Who Comes First: The Client or the Blogosphere?

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.

Comments

[Meikah]

Well, c'est la vie! I guess, there are just some things you can't give freely to your customers for the sake of the company. :)

[Jim Nail]

Great answer, Pete. And the right decision. The new world is about transparency in dealing with consumers. But internal discussion, knowledge, alternative plans evaluated, etc. should not be open to public scrutiny.

[Bruce]

Embargoed Blogs? Yes, the notion of banning blogging at what amounts to a blogging summit is a bit oxymoronic. But as a corporate client who gained much from attending & participating, I found myself being more purposely intentional about sharing specific CGM strategy with other clients—some of whom were direct competitors!

And that’s kind of the rub—Many of us are in corporate-type jobs that are responsible for embracing the CGM space in a manner that benefits our companies, customers and consumers—but we’re also bound by the political and competitive nature of companies, regardless of industry. If the session were “open” to blogging (which in a perfect world, it should be), I suspect that some of us might not have received the tacit endorsement we were given by our senior corporate leaders to participate as freely as we did.

My view is that giving up a terrific opportunity to blog on a blogging event—with some of the best, most CGM-knowledgeable bloggers extolling their expertise no less—will be looked at in a matter of a few months, not years, as a small sacrifice to advance a more cognitive and passionate participation by top-tier companies in this wonderful space we call the blogosphere. And the payoff is likely to be sweeter still as organizations adopt more critically-tuned listening habits and an action-oriented approach to the multi-media spectrum of consumer driven online conversation. And that surely will be good for all of us.