I just saw this over on the BrandToBeDetermined blog — that Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson are talking about are bloggers an authoritative source at big companies? Turns out the answer, at least here at Microsoft, is "maybe." (They asked our PR department and I got involved in the conversation internally that happened).
- Executives like Ray Ozzie who blog? Absolutely. Any executive is almost always on the record for the company.
- Team blogs like the IE team blog or the Xbox team blog? Yes with an asterisk, because what goes on those blogs is usually vetted by other people on the team and they discuss it (which explains why those blogs are generally a bit more reserved than individual blogs. I put an asterisk there because some teams might not require pre-vetting, but up to today team blogs are generally good sources of information on those products).
- Individual bloggers like me? Depends (the PR team says to always call and verify facts, just to be safe). For me, it depends what I'm writing about and the tone I'm taking in my writing. If it's about the team I'm on (which does On10.net and Channel 9) and I say something you can assume I'm pretty authoritative and the facts I'm giving you are pretty accurate. If I interview, say, the head of the Internet Explorer team or Bill Gates or someone else, you can be pretty sure that's an authoritative piece of content that reflects the company's opinion pretty well. But most of the other writings I do? I'm not vetted. I don't check with others before I write my opinions. So, you should "fact check my a**" as they say around the blogosphere. On the other hand, I am on the record and you can quote me in press and blogs and other stuff (and I often do). If I say something about Microsoft I work very hard to make sure it's accurate (and if it isn't, you see that within minutes as my readers jump on me in my comments which are open and unmoderated).
That said, if you're a journalist writing a story it's best to check in with our PR teams (if you don't know how to get ahold of them, see the "Press" link on the right side of my blog, or drop me a line and I'll get you with them). They will be happy to give you the "official" story as well as they know who the official spokespeople are from each team and can put you in touch with them.
I do expect blogs to be used to get both the official and unofficial story out about things, just as the Security Team is communicating about Internet Explorer fixes on its blog.
This came up a few times in speeches today. Many PR departments are really struggling with this. They don't like the fact that employees at the edge of a company can get quoted in news media. This is a grand experiment that still is playing out in corporate America today.
What do you think?
like it or not, corporations would do well to have policies around blogging for their employees. Perception is reality in the blogosphere. Whether accurate or not, you are a blogger representing Microsoft. The world knøws that. Even if you way this is “your personal blog”, no one believes that. So, you have a responsibility to the company and its shareholders to look out for the best interests of the company.
Corporations should be concerned about the maturity and wisdom of the low level employee blogging as a representative of the company. Will that employee inadvertently share inside information (Sarbanes Oxley risks)? corporate secrets? private customer information? In short, “corporate bloggers”, unless vetted, but a company at potential risk with every post they make. In essence, companies can likely be held liable for comments made by employess on a blog that are harmful. Once it’s out there the damage is done to the corp and no amount of “oops! I was mistaken” or PR firm damage control can clean up the damage. It’s a fine balancing act to get the transparancy benefits blogging allows, while still keeping the corporation protected.
like it or not, corporations would do well to have policies around blogging for their employees. Perception is reality in the blogosphere. Whether accurate or not, you are a blogger representing Microsoft. The world knøws that. Even if you way this is “your personal blog”, no one believes that. So, you have a responsibility to the company and its shareholders to look out for the best interests of the company.
Corporations should be concerned about the maturity and wisdom of the low level employee blogging as a representative of the company. Will that employee inadvertently share inside information (Sarbanes Oxley risks)? corporate secrets? private customer information? In short, “corporate bloggers”, unless vetted, but a company at potential risk with every post they make. In essence, companies can likely be held liable for comments made by employess on a blog that are harmful. Once it’s out there the damage is done to the corp and no amount of “oops! I was mistaken” or PR firm damage control can clean up the damage. It’s a fine balancing act to get the transparancy benefits blogging allows, while still keeping the corporation protected.
>So, you have a responsibility to the company and its shareholders to look out for the best interests of the company.
I totally agree.
We have a policy here called “be smart.”
That means doing the right thing on all of the above.
By the way, I can get a company in just as much trouble on all these issues outside of my blog as well. I’ve seen people get fired at other companies for what they say at parties, for instance.
