Sunday, September 30, 2007

Ghost Blogging

The subject of "Ghost Blogging" just won't go away and I'm debating whether this is a battle worth fighting.

There are many companies out there that want a blog, but just don't want to commit the time and resources to doing it, so instead of saying "this isn't for us," they want to bring in a ghost blogger in order to do the job for the CEO or some other overworked executive who received the mandate "get us a blog!"

The pro argument goes something like this: CEOs don't write their speeches, they don't write their op-ed pieces, they don't write the bylined articles in their name, why should blogging be any different? Over on the side of the communications companies that want to provide this service is the argument that in most cases they're already doing the research and writing the bylined articles, what's it to write a few blog posts too? Oh, and there's money to be made.

Those against have a basic argument: blogs are about transparency and having insight into a corporate executive. It's impossible for someone else to get into that voice and BE that person.

Christopher Barger, director of GM Global Communications Technology made an interesting point in an interview I listened to recently: people accept that op-eds and speeches aren't written by the person listed on the byline, but that hasn't worked, so as communicators we need to do something different.

It's a fair point. Though, I feel like most people DO think that the person whose name is on the op-ed actually wrote it, or at least had a lot to do with its creation (and yes, I've written a few of those). Frankly, it's the communicators who accept the falsehoods as truth.

So if you take Barger's argument to its conclusion, then by ghost blogging, are we just going to kill another avenue to the customer? Will people learn to distrust blogs as well? Or, are people already distrustful of anything coming out of a corporate entity, so then does it really matter?

And is the next step "ghost tweeting?"

1 comment:

gt281 said...

your question:
"are people already distrustful of anything coming out of a corporate entity, so then does it really matter?"...people are distrustful of corporate america because of one and only one thing,"money", its all about money,thats all there is to it, money, money, money, how to make more of it, and get a bigger and bigger piece of the pie.. think Enron.. its all about getting your logo, in front of everybody, in every location possible, i even heard a story once, that they was a plan to shoot a companies logo onto face of the moon..and to have a floating billboard in space visiable 24/7..its all become a bit much..
that is what corp american is about, the logo, and the logo equals money, which equals, golden parachutes for the top .05% only..
it doesn't matter wheather your product is good bad or ugly, the spin doctors will bombard us with the products name until its seared into our unborn grandkids brain..
prehaps a view of my "buy it, buy it" blog says it best,, only with a little sarcastic humor..
your techo-speak is a little beyond me, because i gave up chasing the tecno updates a long time ago,do to tech changing every hour on the hour, its a full time job just to keep up, but i enjoyed your thoughts