An important, and welcome, discussion is taking place regarding the extent to which events should be publicly "blogged." Specifically, over the weekend, several bloggers have asked why the recent Nielsen BuzzMetrics
client-only "CGM Summit" wasn't open to public blogging. It's a valid
question, but the answer is simple and straightforward: our paying clients preferred that format, and this was basically their conference. The agenda, topics, and key questions all flowed from their input - even their desire to tackle issues privately. Importantly, unlike a media conference, this was a gathering of 100 representatives from client organizations who have invested significant time and resources in our services. In the end, we achieved deep and stimulating conversation, led primarily by the clients themselves, and putting their interests first was the right thing to do. When we do this again, we'll certainly exercise the feedback loop yet again
to see if a more open "for the record" forum makes sense. I'd be pretty psyched to see that happen. More commentary here from Jonathan Carson, our CEO.
Quite frankly, as the CMO of Nielsen BuzzMetrics, and a principal architect of this client-meeting, there's nothing I'd like to see more than our case studies aggressively communicated externally. But at some point basic principles of "permission marketing" must also apply to paying customers themselves. Securing permission to "go public" with anything from paying clients is a time consuming, sometimes frustrating, process. Legal review and approval can be unbearably painful, but at the end of the day you must respect client needs.
I do value the feedback, even tough love, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit squirming anytime a blogger lobs hard questions or criticism in my direction. But I and others stand by the decision.