Comments on: Who Owns Social Media? No-one Does

By: Michael Schechter

Michael Schechter — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:15:50 +0000

Totally agree with everything you are saying, but I think Rachel makes an essential point that while everyone needs to be involved and have ownership. Someone or a small team to coordinate the efforts.

The other problem is smaller organizations where those departments don't even want to be a part of the SM efforts, none the less own it.

By: johnhaydon

johnhaydon — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:03:22 +0000

Got it.

By: Rachel Levy

Rachel Levy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:13:37 +0000

Possibly. It will depend on how the company is run. When I worked at Kraft,
Sales and Customer Service basically had a dotted line into Marketing, as
Marketing was considered the brand owner. Not every company is like that
though.

By: Danny Brown

Danny Brown — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:03:58 +0000

Definitely John, and that's one of the first things to make sure you get right – be a people strategist company first and foremost and then start from there.

By: Danny Brown

Danny Brown — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:02:17 +0000

For sure, Rachel – there definitely needs to be some form of guidance otherwise it could soon fall into the crazy pit!

Having said that, if it's down to the “outward facing reputation of the company”, you could point at external sales, or customer service, who're both visible to the incoming consumer. Marketing and PR are strong contenders, but I'm not sure either should be leading the process – an amalgamation of core reputation faces/sectors instead, perhaps?

By: Rachel Levy

Rachel Levy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:38:30 +0000

I agree completely. As long as we don't confuse “own” with “lead.” I do think someone has to LEAD social media. And, being that it concerns the outward facing reputation of the company, I do think the Marketing or PR would be best to lead the process. You?

By: johnhaydon

johnhaydon — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:21:45 +0000

Danny – Human Resources owns a part of social media as well. If create an environment that produces happy, empowered employees (like at Zappos or Netflix), they'll be saying good things about the company on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

By: Danny Brown

Danny Brown — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:58:28 +0000

Hey there Joe,

Nice analogy between politics and social media – I guess when any platform becomes “mainstream” there are going to be those who feel it's “their baby”. Which seems to go against the whole “being social” mantra…

Initializing a social policy is one of the key areas that so many businesses fail on (and, to be fair, a few consultants seem to skip over…). Sure, the platform is ope (and don't try and restrict it), but there still needs to be a proactive uniformed message along with the open one.

By: Joe Hafner

Joe Hafner — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:52:49 +0000

Hey Danny – good post and an interesting discussion.

Your post headline caught my attention from a different angle. It seems like there has been an increase in the whining from social media elitists about how the social space is developing. Some very well respected social media practitioners seem to be getting overly worked up about the snake-oil peddlers attracted to the “social media guru” title. To me, that is akin to whining about corruption in politics.

More on topic with your post, I believe that governance is key to un-owning the message. Companies should provide employees with fences around the use of social tools. This allows each silo or dept to interact with the messaging as appropriate for their specific discipline. This is the approach that one of my clients is currently taking and it seems to be working. There are tweeks along the way, but to date it is coming together nicely.

By: Jamie Favreau

Jamie Favreau — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:54 +0000

I have to agree. Social Media goes over multiple platforms and some should have the part they are best at doing.