My last post about the McDonald’s blog has opened a conversation of sorts. Kate at My Name is Kate takes offense on behalf of my statement that the current state of the McDonald’s blog is less than stellar. I must say I have never been accused of being an elitist or A-lister, but that being said, I would like to address Kate’s point. A valid point that should be taken into consideration.
She discusses the issues related to a large corporation and how difficult it is to be a large company. To answer your question Kate, yes, I have and do work for a very large corporation and I certainly understand how something as little as a blog could be a huge undertaking. I also know that companies don’t launch a new program without first some type of pilot program or testing of the new medium. I too have seen red tape up to my eyeballs in legalities, public relations, policies and all of the other things that go into a program. I do applaud McDonald’s for its jump into the pool. My advice is before you jump, make sure you can swim.
My adive to McDonald’s is to make this more of a conversation, and less of a corporate newsletter. The points made in Shel’s piece were right on. I don’t think he meant to be arrogant in his statements, but he was giving definitive constructive criticisms and advice, that if followed, would make the blog more beneficial to the company. He was just being a lifeguard!
Let the conversation continue Kate and as always, another viewpoint is always welcome here, after all, blogs are about communication of different viewpoints and ideas. Perhaps we can hash out that great corporate plan for McDonald’s.
Â
Well said, Jim. Very well said.
McDonalds Has A Blog?…
I do not know what is more surprising. A corporate blog speaking in semi-corporate talk, or the fact that Burger King has not copied McDonalds in cyber space (as they generally do in reality)……
Hi, Jim …
So, a couple of things …
I apologize for calling you an A-Lister.
I actually don’t take issue with Shel’s advice. I think for the most part it is sound. The degree to which McDonald’s can comply is something I am concerned about. Bob may not be able to “drop the corpspeak”.
I also have concerns about the blanket advice “Start a conversation with your customers”. Frankly, I think there are some customers that a business might not want to have a conversation with. Not all people have a transparent agenda or want to engage in *authentic* dialogue. I feel that McDonald’s should be able to make a call about which conversations they start *and* which they respond to. Resources are limited. This is also why I support moderated comments. McDonald’s blog is, first and foremost, *McDonald’s* blog. We don’t all get free reign there.
I don’t know if I agree with your comment, “Before you swim make sure you can jump.” I think companies need to jump, sink or swim, into the blogosphere NOW. And as I said, they’re not going to get it right the first, or second, or third. And I don’t have a problem with people constructively criticising them (heaven knows, McDonald’s doesn’t need me defending them); I take issue with the tone. I don’t think their attempt was “feeble”. I think it is admirable. And to admonish them to “Listen. Really listen.” as Shel did, I think smacks of patronization.
I do agree with Shel on his point about McDonald’s starting to blog: I don’t think we should feel “honoured” by their presence in the blogosphere … but I think we could be nicer neighbours and offer a friendlier welcoming committee.
Cheers … Kate
Mcdonalds is unhealthy for you
Hi Jim. I accept with you. I will take your advice.
———–
Catherine
Social Bookmarking