There has been a lot of debate recently about the use of social media by analysts, and IT vendors in their dealings with analysts. Homing in on the latter, I have noticed a whole range of attitudes and activities, from those at one end who encourage genuine two-way communication with influencers, though those in the middle who use social media more in a broadcast manner, to those who, for various reasons, are not really engaging at all.
One of my colleagues, David Tebbutt, has just posted some thoughts on a couple of conversations he has had recently about why some organisations are perhaps not ready for social media from a cultural perspective – particularly those with a more ‘command and control’ management style. Interestingly, one of these organisations is a country (those who know David will be aware that he moves in some very influential circles), while the other is an IT vendor. Before you get too excited, though, both are referred to anonymously.
My own views on the matter are still evolving, and I have to say that we at Freeform Dynamics use blogs, for example, both as a publishing mechanism and as a way of interacting. Conversely, though, we are continuously using more traditional media in an interactive manner to engage with various communities, e.g. through online workshops, polls, surveys, etc hosted on major IT news sites. To my mind, the question is therefore more about how much you want to interact rather than how you do it. In that sense, social media is just another means to an end.
Given this, my guess would be that the IT vendors who are not embracing social media to engage with influencers at the moment are probably the same ones that have a tendency towards a highly controlled broadcast/monologue style of communication with analysts anyway. After all, why invite troublesome feedback through an open exchange now when slick PowerPoint presentations delivered by sharp-suited executives and well-rehearsed Q&As have always worked so well in the past? :-)
0 comments:
Post a Comment