Who should own social media?
Mitch Joel’s item on “ownership” of social media has generated some interesting comments. Joel, of “Six Pixels of Separation” fame, suggests digital marketing agencies should “own” organizations’ social media efforts:
I think it’s Digital Marketing agencies who need to step up and own the Social Media marketing landscape. Agencies who are primed in the interactive marketing space start off with a core understanding of how people connect online, and how different users interact within online communities. Traditional advertising firms constantly struggle with how to add interactive into the mix. The fact that this still happens in the Marketing world makes me squirm. Interactive is still an after-thought to many agencies. Public Relations firms have the communications and conversations component down, but (usually) lack in the Web development department in terms of producing and marketing the initiative.
The ensuing comments (including several replies from Mitch) raise a variety of issues. Mitch points out, for example, that he’s not talking about how a company department uses social media to achieve its goals, but rather who in the organization will make decisions about platforms, policies, and other tactical aspects of social media.
Even with this explanation, I’m troubled by the “ownership” issue. Few of the clients with whom I’ve worked engage a digital marketing agency. They wouldn’t be inclined to start working with one just so they can abdicate ownership of their social media activities to an outside organization. Even those organizations that have turned “ownership” over to a PR, marketing, advertising or some other kind of vendor have, I think, made a mistake. Nobody can develop an organization’s approach to social media better than the people inside the organization. Vendors can provide tremendous, invaluable advice, but ultimately, it’s the company that must be accountable for its own participation in the conversation.
Intranets provide a nice analogy: Who should own the company’s intranet? In many organizations, it’s the IT department. In others, it’s Employee Communications. A smattering of other departments own the intranet in some other companies. But, according to research conducted a few years back by Melcrum, the most effective intranets were those governed by a cross-functional team…that is, the company owned the intranet with representatives from across the spectrum of content owners guiding its evolution.
A cross-functional social media team isn’t a bad idea for companies. I know of one large organization in which Knowledge Management has assumed ownership of social media. But this has only delayed the use of social media tools by departments who have other goals in mind (e.g., project management, communication). In the cross-functdional model, task forces can be assigned specific work. For example, the IT task force can do the homework on appropriate platforms, then report back to the team for a decision made in the best interests of the organization. That’s a lot better than a decision that satisfies the MBOs of a single department.
Ultimately, though, how a company engages in social media should be part of something larger: how a company manages its reputation. I fully support the idea of a Chief Reputation Officer, an idea first put forward (as far as I know) by Charles Fombrun in his excellent book, “Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image.” Here’s how Fombrun explains it:
Much as companies appoint a chief financial officer to safeguard financial capital, a chief operating officer to monitor operations, and a chief information officer to control and manipulate corporate databases, so might they benefit from appointing a chief reputation officer (CRO) to watch over the company’s intangible assets. As PR consultant Alan Towers suggests:
“The CRO’s tactical responsibilities would include oversight of pricing, advertising, quality, environmental compliance, investor relations, public affairs, corporate contributions, and employee, customer and media relations Rather than litterally do each of these jobs, the CRO would act as a corporate guide, working with specialists in each area to help them see the reputation consequences of their decisions. If necessary, the CRO could impose an opinion…”
With or without the title, sucha position would help to signal the importance and make explicit the hidden value of the company’s reputation. It would also encourage other managers to more systematically relate knowledge drawn from brand marketing, public relations organizational theory and strategic management.
The book was written in 1996, long before social media—or the Internet at all—had an impact on reputation. It’s still a sound idea and easy enough to drop social media into the list of the CRO’s tactical responsibilities.
With or without a CRO, though, the accountability for a company’s social media belongs inside the organization.
11/21/07 | 9 Comments | Who should own social media?