A Movement of Nobodies Is Born

I guess it was the dismissiveness of David Murray's insult that pissed me off. The way he called communications consultant Allan Jenkins "a nobody in the communications business" in the closed milieu of his trade magazine editorial added to my ire.

If he'd just called Allan a rude, insensitive curmudgeon I wouldn't have had an issue with it. But the insult wasn't based on Allan's actions, but rather on his perceived lowly position in the Ragan Communications universe.

My media relations advice to the executives I've coached has always included something about remembering that when you act arrogant and nasty to the media, the impression given to the media's audience is that you are being arrogant and nasty to them.

The vehicle through which their message is transmitted (print or electronic media, online or in person) becomes transparent to the audience. And so it was when Murray took aim at his target.  His words got recorded in a bunch of blogs. Murray's irritation with the PR blogger from Copenhagen was barely noticed, but the arrogance of his statement came through as an insult to all the other Nobodies out there -- people who don't necessarily get invited to speak at Ragan conferences, people who spend their lives making a living, sometimes doing exceptional work. People who sometimes get recognition, but too often don't. People like you and me.

I'm sure Murray only wanted to insult one person, not a whole class of people, but I felt insulted nonetheless.

Meh. That was Wednesday morning at 2 a.m. when I was pounding away on a keyboard, searing my anger into my blog post. Today I'm back to my live-and-let-live approach. Being controversial is part of the trade magazine editor's bag of tricks, if they want to keep readers renewing their subscriptions. This controversy will probably be good for business in the Ragan stable of publications and seminars.

In the meantime, me and the other Nobodies who took notice of this issue have been having some fun with the Nobody thing. There's a blog for Nobodies now. And an online store where you can buy logoed items for the International Association of Nobodies. A podcast, paper hats and a number of other creative ideas are in the works.

And in the midst of all that fun there will be a discussion of what it is to be a Nobody, and why that isn't such a bad thing.

I suspect that to Murray (who's been attacked by bloggers in the past), this grouping together will just seem like a pack of rude loudmouths shouting more jargon about the power of social media.

He wants proof that social media can have business applications? What more proof does he need? The very forces that have unearthed his editorial, put it up for display, dissected it, rebutted it, posited alternatives, given examples, pointed to sources of information, and engaged people from several continents in a healthy debate about the issue are available to the average corporation.

There is a world of unengaged or semi-engaged workers out there who don't see the connection between their ambitions and the goals of their employers. A corporation would do well to have exactly this kind of lively debate (without the personal insults) happening within their workforce. So a few corporate sacred cows get bruised in the discussion. So what? The tools we "social media evangelists" are  using to connect with other people about the issues we care about are also available for organizations to use for the same purpose.

You want proof, David?  Open your eyes, and see the value of the discussion you're now involved in. Get over your annoyance with a few bloggers' rude manners or overzealous advocacy, and take a look at a potential tool for discussion, engagement and information sharing. And none of us Nobodies are going to charge you a nickel for the information and opinon we offer you.

Previous posts:
International Association of Nobodies Newsletter, Vol.1, No.1
Join the Nobody Club
I'm a Nobody in the Communications Business

Tags: ragan, communications, blogs, social media, etiquette, netiquette, engagement, employees

Powered by Qumana

Comments

[David Murray]

Eric--

Agree with much of what you say here. First, it's true I only meant to insult one fellow rude curmudgeon with my rude editorial and managed to insult some other people too. (Though it seems to me the incident has produced much more glee than honest consternation.)

As for the credit you give to the blogosphere for "unearthing my editorial, putting it on display, dissecting it, rebutting it, positing alternatives, giving examples, pointing to sources of information, and engaging people from several continents in a healthy debate about the issue," I'd only say that, yes, the blog world did some of that, but that the health of the debate is spotty and so far most of the alternatives, examples and other sources provided have been on one site.

That's Shel's blog, where I have sumed up my view about social media and internal communication. As you'll see, I think we mostly agree on that most important point.

David

[Eric Eggertson]

David: Yes, I think Shel's posts have been good. One of the positive things he's doing is eliciting comments directly from people who are doing things in their organizations.

I fully intend to respond to your request for examples and ideas, when I can sit down and collect my thoughts.

Don't expect people using blogs, podcasts, video blogs, user-influenced news/search tools like Digg and Memeorandum, etc. to universally behave in a dignified, rational, methodical way when they're dealing with issues.

This stuff is messy, partly because it's fairly new, and partly because there are no controls at the input stage. No one fills in a form requesting to add a comment to this online stew of ideas.

Add to that the fact that thoughtful, well-reasoned discussions of issues get much less attention that flame wars and outrageous statements, and you have a recipe for chaos.

I guess I've never understood your disdain for chaos, and your dismissal of online discussions because people's statements aren't always buttressed by detailed research.

People who support their ideas with evidence, and who present their ideas in a logical, clear manner have more credibility than people who wildly spout unsubstantiated claims. That applies to the world of blogs and other social media in much the same way it applies to business publications like the one you edit.

The tools for screening out rabid polemicists and narrowing your online reading to sources that you find more credible are in the works. They don't work perfectly, and there's lots of room for improvement in online search and online organization of related information.

If you find no value in the combined output of more than 400 PR and communications bloggers, that's fine with me. I never made a pledge to fulfill your needs for information and analysis, and I'm certainly not getting paid to do anything of the sort.

I suspect companies like Corante that are trying to find ways to collect, organize and analyse select sources of commentary are closer to the model of discourse that you are seeking. The signal to noise ratio is much better when someone is making judgements about what is worth reading. I expect that model to fluorish, as it's very similar to what Ragan has done successfully using a paid subscription model for years.