>So, you have a responsibility to the company and its shareholders to look out for the best interests of the company.
I totally agree.
We have a policy here called “be smart.”
That means doing the right thing on all of the above.
By the way, I can get a company in just as much trouble on all these issues outside of my blog as well. I’ve seen people get fired at other companies for what they say at parties, for instance.
Glad to see you finally getting round to answering my dumb question to youon Sunday.
Bloggers can be credible authorities on topics within their realm of expertise and responsibility. They can add credibility and context to the official line, even when they disagree publicly with it.
However, unless it is their role due to their title, bloggers cannot be official spokespeople for their organizations as a whole.
Glad to see you finally getting round to answering my dumb question to youon Sunday.
Bloggers can be credible authorities on topics within their realm of expertise and responsibility. They can add credibility and context to the official line, even when they disagree publicly with it.
However, unless it is their role due to their title, bloggers cannot be official spokespeople for their organizations as a whole.
I think you are too defensive. You provide value that is recognized by the company you work for. All else is ephemeral.
Your response on minimsft is part of the impetus of this comment.
I think you are too defensive. You provide value that is recognized by the company you work for. All else is ephemeral.
Your response on minimsft is part of the impetus of this comment.
Jack: I hear ya. When I'm attacked I do tend to get my feathers up. Might not be a nice sight, but it's me. Raw. That's what you get here at 11:23 p.m.
If someone walked into my house and said "you don't deserve your paycheck" I'd be defensive. I don't know how else to be. Other people might get offensive and pop the person in the nose. That's not my style, and anyway, that leads to other problems.
Jack: I hear ya. When I'm attacked I do tend to get my feathers up. Might not be a nice sight, but it's me. Raw. That's what you get here at 11:23 p.m.
If someone walked into my house and said "you don't deserve your paycheck" I'd be defensive. I don't know how else to be. Other people might get offensive and pop the person in the nose. That's not my style, and anyway, that leads to other problems.
Robert,
I think too many people have been overassessing the impact of you getting angry in your blog. People who read your blog understand you’re a person, and I don’t think any show of emotion causes Microsoft crash to dive. You don’t need to be a stuffed suit.
Robert,
I think too many people have been overassessing the impact of you getting angry in your blog. People who read your blog understand you’re a person, and I don’t think any show of emotion causes Microsoft crash to dive. You don’t need to be a stuffed suit.
Brian: whew. I couldn’t handle being just a suit that couldn’t be human.
Brian: whew. I couldn’t handle being just a suit that couldn’t be human.
err i meant microsoft stock to dive:) But i guess that was clear enough.
I’m annoyed by people who have been picking on you
err i meant microsoft stock to dive:) But i guess that was clear enough.
I’m annoyed by people who have been picking on you
One of the biggest issues is identity, after all I could claim to be Bill Gates in a personal blog. If I build a blog over a period of time then I could possibly become an influencer without any authority!
One of the biggest issues is identity, after all I could claim to be Bill Gates in a personal blog. If I build a blog over a period of time then I could possibly become an influencer without any authority!
you are an authoritative source for microsoft. your authoritiy comes through content, traffic, audience. it’s interesting for us europeans to see this experiment going live in the u.s., where releases are almost written by legal rather than pr. and now you go live as a very important speaker for microsoft – and you are not being controlled at all. and yes: this is a microsoft blog. but the strategy is defined by yourself. and you are getting a lot of personal branding value out of it, isn’t it? very interesting combination of personal and corporate marketing intermixed. new potential. new risks (for both parties).
you are an authoritative source for microsoft. your authoritiy comes through content, traffic, audience. it’s interesting for us europeans to see this experiment going live in the u.s., where releases are almost written by legal rather than pr. and now you go live as a very important speaker for microsoft – and you are not being controlled at all. and yes: this is a microsoft blog. but the strategy is defined by yourself. and you are getting a lot of personal branding value out of it, isn’t it? very interesting combination of personal and corporate marketing intermixed. new potential. new risks (for both parties).
Robert, I still don’t really understand what it is at Microsoft that you can provide official comment about.
When you reply to accusations made in the media on your blog, do you speak on behalf of the the entire company?
