Hey, I'd like to win a free copy of your book, but I can't make sense of the Strumpette piece, either. I have no idea what author Abrams is trying to say. He repeats all your statements, and offers nothing to refute them. Sounds like someone is feeling really threatened by you (fact is, you ARE smarter than he is.)
 

Paul, in an effort to win a copy of your book, here is my explanation.

As a blogger, author, marketeer-turned-consultant myself, I can empathize. In my blog Inside System Storage, I posted (2/28/07) "Take Your Parents To Work Day" (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/
blogs/page/InsideSystemStorage) and got flak for my comment:

"The problem is not just your parents, but any of your co-workers old enough to be parents who haven't bothered to keep up with the latest advancements in Web 2.0 technology..."

I am 41 years old, and had no problem adjusting to the new social marketing order, but many of my colleagues in their 40s and 50s continue to latch on to their old ways.

So, in marketing parlance, it is not what you said, but how you said it, that I think upset Strumpette. Rather than "5 Stupid Reasons", we use the term "Frequently Stated Objections" or FSO, similar to FAQ.

As IBM often promotes new technologies there are always those who will push back, so we arm our sales team and Business Partners with FSOs for each one, guidance on how to deal with each objection.

1-We don't have time/people/money. Blogging is my day job, but spending 1-4 hours per day on it may seem extreme to others. Most of my time is spent reading other people's blogs, staying current and connected. If I have nothing to say, or no time to say it because I am busy on other things, then that is a day I skip. I feel bloggers should try to blog 1-5 entries per week.

2. ROI is unclear. Practically all Marketing can say that. I don't know how many times we tried new things, YouTube videos, Second Life, etc. In IBM we say it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission, and calculating an ROI before doing something falls under the latter of asking permission.

3. It's not our job. I have to agree that if everyone in an entire company blogs, it would be just noise. Out of IBM's 350,000 employees, about 1 percent blog. Figure out who should do it, and let them do it as part of their official responsibilities.

4. Afraid of Negativity. Before blogs, I sent out trip reports, relaying back to development the feedback I heard from customers. Some of it was positive, others negative. Our developers came unglued when I mentioned a customer didn't like a feature or function, or felt that it was not ready for prime time. You certainly have to have "alligator skin" to read the blogs of your competitors and perhaps customers that don't like their experience with your products.

5. Don't know whom to trust. All business is based on trust, or lack of it, and knowing the difference. Contracts, financial escrow, corporate policies, lawyers, etc. As with anything, trust comes from reputations and relationships more than anything else. While there have been some incidents of corporations posing as customers, or media/marketing people posing as regular citizens, IBM has strict rules against anonymity. Our blogging policy clearly states that we must identify ourselves as IBMers, even though what we write may or may not reflect the official views of our company.

So, while I have been following your blog for many months, and agree with many of your recommendations and suggestions, I think it is wrong to call anyone stupid for being cautious, who feel they need some more time to plan or prepare to participate in the blogosphere. While I realize you were saying the "reasons" were stupid, you were implying that people who hold those feelings are stupid as well, and that is what I believe Strumpette were complaining about.
 

While "Tony" offers great advice on how to be more diplomatic, I don't think that excuses the F-bomb and foul language voiced by Strumpette. You don't criticize someone for having a tone you don't like -- and respond with the kind of language Strumpette uses. It's not acceptable. And editing Paul's "five dumb reasons" to five "frequently stated objections" doesn't have the same impact. As Tony notes, Paul is saying the reasons are dumb, not the person stating them.
 

I find levering people’s emotions in order to cloud the need for a genuine business case... all for the purpose of selling a few books... FAR far far more repulsive than a few f-bombs. Sorry, but Paul’s piece in Bulldog was intellectual fraud, period. And for any editor with ANY self worth to use a PR firm’s bogus research to justify it... well that rises to shameful.

Now, add a little “smartest person in the room” arrogance on top of that. Excuse me but the Strumpette folks were being kind.

- Amanda

PS Paul, confess; sin no more.
 

