I read an article about the growing use of online video by companies who want an additional channel to get their corporate communications message across. The piece, entitled Firms Take a Cue from YouTube, appeared in the Wall Street Journal [sub may be req'd]. It describes the efforts of a few companies - Monsanto, GM, Wal-mart and Sun - to use more video to try to get their particular point of view on certain issues across. The article also goes into detail about a number of providers of video services to these companies, FeedRoom seeming to be the most popular.
In the article, author Bobby White sums-up the Monsanto video project:
Last year, Monsanto Co. wanted to raise the visibility of some projects and go beyond statistics to make a case for bioengineered crops.
So the St. Louis agricultural-products company took a page from YouTube's playbook. Tom McDermott, a Monsanto public-relations manager, sent camera crews to the Philippines, Australia and other countries to film testimonials from farmers using Monsanto products to grow genetically modified corn, soybeans and other crops, which are sometimes targeted for protests by environmentalists.
He then posted the clips on a Monsanto Web site, hoping to attract attention from customers, employees and policy makers. Today, the site attracts more than 15,000 visitors a month, and Monsanto is aiming to boost viewership to 200,000 a month by late next year.
"When the people involved relate how their life has changed and you actually see it, it's far more compelling," Mr. McDermott says.
I found a gallery of videos on Monsanto's site. You can watch them, send them to a friend, download them, subscribe to a feed of them .. but you can't comment on them or blog them. This may be a limit of FeedRoom's technology; if so, it is an unfortunate limit. It isn't enough for Monsanto (or Wal-mart or GM) to use video to try to communicate a message. It's not much different that issuing a press release or position paper. It's still a one way communication. And Monsanto is doing nothing to cultivate a dialogue around these issues.
Compare this to Starbucks. A colleague of mine (sadly, with no blog .. Daniel, start a blog!) sent me this piece from SlashDot this morning:
Kligmond writes "Last week, Starbucks placed a video on YouTube responding to a video posted by the Oxfam Charity. The Oxfam video was launched in conjunction with 'Starbucks Day of Action,' held December 16th, when activists visited Starbucks locations across the world in protest of the coffee retailer's alleged mistreatment of Ethiopian farmers. The Starbucks video calmly addresses the Oxfam allegations, citing an impasse over Ethiopian trademark legalities. Starbucks claims the refusal to sign a trademark agreement with Ethiopia is a stumbling block they hope to resolve on behalf of the farmers. The coffee chain's representative goes on to refute the contention that Starbucks refuses to pay a fair price for its coffee reserves and, in fact, routinely pays well above commodity price, and above fair trade price. Unlike many recent ineffectual corporate reactions to social journalism and networking eruptions, Starbucks' response is unique in that the corporation managed Oxfam's unconventional assault in a very unconventional way, via YouTube. Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, the move on Starbucks' part comes off as unmistakably in touch with today's communication modes and methods. [emphasis added]"
The OxFam video has been watched around 23K times, the Starbucks video around 17K. The Starbucks video has received twice as many comments as the OxFam one.
I continue to be impressed with Starbucks use of new media forms. Several podcasting experts criticised their intial foray with podcasts last year, but I give them props for defining a project and attempting it. And they continue the trend of embracing social media and using it to chime in with their perspective on tough issues. Kudos!
Hi, my name is 