Robert, I still don’t really understand what it is at Microsoft that you can provide official comment about.
When you reply to accusations made in the media on your blog, do you speak on behalf of the the entire company?
Instead of fighting the phenomenon, a smart PR team would help the bloggers handle this new role. Give them some communications training. Not command/control training with approved corporate speak and message points. Simple training on how to get your point across and not get tricked into revealing more than you intended. It would help the bloggers better handle their quasi-public roles, and be a lot better for the company than trying to clamp down/control everything.
Instead of fighting the phenomenon, a smart PR team would help the bloggers handle this new role. Give them some communications training. Not command/control training with approved corporate speak and message points. Simple training on how to get your point across and not get tricked into revealing more than you intended. It would help the bloggers better handle their quasi-public roles, and be a lot better for the company than trying to clamp down/control everything.
No doubt, fact check anyone’s ass. However, Robert, you make the invite in this entry but other entries (in the recent past even!) when you’re questioned and people actually do fact-check your ass, you get a little… how shall we say… crotchety?
No doubt, fact check anyone’s ass. However, Robert, you make the invite in this entry but other entries (in the recent past even!) when you’re questioned and people actually do fact-check your ass, you get a little… how shall we say… crotchety?
[...] However I’m breaking my own rule and call him out on his bullshit. In an entry talking about authoritativeness of corporate bloggers, Scoble invites people to “fact check his ass”: If I interview, say, the head of the Internet Explorer team or Bill Gates or someone else, you can be pretty sure that’s an authoritative piece of content that reflects the company’s opinion pretty well. But most of the other writings I do? I’m not vetted. I don’t check with others before I write my opinions. So, you should “fact check my a**” as they say around the blogosphere. On the other hand, I am on the record and you can quote me in press and blogs and other stuff (and I often do). If I say something about Microsoft I work very hard to make sure it’s accurate (and if it isn’t, you see that within minutes as my readers jump on me in my comments which are open and unmoderated). [...]
[...] Update: Subsequently, more discussion has been focused on the role of bloggers in the disclosure of public company information. Microsoft has been trying to figure out who can and should say what and when — see Are bloggers authoritative sources at big companies? [...]
Aaron: name one time that you called our PR departments and they didn’t agree with what I wrote?
Dominic: my blog is not vetted, approved, checked, edited or otherwise controlled by anyone but myself. So, no, I’m not speaking for the company if you want “the company’s” point of view.
Now, the Xbox team blog (which also called that “60% rewrite story” horsefeathers) +IS+ an official source of news. It was vetted, approved, checked before it was published.
Also, when I quote Frank Shaw, he +IS+ an official source of news from Microsoft (he is one of our top spokespersons). I quote him very accurately. So, anytime you see him quoted here, you can assume that that is an official company reaction. Same as if I quote Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer or Ray Ozzie.
Several official sources now have said that that story is false now. If you need more, I’d be happy to get you in touch with our PR folks.
Aaron: name one time that you called our PR departments and they didn’t agree with what I wrote?
Dominic: my blog is not vetted, approved, checked, edited or otherwise controlled by anyone but myself. So, no, I’m not speaking for the company if you want “the company’s” point of view.
Now, the Xbox team blog (which also called that “60% rewrite story” horsefeathers) +IS+ an official source of news. It was vetted, approved, checked before it was published.
Also, when I quote Frank Shaw, he +IS+ an official source of news from Microsoft (he is one of our top spokespersons). I quote him very accurately. So, anytime you see him quoted here, you can assume that that is an official company reaction. Same as if I quote Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer or Ray Ozzie.
Several official sources now have said that that story is false now. If you need more, I’d be happy to get you in touch with our PR folks.
Dominic: >Robert, I still don’t really understand what it is at Microsoft that you can provide official comment about.
I can pass along official information. I can comment on that. I can give my personal opinion. I can go and videotape someone and give you their opinion (which becomes an official statement if it’s on Channel 9 because it’s checked/vetted before being released).
If I quote someone, like Bill Gates, you can assume that’s accurate cause if I misquote my bosses chances are I won’t last too long around here.
Dominic: >Robert, I still don’t really understand what it is at Microsoft that you can provide official comment about.
