Corporate Communications Today, Course Module 6: Web Society

Corporate Communications Today Course Module 6: Web Society – Environment of an Enterprise 2.0

29.01.2013

Susanne Robra-Bissantz

WS 2012/13 | Prof. Dr. Susanne Robra-Bissantz | Corporate Communications Today| Seite 27

Course Modules

CM 1 Social Media

CM 3 „Marketing“

CM 2 Collaboration

CM 4 Innovation

CM 5 Knowledge

CM 6 Web Society


Last but not least let‘s see everything we did up to now from a meta, maybe societal perspective. First. What are the basic changes in Corporate Communications – if you compare the next slide and the one after this with the „University Example“. First difference: there is a distinction between internal and external communication in traditional communication with different responsibilities – maybe the IT-Department and PR/Marketing. In Social Media live it‘s hard to keep these borders – especially if internal students, professors and employees use media like facebook. Still they all may act in different roles. The students, professors and employees ARE the university. Their communication leads to the university‘s picture. It would be very hard to channel and filter it in single Departments. And most of the time they don‘t have to contruct communication but just work – it‘s not marketing, it‘s the function: to present research results, to discuss challenges in quality and to network with organizations and companies.


Traditional communication: Example university

Prospective Students

Students

Alumni

Science Economy / Politics …

University communication •  Process portal •  Newsletter •  Information services •  Transaction services •  …

•  Press •  Website •  Radio/TV •  Events •  …

Public Relations Marketing

Administration „IT“

Employees Professors


With this communication and collaboration the so called association premises (blue eggs) can be established. Talks and discussions about what the university does and stands for, build the picture of it for many stake holders. And it makes the university a social partner in different topics in research or in quality of teaching etc. These association premises cannot exclude groups that they are not meant for. They use different media (social media, in blue and as presented in the last course modules), maybe with internal views. And, very important, they address different stakeholders with different topics and targets: Relationship with Alumnis, Attractiveness with students (or their parents?) and Knowledge with the scientific community. From this targets, as can be seen in the „What?“ „Who?“ etc. slide, follow certain strategies for communication. This again holds for every organisation. Decide which target you follow. Who may and should contribute. Why? What may be his motivation? Is there any? Try to let others communicate for you, not only your public relations or your chief. Is it necessary that he posts? Maybe others are better, but he should know and support this. Then decide for the platform – as described before and at the same time decide about the form of your communication. Where will be private bits, maybe? Do you want to use campaigns, only short statements or stories around it. Try to imagine your talks and discussions beforehand, but keep the platform open for changes. The whole system of customers, employees etc. will develop differently from what you thought it will...


Collaborative association premises: Example university

Prospective Students

Students

Alumni

Science Economy / Politics …

University communication

Employees

Public Relations Marketing

Administration „IT“

Professors

Reputation

Attractiveness

Attention

Relationship

Knowledge Satisfaction

Quality

„Sag‘s uns“ (Tell us)

Note-Blog Facebook-Groups

TU-Website Researcher network

BSocial

wi2-Blog

Facebook-Institution


From ideas (targets) follow the „strategies“…

Who?

Where?

How?

Employees, „Chief“ himself, Public Relations, Customers ...

Facebook, Twitter, Forums, own websites

Messages, Stories, Campaigns, Actions, Private Contents

What? Relationship, Quality, Satisfaction, Attention ...


One main target that perfectly fits social media communication is reputation. Reputation results from all the messages, discussions, actions, campaigns and associations the public. From talks, from offers for participations, e. g. in innovation management, from complaints and their treatment, from our knowledge management where certain parts can be seen from outside. This is because reputation is more than our product, It is more than the story, we tell about our product, more that the image. Reputation is our capital, Everything we invested in. Our employees, our knowledge, our responsibility. And, further more, it is the commonly accepted capital. Everything that is talked about our reponsibility, our whole organisation with our employees and values. Social media is the place where, above all, reputation will be built. By all stakeholders and by the organisation itself. A reputation of the whole company but also a reputation as being present (and how) in the social web.


Repu-tation

„Marke-ting“

Discus-sion

Com-plaint

Inno-vation

Ideas

Know- ledge

Reputation

•  Talks – association spaces

•  Offers for participation

•  Knowledge network, with „store window“

•  Internet Complaint Center

•  Innovation Competitions

•  …


The road to reputation

„Product“

„Potential“

Reputation

Social Media

Website / Mass media

Image

gesteuerte / soziale

Anerkennung

Organization social capital knowledge …

of the organization

on the web


So. Finally. All of this looks good. But why do we have so called Shitstorms: -  when Pril doesn‘t agree with the most wanted Design in their innovation competition and

doesn‘t use it? -  when Greenpeace accuses Nestle of using Palmoil? -  when Volkswagen erases comments of customers that are influenced by Greenpeace? -  when H&M has bet on a design that was invented before their designers invented it? -  and when adidas builts shoes that look like being in chains?

