Livingston

Feb
22
2008

Is GM Trying to Control the Conversation?

Is GM trying to control the conversation?

According to a recent report in PR Week, GM is holding a series of online chats with environmental critics after it faced scrutiny following the recent launch of its GMnext blog. PR Week says it will focus on topics such as corporate greenwashing and renewable fuels.

Communication executives said they shut down the comments section of the blog after it was bombarded with combative and ‘unconstructive’ comments from the environmental activist group Rainforest Action Network.

Chris Barger, GM’s director of global communications technology, says they saw many comments that didn’t contribute in a constructive way so they shut it down, while sections of the blog remained open to the public, but monitored.

PR Week says the online chats will focus on vertical topics, a recent one focused on a Hummer designer, and participants will not be permitted to stray too far from the chosen topic. The blog itself is said not to be to build GM’s reputation as environmentally friendly, but says it does give GM an opportunity to better explain itself to critics.

As far as I can tell, GM is engaging the critics, as well as the conversation. By closing public commentary, and then reopening it only to be carefully monitored, how free are the participants to really express their views? The company says it uses the blogs to shape its messaging, perhaps only if that messaging correlates with their own.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
by Michele Capots | Blogging |

6 Responses to “Is GM Trying to Control the Conversation?”

  • Peter Says:

    February 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    Actually GM has a long history of engaging with detractors as much of enthusiasts. About a year into their blogging program, they launched a private community and invited not only internal people and outspoken fans but also those people that criticized them on their various blogs. For a company GM’s size, I think they’re relatively progressive in relation to social media. I can’t imagine I would keep a forum open if it just provided a forum for non-constructive criticism of my brand. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of places to go if you want to criticize Hummers.

  • Christopher Barger Says:

    February 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am

    Hi guys. Thanks for the analysis. I just wanted to clarify the situation, since I’m not sure it’s entirely coming through in the coverage that’s out there. Participation in the consumer forums — just like commentary on our blogs has been for years — has always been moderated. That piece of the GMNext program hasn’t changed and won’t.

    Comment moderation is in place on our sites, just as many sites elsewhere in both the corporate and individual blogosphere, to prevent vulgarity, personal attacks, or off-topic or otherwise un-germaine remarks. It’s never been, for us anyway, about “controlling” the tone or nature of the conversations that occur.

    In this particular case, 1) we didn’t shut down commentary on the site, nor even on the entire green section of the site… only the comments on the user-generated content posted by the activists. 2) We didn’t remove any content — none of their photos, and none of their comments. We just closed down further comments on those photos/posts.

    3) We did so in order to facilitate better conversation. If you’re an environmentalist who is asking us direct questions and genuinely wants to engage, but there are 70 people in the room shouting everything down but their own opinions and trying to drown out anything but their own sloganeering, then how can you hear us or we you? We recognized that there was value in having conversations around the subjects being raised, but we didn’t feel that we could have a constructive conversation in the environment the activists were creating. (By “constructive,” I just mean an environment where people actually engage one another and listen to one another — even if they still agree to disagree when it’s over.) We saw no reason to “punish” people who genuinely wanted to engage just because a vocal fringe wanted to shout all sides down. So we set up the chat series based directly on the subjects that were being raised in the more thoughtful commentary.

    So to reiterate, we didn’t change our moderation policy as a result of this campaign. All we did was try to facilitate a more constructive environment to have an actual dialogue. Sorry for the long reply, but I thought it was important to explain this point.

  • Geoff Livingston Says:

    February 25th, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Thanks, Chris for making that clarification. Though, I think leaving it open and letting the conversation happen would probably have achieved a similar end. I think the activists would have looked pretty bad just by continuing their poor behavior. Also, perhaps guidance could have been given in the middle of the conversation to bring it back to civility.

    It’s GM’s turf, and the company has a right to do what it wants in its own forum. But instead of optimizing conversation, the company attracted a black eye.

  • Christopher Barger Says:

    February 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Hi Geoff… I guess I’d say, “But you even moderate comments on LivingstonBuzz.com/blog.” There’s a reason for that. If you were being attacked by people campaigning you for something you wrote, and the comments were either verbatim or full of personal attacks (which was what was happening to us), would you post them all and just let that “conversation” happen? You have reasons that you moderate… would you waive those reasons in the face of an attack?

    I know, it’s different when it’s a company vs. an individual. And I’m not trying to flog a dead horse (which I have been known to do). ;-) I’m just genuinely curious as to whether people think that companies have to leave themselves open to all manner of personal attacks or even libel in order to optimize conversation.

  • Geoff Livingston Says:

    February 25th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Yeah, I hear you. But I get called many things n this blog and I let 95% of them through. Why? Because I think it stands to make the attacker look worse than me. But, whatever works. I respect where you are coming from.

  • Geoff Livingston Says:

    March 1st, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Ironically enough, four days later I end up invoking our comment policy for just the second time in a similar situation. I guess you had a point, Chris.

Leave a Reply