[Update: Added link to PC's comments]
Last Saturday night, Rob Cottingham and I shared the mike on Sean Holman's Public Eye Radio -- talkin' about Petro-Canada's recent YouTube initiative: PumpTalk -- an attempt to start a conversation about gas prices.
Out of that conversation, Rob has written an exceptional piece (YouTube Meets the Man), analysing the initiative and offering a thoughtful critique.
The issue is more one of value to the user. Petro-Canada's videos are ultimately self-serving (with the exception of one that offers tips for reducing your vehicle's gas consumption). So, for that matter, is the supporting Pump Talk web site: the subtext is "There's a good reason you're paying us lots of money, and you'd better get used to it." And although the company's communications shop tries to position this as employees communicating with the public, the results are anything but; this is straight PR-department copy with a light folksy patina.
...
Does that mean YouTube is a mistake for PetroCan, or anyone else who doesn't have a certain amount of street cred? No. There's little to be lost by posting the videos, provided the company is actually interested in pursuing a dialogue (their failure so far to respond to two-week-old critical comments from users raises a few questions on that score).
But they could still do a lot more with this.
Rob goes on to offer a raft of ideas for Petro-Canada or anyone that is considering using a media channel like YouTube for a PR campaign.
I've commented previously on PumpTalk campaign (and continue to be disappointed by the lack of engagement on Petro-Can's side. You can't say you want to start a dialogue and then not chime in Petro-Canada responded to my comments). Aside from this frustration, my big takeaway out of the conversation on the weekend was the requirement for authenticity.
Petro-Can gets props for going out there, balls-to-the-wall, and putting their take on gas prices out there for comment. One can imagine that there were a lot more subversive ways to do this. And I do believe that going forward, companies and brands will have to just "put it out there" and own their truths. Companies (including their employees and their agenies) will continue to be pushed into transparency and authenticity. There is a risk for brands who don't own their own conversations, who try to dupe their customers by planting fake blogs or comments that tout their products in ways that a customer never would.
And I also believe that we must encourage transparency on the part of customers as well -- we must own our own truths and experiences (good and bad) about companies and brands.
[Warning: extreme techno-optimism meets Pollyannaish tendendcies] Because if we all start to engage in authentic, transparent conversations .. then perhaps it will raise the level of dialogue as well as the level of self-accountability. Imagine a world without political attack ads, but a genuine dialogue on issues. Or a world without frivilous lawsuits (because seriously, how could you not know that the coffee was hot?). Now far be it from me to suggest that the internet and social media will solve all of society's woes, but the inherent nature of the 'net and self-regulating sleuths on it are taking us down a new path of accountability and ownership. Companies who want to engage must embrace these values and treat their cutomers (and their competitors) as intelligent and thoughtful partners in the dialogue.
Oh, and as a bonus next step after Authenticity, companies will need to embrace brand democratization and realise just who actually owns their brand. But that's another conversation for another day ...