Exactly, we have them, because something went wrong, either in the company, or even worse in social media communication. Marie Christine and Fatmir already pointed that out in their presentation. And this again is somehow caused by the fact, that we keep on being stuck in mass media society. We haven‘t completely learned what the new media is. The revolution will not be televised. Gil Scott said this in the 70s. He was critizising mass media, mass media society, where critical opinions are overwhelmed by mass opinions and opinions controled by media. For us this holds true – in the other way around. The revolution may take place in social media but, important for us, social media are not like television. This, our revolution in media we can use, cannot be handled with knowledge from mass media..


Puh.


Media influence our society, society reflects its media set. We probably have to learn, generally, that we are moving into a web society, that we may make a cooperative web society. This is another great transformation like the one we faced towards the industrial society. With mass media, mass production and mass markets. This all will change. And we will have to think about what will change. Will the representative democracy still work reasonably, will it be substituted or complemented by a direct one? Will it be possible to reach for a defragmented public or will we have to live, as we already do, with a fragmentation? Can public and private spheres be separated, and if, than how? What should be private today? Will we still stick on role models or do we have to cope with individualized lifestyles and role diversity? Will negotiation – but with collaborative principles – be the common state instead of decision? Communication leads to action. The society represents itself in communication. And in social media communications are potentially effective discourses that lead to publicity and to action.


The Great Transformation

Collaborative Web Society agricultural society

Industrial Society


„Leitmedium“ (trend-setting media) Internet Transformation to a web society

Public and private spheres Fragmented social public

Communicative action

Representative vs. direct Democracy

Individualized lifestyles

Role diversity

Decision or negotiation


In our organisation we will, maybe, step by step be confronted with the effects of a web society and with the new paradigms of collaboration. In markets, but also inside our organisations discussions will prevail former messages and missions. Preset institutions, where you have to become a member, will be complemented by groups – in organisations these are departments contrary working groups / teams. Hierarchy will or can be substituted with heterarchy. Certainly not at once and not everywhere. But remember, that heterarchy with collaboration principles includes equality but also responsibility. Organisational Processes, that are mostly hierachically controled may also change and step by step be substituted by less hierachical working and co-working forms. Here a sense of coherence, less control but trust in the well being of the system, can evolve. Where in Mass Media Society Institutions are units that provide the inner meaning of society and that work with representative principles and advocacy, in Web Society more temporary groups will come together, with common goals and interests and a social closeness. Institutions meet at places and times, they decide and disseminate decisions. Groups, on the other side are kept together by associations and talks. Coordination is substituted by collaboration. But conventions will be needed, and as we showed it in our second course module, whereas we are quite familiar with traditional Mass Media conventions, we will have to learn those of Web Society and together with this the conventions and difficult parts of collaboration.


Herausforderung Webgesellschaft

Leitmedium Television Leitmedium Internet

Messages Talks, Discussions

Institutions Groups

Hierarchy Heterachy

Processes Coherence


Organizations in the web society

Web society Networking / Social closeness Common interests Range of associations Cohesion through collaboration Conventions?

Mass media society Advocacy Sense giving units Encounter and dissemination Cohesion through coordination Conventions Rooms, Places, Times, Meetings

Social medias are the dominant mediums of the collaborative web society.


All this sounds difficult, but maybe it isn‘t. Maybe we are only much to used to our society of masses where hierarchy and achievements count and where media based communication is either television or something with IT and databases – with no possibility to interact. There is one citation, that we should not forget: behaving in social media is very close to acting in groups and therefore just with human beings. In groups of people we know and/or trust. Maybe the picture on the left hand side helps – especially when we are beneath organisations. For example in markets or in society in general. Social Media are nothing different than social plattforms that already exist. Like parties. If you want to be heard there and if you want to introduce your ideas and make people realise that they are good. Let‘s take, in the example, you want to introduce another style of music. Then you probably don‘t appear with a big megaphone, telling everybody, loudly, that you are the best. You wouldn‘t but you wouldn‘t succeed if you tried. It is the same with social media. It‘s no use there, trying to convince loudly and from the scratch. Like at the party. You try to start little conversations, you listen to the opinion of the others, you explain your point and step by step you find equally minded people. Finally you in your and as a group can start and try to convince the DJ to play better music. Talk, discuss, associate, build groups and make conversation become visible action.


But above all…

A good way to think

about social media

is that all of this is

actually just about

being human

beings.

(Antony Mayfield)

„… on big parties!“

Social behavior in "foreign" spaces

Education

Corporate Communications Today, Course Module 6: Web Society