We had an interesting experience yesterday as we were designing and executing a great social media program. I felt all warm and fuzzy inside as my folks created a really smart plan and began the engagement portion of the program. Then we ran into "policy."
Policies are put in place to help communicate within organizations. Big brand companies rely on them to communicate the "dos and don'ts" to a larger staff and reduce risk. Big establishd companies are just that - "established." They have firm foundations in place to protect an often sizeable value - the brand and the business. Think of CPGs with rotating brand owners. Or even standard workforce churn. Polcies help tell everyone what they can do to get theoir job done. They are necessary. They can even help us do our jobs sometimes.
So I was struck by an atypical article in my one of my favorite sources - mashable - about public relations.
Principles over Policies
The problem is that things are changing too fast for entrenched policies. New technologies crop up all the time. new ways to engage customers that just might lead to better relationships, loyalty and revenue. Brands want to engage on social networks, in blogs, microblogging even. They want to partner with Pandora, Blogher, blip.tv and all the next guys that crop up (and will be covered in mashable).
"The only constant is change." We hear it in keynote after keynote and may roll our eyes but in many respects it is true.
We need to change our approach to policy. In every company. We need to implement a "dynamic approach to policy" where any business leader, brand manager, marketer can instantly challenge a "policy" to get a waiver or a change such that they can innovate and by doing so evolve policy and behavior forward in an organization.
Do Not Do This
Which brings me back to mashable. Mark Hopkins writes about Amy at ShapingYouth.org challenging Target on the image above. The model's midsection sits squarely in the crosshairs. (one of the inherent challenges with the Target logo). Target's response smacks of "policy:"
"Good Morning Amy,
Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.
Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day."
This is an old, stale policy. The moment the committee agreed on this approach to consumer generated media (aka 'those bloggers'), the policy was outdated, irrelevant and perhaps, even dangerous. I know there are super-smart marketers in Target. No doubt they will change this policy of communicating to consumers who have a valuable voice online as they see the benefits of engaging with their publics via social media.
But what they really need to do - we all need to do - is adopt the "dynamic approach to policy." Create a mechanism to challenge any policy and grease the wheels for innovation. Let's spend more time communicating 'principles' within our organizations and preparing our business leaders to make decisions driven by those fundamentals. Let's create a fllexible mechanism for ever-changing policy.
Will this make more work inside the legal and corporate policy centers? Probably. But I would argue not to require significant headcount in that "must-be-lean-for-Wall-Street" corporate HQ. Will it improve business via revenue and staff retention? Yes.
Link to original post