Where My Mind has Wandered

What is an Organization's role in Wikipedia?

There are countless views on this issue, including the public statements of some of the bigger names in the PR industry. The issue elicits passionate and emotional responses. At the core of the issue is an important question: “Can an organization have a voice in Wikipedia?”

Many people are saying it is simply too hot to touch, a platform with no upside. Others are saying that Wikipedia is inherently a platform for individuals, not for organizations. If you pull back from that statement, you can reach a position that social networking is by its nature an activity only for individuals.

Where does that lead us? Can an organization have a voice in Wikipedia? Within the entry that describes it? Within the entry on its patented technology? What about an organization’s employees? Can they act on their own? Can their action be separated from their role in the organization?

I have a hard time accepting the argument that an organization cannot or should not take an active voice in such descriptions and discussions. It doesn’t make sense to me that a site like Wikipedia, which purports to seek truth by combining facts from multiple sources on a single subject, would deny the one voice closest to the issue at hand.

Many professional communicators have been in this discussion with clients, talking them off the ledge, keeping them from blowing a gasket over the nature of a Wikipedia entry, or trying to create entries for online marketing.

If you use the right analogy, this is actually old hat for the public relations profession. What do you do when a journalist shoots from the hip and plays loose and fast with the facts? You talk to the writer, and you appeal to the editor. You put the facts in front of them. The more adversarial the position, the easier it is to paint the writer as an advocate and to discredit his or her position.

I am not suggesting that organizations should use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. That runs counter to Wikipedia’s mission and would be a mistake. But I believe that an organization has an obligation to the public to challenge and correct publicly available inaccurate information. An obligation to its patients, employees, and stockholders. And this is highly visible content. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 visited Web sites globally. It is used by more and more people as an issue primer and even an alternative and/or supplement to search. The higher the visibility, the stronger the obligation to have a voice regarding the content. 

Why would that analogy not transfer to Wikipedia? If you know the rules of the game, you know you can reach out to the volunteer editors, the stewards of Wikipedia, and address the facts. This requires transparency. Individuals who edited an article on behalf of an organization must identify their role with the organization. Fortunately, the tools to guarantee transparency are built into Wikipedia itself, including editor profiles, change logs, and discussion threads.

Innovation Frustration

The statement “We want to be known as an innovator” can elicit a groan from communications professionals. My gut reaction to such a statement is typically “Well, perhaps you should do something innovative.” Of course that is not a productive answer. As painful as the task may seem, a client’s request to be known for innovation represents a golden opportunity to dig deeper into an organization’s brand and messaging.

The typical mistake is to start developing a list of organizational innovations and then to try to create a communications plan to support that hodgepodge list. Worse yet, the focus often turns to innovative ways to communicate innovation (that is, “Let’s do an innovation podcast; that will show how innovative we are!”). Instead, the place to start is to define what innovation means for the organization. That, too, can be a painful process, but you cannot build an effective and sustainable program around innovation without first defining the space. It is a lot easier to get your message through in a defined space than in a generic space.

Defining what innovation means for an organization can transform the organization. Once an organization identifies its actual or aspirational definition of innovation, the organization may need to realign parts of  its business in order to encourage and measure the innovation just defined. This process will lead to changes in internal communications to drive awareness and behavior change within the organization. Eventually the external-message platform aligns with internal reality and communications is well-grounded and naturally sustainable.

Three Social Trends Behind Social Media

Why the rise in use of social media tools and the glut in coverage? The increase in coverage is part topic pile-on, a me-to rush to what is hot. It is also part reality, the trend is real and the dialog around what it means is important.

But why the trend? Hw did we get here? And what do we need to understand to navigate in this space?

I think (I hope) the technical reasons are known. The proliferation of cheap, easy-to-use tools that rely on standards, such as RSS and tags, to work together has allowed for the explosion in user-generated content and online social networks.

But what about the social reasons? Why are people using these tools in the manner that they are? I see three trends that have been driven by the Internet and have also driven the social media trend.

Exhibitionism.

Far more people believe their personal experience and point-of-view not only should be made available to others but will be valued by others than at any time. The examples are everywhere, from “American Idol” to YouTube to Flickr. It is more than just shooting for 15 minutes of fame. People expect are growing to expect a sustained public voice. It has become part of the fabric of some people’s self image and self-worth.

Voyeurism.

This is a natural companion trend to exhibitionism. People enjoy watching the extremely personal content generated by their peers and of celebrities, public officials, and business leaders. They not only enjoy it, the feel it is their right to see it.

The Decline of Formality.

With the trends in exhibitionism and voyeurism comes a decline in formality and civility. Because people feel that their voice counts they expect direct access to others, no matter who they are. They expect dialog with elected officials, business executives, their physicians, and others in a way that we could not have imagined even 15 years ago. Bloggers write open letters to CEOs, calling them by their first name and inviting them to backyard barbeques. And that is a tame example.

With this erosion of formal distance has come an erosion in civility. Online discourse is more than just conversational and informal, at times it is shockingly uncivil. This can not be blamed solely on the ability to remain anonymous. More and more online anonymity is less feasible, and in a society that values exhibitionism it is less desirable.

These trends fuel the growth of social media and consumer generated content. They also challenge the norms of organizations, executives, public officials, and the communications professionals that advise and support them. But it is the new reality, one that requires our immersion, understanding, and counsel.

Finding Balance Between Audience Vernacular and Business Speak

I’ve spent enough time in human factors labs doing usability studies to know that writing in the customer vernacular will deliver the most successful task-based user experience.

Plain spoken text that uses the words and phrases of a typical user will outperform more formal marketing prose that is laden with benefit statements and aspirational clutter.

The best transactional sites have learned this and the digital and marketing communications professionals ignore it (all too frequently) at their own peril.

But what about communications that is not task-based? For example, B2B lead generation and pre-sale investigation versus the instant gratification of a pre-determined consumer product purchase?

This is the kind of question that is rarely asked in the lab, and I don’t have an answer that is based solely on lab-based evidence. I do have a point of view based on usability studies, anecdotal evidence, and personal experience.

I recommend a mix of language, a blend that layers simple labels for way finding above denser, more professional language.

A usability study I ran to evaluate the effectiveness of a client’s online investor and analyst relations helped to form this opinion.

We ran retail, buy-side, and sell-side professionals through three very different corporate web sites. The results were consistent across audiences. The typical labels used in financial communication made for very poor labels, particularly for way finding. Users wanted simple, clear, and plain labels and descriptions.

However, once they reached deeper content they valued more complex business ad financial vernacular. Even the retail investors were not intimidated or put-off; they trusted the content more because it was a bit complex. Please do not confuse vernacular with writing style here. I am not advocating for verbose language. The best online writing is clean and crisp and very efficient with space. Vernacular speaks more the nature of the words and phrases.

This is an important learning for non-transaction online communications, such as business to business  or corporate social responsibility. Audiences trust the business vernacular in context (within reason). They want to communicate at that level, in part because they aspire to be able to converse and that level, and in part because they distrust content that talks down to them. Business vernacular makes the reader feel like more of an insider as long as they aren’t left out in the cold through the overuse of acronyms and obscure jargon.

The recommendation seems straightforward, but execution is more difficult than you would think. I know, I’ve spent time analyzing language within a space and building bridges between plain-spoken labels and descriptions and deeper business content. It requires an investment in time and a change in business process. It also requires a client that accepts the premise and allows the business process to be put in place to put it into effect.