Many thanks for featuring the video. As you rightly say this is a debate that we find ourselves in the middle of and therefore to a degree can see both sides. When we wrote the script the two elements we focussed on the most were the language around the analogy – hard to balance being cheesy against being conversational, think we didn’t too bad a job, but not completely happy – and the 5 points at the beginning. Have just looked back and it took a number of iterations (some written by me at midnight on a Sunday!) before we settled on the ones in the video – listening; being accepted by the community on their terms; providing relevant and quality content; engaging people in conversations and building relationships.

I would be interested in people’s views on whether these capture the whole or whether there are gaps? At one point in the video’s development we actually made the analogy much broader and talked about it being like moving home where you try and get to know people in your new community, with a party just being an example of one of the ways you do this. Unfortunately as a video we were concerned that as the explanation of the analogy was longer there was too much of a gap between the 5 points and the “demonstration” of the party and there was a danger that the point of video would get lost.

However I actually think that this broader analogy is probably more valid as it communicates the investment and work required for success. Moving house and getting to know the new community you live in takes time, it can’t be achieved in a just a couple of quick conversations. It is also complex and requires you to be prepared to open up and take some risks. I think it is this investment and the long term nature of good online PR that people are struggling with in particular when commercial considerations come into play. (For what it’s worth we actually do have a version of the video with this longer setup section in the middle if you or anyone else is interested. Could post it up if you were).

Anyway I am sure this conversation will last for a while longer yet!

Thanks again.
Adam

Don’t try and “enlist advocates”, engage with people. Understand that a “badvocate” (as well as all the things they could be) is probably someone who has had a bad experience with your company – so sort out the experience and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Just provide a good service in the first case!

Rather than thinking or saying “let’s enlist advocates”, say “let’s provide a good service so people will say good things about us”. Rather than say “let’s deal with badvocates”, try (a) ascertaining why they’ve got a problem with your brand and sort out that problem to their satisfaction, and, as I said, make sure it doesn’t happen again.

This is an ideology shift as much as anything.