A few days ago a friend who recently launched a new   business asked about the importance of creating an online presence. She’d been doing well in her local town based on word-of-mouth alone, but wanted to ramp-up her marketing efforts.  I replied, somewhat cavalierly, that if her business didn’t have an online calling card of some sort, it may as well not exist. This is not entirely true, of course, but the point I was trying to emphasize was that today’s online footprint is the equivalent of yesterday’s requisite Yellow Pages listing.

She completely understood and while eager to jump right in, was somewhat concerned about the “how.” As the founder and head of her company, she felt that she was one of its main evangelists  — and her enthusiasm for her work certainly shined through. She’d heard the terms “transparency” and “authenticity” being thrown around, and was trying to figure out how to present her personality online in such a way that it advanced her business goals. She was asking all the right questions and, as a result, she’ll be successful when her site launches.

But I wasn’t entirely surprised that she was struggling with striking the right balance between online sharing and not revealing too much — even some social media and communications professionals frequently confuse authenticity and transparency with letting it all hang out online. No wonder clients are confused!

No, I’m not going to provide links to questionable online behavior – calling people out publicly is not my style (although it does seem to be an unofficial sport among some members of the online community, who take enjoyment in other people’s mistakes and feel it’s their duty to embarrass the heck out of them) – but spend just a few minutes online, or even conduct a relevant keyterm search, and you’ll find a plethora of examples that will make you cringe. So, for example, while talking about your latest vacation is ok, oversharing in excruciating detail about the effects of the local diet on your digestive system probably isn’t.

Showing personality doesn’t mean being myopic about your online behavior and how it will be evaluated and received, but neither does it mean people should be so fearful of criticism that they become cardboard cutouts of themselves. Stand for something! But don’t let it all hang out!

What are some of your favorite examples of how to show personality the right way?

Confederate: United in a league, alliance, or conspiracy (image by Geoff Livingston).

Creating social media strategies for large organizations can be unwieldy. Disparate divisions, brands, product launches, autonomous departments, budgets and line items can give corporate communicators a tough time as they bridge their companies into the social era.

Some organizations can manage their organizations well enough to federate their social media efforts under one roof. Now some very basic best practices are arising. According to the Fortune 500 Business Blogging Wiki, 62 of the country’s largest companies are already engaged. But others cannot, and they must look to create a different model, one we have started calling the confederate model.

There are many organizations that simply cannot get all of their parts to agree on a unified strategy. For example, consider national non-profits that have local autonomous chapters. Other corporate structures where this problem can arise include partnerships like large law firms, franchise models that feature local owners and undefined marketing structures, and automobile dealerships (Star Alliance image by Nergiz).

For all intents and purposes, these loosely organized bodies can do what they like. This creates enormous challenges online, in large part because of the disparate efforts can confuse customers, as well as fracture brand conversations. Indeed, a communicator needs to acknowledge that there will always be a healthy majority of internal stakeholders who will never engage in the larger social media stratey.

Building a Confederated Model

Instead of trying to control the social media effort under one roof, confederated models try to empower individual stakeholders in the larger organization. A confederated model for a company or non-profit assumes and includes the following:

In addition to building the actual framework, a great deal of the effort involves internal alliance building and communications. Local stakeholders need to be made aware of and convinced about the effectiveness of the social media tool sets.

Of course, what would a proposed stategic model be without a case study? One needs to go no further than the Obama campaign’s social media efforts. This is an ongoing effort.

Partisan politics aside, Obama’s campaign communications involves intense grassroots activities using social media tools. Tens of thousands of Obama campaigners, advocates and even casual voters are enabled to spread the message.

At the heart of the effort is activism on more than a dozen social networks, as well as the Obama campaign’s web site. Bloggers using the Obama platform have even posted negatively against policies or Obama actions.

Not your average political campaign, but one that does fit into the confederated model. The Obama campaign is less concerned about individual flare outs and control, and much more oriented towards word of mouth and viral grass roots activism. The results have been self-evident.

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” Franklin D. Roosevelt

Nothing can kill a corporate social media campaign quicker than fear. This great cause of many problems is the number one barrier to corporate adoption of social media. Consider these types of fear.

Fear of losing control: The old saw is back! But do not underestimate how strong a hold message control still has on today’s communicator. Unwriting 60 years of communications theory — theory that is still being taught in universities throughout the world — is no easy task. It’s no wonder why corporate types balk when they hear brand management theories won’t work anymore.

Fear of negative feedback: Less of an issue these days, but still prevalent. In a class I taught the other day, students were told to ignore negative blog posts and comments. Uh no. Negative posts are an opportunity to listen and engage.

Fear of legal repercussions: Lawyers, they always get in the way! Companies have great fear about how statements made on the blog can be viewed not only from a liability standpoint, but also from a compliance standpoint (you know, the SEC). They forget the company needs to be marketed, that consumers demand open communications from companies.

Fear of change: This more than any is the 800 lb. gorilla that social media advocates really need to start talking about. All of the other fears can be combated using case studies and examples. But no matter how many examples of collaboration and social media excellence a company is exposed to, it must still face itself.

The Big Change

Let’s not oversimplify this change. It’s simple to understand tactically, but simple is not easy. Especially when it involves shifting cultures and decades of practice. Sea changes are extremely difficult to deal with for many people. Human beings just don’t like sudden changes. They balk when the normal gets turned upside down.

Remember “Who Moved My Cheese?” Well, Spencer Johnson can make a killing off of PR agencies and marketing departments for the next few years. It’s going to be rough for some folks (image credit: photo.net).

Competition will eventually force most companies to adapt social media tools, but it’s going to take time. And we who have already adapted need to be patient.

The role of the social media savvy is not to chastise these folks, but to help them. I’ve called it evangelism, but perhaps the right word is coaching. And who hasn’t had someone coach them through a challenge? Or choose another word, navigator, pathfinder, etc. The point is we need to extend an open hand.