The Canard of Control

Canard, not as in duck, but as a "false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report or rumor."

Previously, I wrote about three of blogging's dirty little secrets. I continue to hear people say that businesses wanting to enter the social media and blogging space have to "give up control."

Of course, the social media evolution/blogging requires corporations to engage in very meaningful and human ways; to listen, to learn and to converse. This is a fundamental change from the mass media era.

Indeed, this new era may in fact be revolutionary for creating amazing new ways and opportunities to further realize what Michael Dell recently talked about: "joining the conversation and speak directly and candidly with our customers. The more we engage, the more we learn and the better we can do for our customers."

When has that not been the case for business and the basis of relationships with customers?

This issue of control continues to be a red herring. It creates false fears and false assumptions. Companies didn't have control to start with. To suggest that business entering this space must give up something (especially the alleged concept of control) when they did not have it to start with puts a false sense of security into maintaining the status quo, while also scaring people (read businesses) into complacency and maintaining a false condition of security that does not exist anyway.

And, much as "practices" by business might have been used to give some illusory sense of control, the fact is a brand cannot be controlled. What business had the control to move its brand from X to A, from Pink to Yellow or from ugly to pretty.

In a similar vein, corporate reputations are not controlled either. Again quoting Michael Dell in his recent interview with Shel Israel "We don't own our reputation we just own our actions. That's something our customers give to us in return for us exceeding their expectations."

Check these definitions out...as further demonstration that philosophically "control" does not exist. This issue of control is a false security, predicated on leaving something behind that did not exist. People or businesses need not leave behind "control" in order to enter the field of social media. They need simply to want to more actively engae with their customers.

Look at what Wikipedia says about "free markets":

"A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party.[1] In the aggregate, the effect of these decisions en masse is described by the natural law of supply and demand. Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, distorting market signals.[2] In the marketplace the price of a good or service helps to quantify its value to consumers and thus balance it against other goods and services. In a free market, this relationship between price and value is more clear than in a controlled market. Through competition between vendors for the provision of products and services, prices tend to decrease, and quality tends to increase."

Or check this out. Wikipedia says this about brands and how the customers were are are in charge:

"By the 1940s, Mildred Pierce manufacturers recognized how customers were
developing relationships with their brands in the social, psychological, and anthropological senses. From that, manufacturers quickly learned to associate other kinds of brand values, such as youthfulness, fun, and luxury, with their products. Thus began the practice of 'branding', wherein the customer buys the brand rather than the product. This trend arose in the 1980s 'brand equity mania'.[8] In 1988, Phillip Morris bought Kraft for six times its paper worth. It is believed the purchase was made because the Phillip Morris company actually wanted the Kraft brand rather than the company and its products."

My suggestion? Control and issues of power are canards. Lets move the dialogue on.

Lets talk about participation and engagement; listening and learning together. It is here where the dialogue is fruitful, productive, hopeful. It is here that it is real and it matters.