I can pass along official information. I can comment on that. I can give my personal opinion. I can go and videotape someone and give you their opinion (which becomes an official statement if it’s on Channel 9 because it’s checked/vetted before being released).
If I quote someone, like Bill Gates, you can assume that’s accurate cause if I misquote my bosses chances are I won’t last too long around here.
Bloggers can indeed be authoritative sources, or they can be fuzzy-microfiber Marketing Evangelists sing-songing and playing bad-audio shaky-cam games all the live day long. The ‘blog’ itself conveys no additional authority. The message is the message, not the medium. The blog is but html reworked into a de-evolutionary affordable CRM cycle for the masses. Having a blog means you have a blog, no additional authority is granted whatsover.
Or in legalese…
The blogger hereby waives, all other conditions, representations, and warranties, express or implied by usage, custom of the trade, statute or otherwise, including without limitation, the implied warranties of authority accrual or merchantability for any particular purpose.
Bloggers can indeed be authoritative sources, or they can be fuzzy-microfiber Marketing Evangelists sing-songing and playing bad-audio shaky-cam games all the live day long. The ‘blog’ itself conveys no additional authority. The message is the message, not the medium. The blog is but html reworked into a de-evolutionary affordable CRM cycle for the masses. Having a blog means you have a blog, no additional authority is granted whatsover.
Or in legalese…
The blogger hereby waives, all other conditions, representations, and warranties, express or implied by usage, custom of the trade, statute or otherwise, including without limitation, the implied warranties of authority accrual or merchantability for any particular purpose.
Robert, thanks for the clarification. It is clear, clear, clear.
I hate to say it, but the media is part of the problem here. There were some “media” that quoted you and then turned it into “Microsoft” denied the report.
They should have been specific. They should have said things like this:
“Robert Scoble, a prominent Microsoft employee with the title “technical evangelist,” said he had spoken with the company’s PR firm who told him that it wasn’t true.”
Or “A member of Microsoft’s Xbox team, in a blog post, denied that anyone was moving from the team to work on Vista.”
Or “Frank Shaw, a Vice President at Microsoft’s PR firm Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, denied the report had any basis in fact. “It’s all rubbish,” he said.”
You see how if we properly attribute sources, it helps people to judge the authority of who is making the statement.
Taken together, the different sources add up to a stronger denial than the official company comment or one blogger’s personal views alone.
The problem with the Vista-SmartHouse debacle was that there wasn’t an official company comment that people could point to.
Live and learn.
Robert, thanks for the clarification. It is clear, clear, clear.
I hate to say it, but the media is part of the problem here. There were some “media” that quoted you and then turned it into “Microsoft” denied the report.
They should have been specific. They should have said things like this:
“Robert Scoble, a prominent Microsoft employee with the title “technical evangelist,” said he had spoken with the company’s PR firm who told him that it wasn’t true.”
Or “A member of Microsoft’s Xbox team, in a blog post, denied that anyone was moving from the team to work on Vista.”
Or “Frank Shaw, a Vice President at Microsoft’s PR firm Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, denied the report had any basis in fact. “It’s all rubbish,” he said.”
You see how if we properly attribute sources, it helps people to judge the authority of who is making the statement.
Taken together, the different sources add up to a stronger denial than the official company comment or one blogger’s personal views alone.
The problem with the Vista-SmartHouse debacle was that there wasn’t an official company comment that people could point to.
Live and learn.
That’s not the way the journalism world works. If a journalist comes up to you at a party, identifies him/herself and says I’m working on a story, then everything you say from that point on is on the record and can be used.
It’s why most companies forbid their employees from speaking to the press.
Blogging changes all that cause I’m speaking to the press every day (and you, and my mom, and Maryam, and etc). I’m always on the record as a Microsoft employee. Which really freaks PR people out. (I’ve been quoted in dozens (maybe even hundreds now) of newspaper articles, many of which I never was contacted for).
That’s not the way the journalism world works. If a journalist comes up to you at a party, identifies him/herself and says I’m working on a story, then everything you say from that point on is on the record and can be used.
It’s why most companies forbid their employees from speaking to the press.
