I continue to be amazed by stories of employees of large companies trying to conceal their identity to influence issues via social media. Burger King is the latest to be in the news on this topic, although from what I’ve read (and admittedly I know very little about this particular case) it seems as though the company handled the situation well and was transparent in how they disclosed it.

I spoke with a reporter from the Miami Herald last week (the story is available online) and she asked some great questions around how companies should figure out when to participate, and when they decide to do so, how they should go about doing it. The initial answer is easy - if you participate you need to say who you are and be transparent about stating your reason for participating. Transparency is often used to indicate you have to disclose everything. That isn’t the case, and is usually too much information. You do need to be transparent about the topic you are discussing, and need to be unassailable in your truthfulness. People who try to participate under fake names need to just stop it. Go away! You will be caught, but more importantly, you are ruining it for others who are doing the right thing.

It is a hard enough decision to figure out how to participate. Note use of “how to participate” and not “whether or not to participate.” Companies who want any chance to influence their reputation and brand online have no choice but to be involved in online conversations. If you aren’t part of the conversation then your point of view is not represented. But when companies see others on the front pages and online news sites for improper behavior it elevates the overall feeling of confusion and concern about being involved online. It makes the blogosphere seem dark and scary (insert Halloween music here) and minimizes the true opportunity for companies to engage with their stakeholders.

I am not suggesting that companies need to respond to every every story, topic, and blog post. I am recommending that companies:

• Put social media guidelines in place so that employees and partners know what is allowed, and the implications for violating behavior (I wrote some about this in February.) The Word of Mouth Marketing Association is a good place to start for guidance.
• Monitor online conversations to understand what is being said. This is a great opportunity to get real-time feedback, almost a focus group of thousands. It will also give you a way to understand the topics that may be relevant for you to participate in, both proactively to contribute to a story, but reactively to correct misinformation.
• Determine how you will decide which posts to respond to. There will be some blogs that you want to avoid for whatever reason - the blogger is not open to differing points of view, the community has a set opinion and will use your participation to flame an issue, or the blog has a significant amount of offensive material that you don’t want to be exposed to. These are a few ideas, but think it through because there are others.
• Contribute to the community. Organizations that find a way to contribute to the conversation as opposed to only participating from a selfish perspective have a great opportunity to build relationships. H&R Block did this with tax tips, Southwest does it with open conversation and an integrated social media approach, and selfishly, our founding chairman Harold Burson occasionally does it by sharing his wisdom and insight.
• Think broadly. This isn’t only about blogs. It is about social media, twitter, discussion forums, and more.
• Participate. Monitor. And stick with it. It won’t always be easy, and the results won’t come quickly, but if you truly want to influence your brand position then you need to have a voice. And that voice needs to live online and off.

Southwest Airlines has announced that they have had to ground more than 40 planes for lapsing in safety inspections, and the FAA is trying to fine them more than 10 million dollars. Given that Southwest has been celebrated for their open communications via their blog, I was immediately interested to see whether or not they’d post a response or point of view on this situation.

As it turns out, they did post their press release on the “Nuts About Southwest” blog but also posted links to their CEO’s media interviews, and other comments directly to the consumer. This is a great example of a company creating conversation and even opening themselves up to criticism because it is a) the right thing to do, and b) the best way to truly understand what their customers are saying.

The comments to their blog are the most interesting part of this story from my perspective. There are the usual suspects - brand loyalists supporting the company and committing to ongoing patronage, and of course, those who are upset with the company and say they’ll never fly SW again. More interesting though are the conversations happening among the blog readers, including Harrison, a self-proclaimed former Southwest mechanical intern who vouches for the strength of their crew and applauds the company for allowing an open dialogue and several current Southwest employees sticking up for the company.

What are the implications of Southwest’s creating dialogue with stakeholders via their blog? There are a few that jump to mind, although I’m sure there are others that I’m missing. First, both mainstream and online media have an additional source of information that goes beyond the standard press release. Obviously, they are getting real time feedback from customers. Employees are rallying, or have the opportunity to rally to the company’s defense. And, they are likely seen as more credible since they are engaging in an open conversation as opposed to simply issuing a press release and then slamming the door. What are the other benefits of the conversation Southwest is participating in?

Nice job Southwest, and good luck beating that fine. I think you deserve a discount just for the way you are handling this situation.

I am sure that by now you are aware that Southwest Airlines had to ground 44 planes for further inspection after rumors that the company failed various safety inspections. While I will not go into the details of the case, watch the CNN interview with Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly for that. I would like to make reference to Southwest Airlines’ blog “Nuts about Southwest”, whose authors has been posting information on the subject since March 6th.

A total of three posts have been published since, receiving more than 230 comments from customers…obviously there is concern, and some even rant on about what a horrible airline Southwest is. But after scanning the comments, overall I noticed a very supportive and positive reaction.

For example:

“I DO believe you. After much frustration with United, I transferred a couple of years ago to Southwest on parallel runs. After retiring over a year ago, I still have 600,000+ miles banked on United. But I’ll take Southwest any day.

I have carefully watched your pilots’ pre-flight inspections and despite the occasional levity of your crews, I have nearly absolute faith in them.

Beyond that I most appreciate the fact that immediately on learning of this error you reported it to the FAA and Boeing. The naysayers can say what they want. I still think that Southwest is the best managed airline in the business. And by the way, my wife will be on a 7 am flight to Oakland tomorrow and will fly to Sacramento on Tuesday!

Posted by: Len Frank | March 7, 2008 at 12:12 am”

And there are plenty more like this - the majority of negative comments are “pulverized” by customers supporting their airline. It seems to me that Southwest Airlines has done the right and honest thing: kept a clear and open conversation with their passengers. Further more, this has enabled Southwest customers to become the airline’s most important spokes person.