I think Tony’s hit the nail right on the head, though. The points I raised in the column aren’t the issue, but rather the use of the terms “stupid” and “dumb.” I chose those terms intentionally with the hope of getting people to stop and read the column. In retrospect, I may have insulted some people in the process, and if that’s the case, I sincerely apologize. “Anonymous” makes a valid point that a headline like “Five Common Misconceptions about Social Media” wouldn’t have had the same impact. However, I should know that you never insult your audience and I probably slipped over the line on this one.

It’s ironic that Strumpette should call me out for this, since Amanda is the first person to use extreme language to attract attention. Had she explained her objections rationally, as Tony did, I would have conceded the point. But just calling someone an asshole again and again doesn’t make for a constructive conversation.

To address two other points Amanda has made: If you want the business case, read the book. There are 240+ pages of statistics and real-world stories that support everything I said in the column. Bulldog gives you about 700 words to work with, which you can use to present an idea, but not argue a thesis. I keep an ongoing list of research in this area and the statistical support for my message is all there.

Also, the idea that I or anyone else is skipping away to the bank on this topic is just wrong. My total income from the book, including royalties, paid writing and speaking fees, has been less than $20,000. That’s well under $10/hour. I could have found a lot more financially lucrative ways to spend that time. I’m talking about the topic because I believe this is the biggest revolution in publishing history and I want to share that view with others. If I make money, so be it. If not, I won’t have regretted a moment.
 

FACT is, there is no business case for your 5 assertions.

Points #1 and 2: Fact is proper participation in social media is expensive and there is NO evidence of ROI. NONE. If there were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As to Point #3, it’s dramatically WRONG. It is NOT the job of PR to go direct to an audience. PR by definition is 3rd party endorsement as vetted through mainstream media. You and others are proposing to change PR’s DNA (see http://tinyurl.com/22hfpl) without any idea of the ramifications of the change. Irresponsible. Again, the fact that your ridiculous assertions are motivated by short-term gain is reprehensible.

Point #4 is totally naïve. Do you have a background in organizational dynamics? Do you understand cultural anthropology? Forget the silly “Everything is Beautiful” assertion of wisdom of the crowds; mobs love schedenfraude. As we’d reiterated on Strumpette a thousand times, crowds love the sound of breaking glass. They love loutin’. They love hanging’. Moreover, they prefer false rumor over fact.

And lastly, your point #5: the plug for Edelman’s fake “Trust Barometer” research is crap. C’mon Paul? And you call yourself a journalist? Do you even know what “trust” is?

Lastly, “buy the book to see the real business case” is just more crap.

- Amanda
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Amanda, my dear, you're being a potty mouth. If you want to make a logical business argument, try using English instead of high school vernacular. I wish you'd wash your mouth out with soap, take a deep breath, adopt a professional tone and come back and talk. If you want to trade insults and curse some more, my husband is not one to engage in such lowly behavior.

Also, please keep in mind that 42 bloggers have written posts about Paul's book and you're the only one with really anything negative to say. Those aren't good odds in your favor.
 

Dana,

First off, who are you to judge professional tone? It is just that kind of capricious judgment that makes the “community” world you and Paul promote troublesome. For the record, I done give a damn what you think of my tone.

Secondly, again, the point that Mark made on Strumpette is that your husband does not make a case. If you know anything about debate, it is not our job to make an opposing case; it’s Paul job to prove his point exclusively. We merely showed -- definitively I might add -- that his case was flimsy.

With regard to the 42 blogger endorsement… of course! You got 42 whomevers who think they’re empowered by blogging to say that a book that agrees that they are empowered is good. Doah. Excuse me, that’s crap. There are tons of communities that believe in all sorts of stupid things. That doesn’t make them good or their beliefs viable. The reason a democracy needs an independent media is to avoid such nonsense.

- Amanda
 

"For the record, I 'don't' give a damn what you think of my tone."

Typo. Excuse me.

- Amanda
 

Thank you, Amanda, for proving why blogging software created comment moderation. We're all being civilized here except for you. I think that proves a few things about you, too, but I won't stoop to your level and start calling people names.

BTW, I'm sure if you polled 1000 CEOs and asked if the f- word was included in professional tone, the vast majority would say it doesn't belong in the workplace. Grow up.
 

Paul, I got your book today! Thank you very much!