with customers, it is no longer enough to have an email address and customer service number on one’s website. Today, people want to interact with and engage businesses via their chosen means of communication, whether that is Twitter, Facebook, discussion forums, or a feedback site like Get Satisfaction (Get Satisfaction

).

If I want to communicate with a company, I tend to look them up on Twitter first. Knowing that I can communicate with a company on the networks upon which I am already most active makes me feel more comfortable doing business with them, because I know that if I have an issue, there is someone at the company I can communicate with through those means.

dell

Companies like Dell, for example, have fully embraced multiple channels of support. Their community site lists all the ways customers can connect with them through Twitter, Facebook, Flickr (Flickr

), YouTube (YouTube

), forums, blogs, email, and more. Dell wants people to be able to connect with them through whatever channel is most comfortable.

Lesson: Rather than expect customers to communicate through your chosen means, allow them to do so through their chosen means.

The New Business Paradigm in the Age of Social Media

In this new era of social media, companies are asked to be increasingly transparent and personal. Of course, traditional advertising and press releases will still have their place, but social sites such as Twitter and Facebook allow a whole new type of communication to take place that has previously been unknown to most businesses. Possibly more important for businesses than getting a large number of followers on social media sites, is following through on the opportunity to forge more genuine and direct connections with their customers.

Businesses who choose not to adapt to the new culture will be at an increasing disadvantage, as their customers slowly build personal relationships with their competitors. We are now in the age of open communication, engaged dialogue, and transparency, and business success may now have less to do with the size of ad budgets, but on the quality of interactions with customers.

More business resources from Mashable:

- Top 5 Business Blogging Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
- 5 Social Media Lessons Learned From Whole Foods
- 6 Must-Follow Steps for Selling in Any Economy
- 5 Easy Social Media Wins for Your Small Business
- HOW TO: Use Twitter Hashtags for Business

Image courtesy of iStockphoto (iStockphoto

), studiovision

The prevailing wisdom regarding corporate usage of social media. (see my previous article regarding risks)

Filed under: transparency

techguerilla says...

 {Disclaimer: This was written on the fly so a bit wordy, at some point I'll try and edit it down to be more concise}

      I'm a big believer in corporate transparency.  I've certainly recommended this approach to my clients often enough. "Engage with your customers", "Utilize communication forums and social media to create a real-time feedback loop", "Make your customers feel as if they are an integral part of your future, let them invest in you with more than money".  All pretty common mantras these days.  But are there risks in doing so? Can they be mitigated? Can they be recovered from?

      I experienced firsthand a situation in which a company who leads their sector essentially did everything right on the communications front, yet is currently experiencing a meltdown with their customers.  They had been knocked by their customers in the past for not putting enough focus on customer communications.  They had private customer forums, but only a small percentage of their customers used them on a regular basis as there wasn't much presence from the company itself on them.  This is to be expected when the product is rock solid and everyone is happy for the most part.

      The companies product is a hosted eCommerce platform.  They had always used the hosting provider Rackspace as the infrastructure for hosting their product.  Rackspace is well known in the industry as the leader in their space, they are also known for charging a premium for their services.  Several months ago this eCommerce company decided that they could build their own data centers and manage the hosting themselves.  By doing so they would save money and be able to make a higher margin on their sales as well as giving part of that back to their customers in the form of less expensive services.  This move was not communicated to their customers, all the customers knew was that they received marketing communications stating that certain services were now going to be less expensive.  If everything had gone smoothly, this would have been the end of the story and customers would have been satisfied.

      At the same time as this was going on, the company decided to take action on the complaints they had received regarding communications and transparency.  They established a stronger, more open presence on their forums.  They established a twitter account and used it actively.  They hired a C level executive (from Rackspace no less) whose sole focus was the customer relationship.

      Unfortunately, just as this new executive arrived issues began occuring with the systems.  There was a long outage.  It was just before the holiday buying season so naturally this made customers nervous.  As there was now a forum to communicate in, where an actual executive on the other end was accessible, customers started asking questions about the outage.  This is when it came out that the move from Rackspace to their own data centers had occured.  This incensed quite a number of customers, because many of them had purchased their product due to the Rackspace brand and its perceived stability/reliability.  Regardless, most customers were heartened to hear actual honest feedback from someone inside the company who truly wanted to help.  And they were assured that the issue was one which could have occured in any environment, including Rackspace, and had nothing to do with that transition.  During the outage period many customers began communicating with this companies twitter presence as well to get updates.  These customers were also pleased to find they had expanded communication options.

      If it had ended here, these issues would have ended up being a positive marketing spin for the company.  "Yes, we had a problem, and look how we dealt with it".  If anything it would have boosted the confidence of their customers that they were dealing with a responsive vendor.

      The problem is that a few more outages occured.  In the meantime, what once was a platform for asking questions of the company, had become a platform for their customers to find each other.  Where before a customer may have thought that they had an isolated problem, they were now able to see all of these other fellow customers complaining and realize that the scale of the problem was much, much larger.  This in turn lead to a panic and a mob mentality with hundreds of customers joining together to simply complain or point fingers vs. trying to communicate with the company.  Because this huge customer base could now access and communicate with each other they were able to remove any control the company had over the messaging.  No opportunity to "spin", no opportunity to mitigate.  Customers were actively speaking with one another about competitive products to try, ways to migrate away from this company, etc. They were now "following" each other on twitter and searching for other mentions of the company on twitter so that they could participate in any discussions.  They were also establishing and meeting in offsite chat rooms to vent frustrations about the company.
      Things to note: Not once did the company try and purposefully mislead during these communications, they personalized the problem and provided as much transparency into the issues as one could hope for.  They owned their mistakes for the most part, and acknowledged any criticisms when they were correct.  In short, from a communications standpoint they did everything right.  This discussion is not about whether there were mistakes made in the transition from Rackspace to their own data center, or any other internal mistakes.  Of course there were mistakes of some type made or there wouldn't have been an issue.  The point of this discussion is to examine the fact that had they *not* chosen to provide such access and transparency to their customers this issue would have been a relatively minor one.  It is precisely because they chose to "do the right thing" in regards to providing social platforms of communication to their customers that the issue has spun out of their control.

      This is not a discussion of right or wrong.  Whether a company should try and hide its mistakes, etc.  Those are irrelevant to the dialog.  It's to try and determine whether the levels of exposure these communication platforms can create are truly understood and planned for.

  1. Do companies and/or their consultants realize the additional pressures/risks these communication platforms place on them?
  2. If you're a consultant do you advise your clients of these potentialities?
  3. What can you do to mitigate the risks (outside of performing perfectly)
  4. Are you exposing your customer base to be directly accessed and picked off by competitors when using these public platforms?
  5. Is there a point in which shutting down those communications (in areas you control) would be better than the negative reaction such a shutdown would create?
  6. Is the "groupthink" nature of social media always a good thing?
  7. Obviously some industries are more exposed than others to these types of situations.  Are there others you can think of?
Talk amongst yourselves...

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

Filed under: transparency