Blogging changes all that cause I’m speaking to the press every day (and you, and my mom, and Maryam, and etc). I’m always on the record as a Microsoft employee. Which really freaks PR people out. (I’ve been quoted in dozens (maybe even hundreds now) of newspaper articles, many of which I never was contacted for).
Yes, you are on the record, but on the record as “Robert Scoble, a prominent Microsoft employee with the title “technical evangelist.
You are not on the record as “Microsoft.”
Right?
Yes, you are on the record, but on the record as “Robert Scoble, a prominent Microsoft employee with the title “technical evangelist.
You are not on the record as “Microsoft.”
Right?
Robert,
Maybe you and all other corporate bloggers need some kind of statement on their blogs which says something like
How to quote from this blog in media articles.
This could give some clear language on how comments should be attributed in news articles.
I see you have something on media interviews, but that’s not the same as reporters quoting something from your blog.
Robert,
Maybe you and all other corporate bloggers need some kind of statement on their blogs which says something like
How to quote from this blog in media articles.
This could give some clear language on how comments should be attributed in news articles.
I see you have something on media interviews, but that’s not the same as reporters quoting something from your blog.
Isn’t part of the problem that readers sometime take opinion as fact? And bloggers don’t necessarily make clear whether what they are saying is opinion or fact? Robert, you said: I “don’t check with others before I write my opinions.” Why would you as long as it’s clear that you are expressing an opinion? As far as “sources” go, I think they are also being confused with the “channel”. I’m just not sure if the bloggers aren’t part of the problem; commenting on things that aren’t in their purview, stating opinions as fact. Blogging as a medium is very generous with credibility so if a blogger says it, many people are going to assume it’s fact (rather than opinion), especially if it’s a well-known blogger. I think it’s the blogger’s responsibility to distinguish between them. It’s tempting to adopt the role of “know-it-all” and it’s also tempting to write it off as “bad media”, but at the same time, don’t you think the bloggers can be more careful about what they are stating as opinion and fact?
Of course, this is just my opinion ; )
Isn’t part of the problem that readers sometime take opinion as fact? And bloggers don’t necessarily make clear whether what they are saying is opinion or fact? Robert, you said: I “don’t check with others before I write my opinions.” Why would you as long as it’s clear that you are expressing an opinion? As far as “sources” go, I think they are also being confused with the “channel”. I’m just not sure if the bloggers aren’t part of the problem; commenting on things that aren’t in their purview, stating opinions as fact. Blogging as a medium is very generous with credibility so if a blogger says it, many people are going to assume it’s fact (rather than opinion), especially if it’s a well-known blogger. I think it’s the blogger’s responsibility to distinguish between them. It’s tempting to adopt the role of “know-it-all” and it’s also tempting to write it off as “bad media”, but at the same time, don’t you think the bloggers can be more careful about what they are stating as opinion and fact?
Of course, this is just my opinion ; )
Heather,
Abosolutely, boggers should be more careful. There is a self-regulating mechanism through comments, but still more care would help.
Robert,
I’ve posted a response to your comment about Xbox blog being the official source of the denial on the “Vista 60% rewrite.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Can we get an authoritative source to join us on this. Like someone from PR?
Heather,
Abosolutely, boggers should be more careful. There is a self-regulating mechanism through comments, but still more care would help.
Robert,
I’ve posted a response to your comment about Xbox blog being the official source of the denial on the “Vista 60% rewrite.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Can we get an authoritative source to join us on this. Like someone from PR?
Looks like Dominic is the new Christopher. Or maybe Christopher has multiple personalities (or IP addresses, at least). Man I gotta quit reading blog comments.
Looks like Dominic is the new Christopher. Or maybe Christopher has multiple personalities (or IP addresses, at least). Man I gotta quit reading blog comments.
Wow Dominic is still beating the 60% re-write dead horse. Think of how much time would have been saved if Dominic had realized that the 60% story was horseshit on reading it and thus not needing confirmation or disavowal. Oh and comparing Dominic to Christopher doesn’t work as Christopher isn’t a one note bore.
Wow Dominic is still beating the 60% re-write dead horse. Think of how much time would have been saved if Dominic had realized that the 60% story was horseshit on reading it and thus not needing confirmation or disavowal. Oh and comparing Dominic to Christopher doesn’t work as Christopher isn’t a one note bore.