In recent weeks, I've noticed a new theme amongst the social media digerati that goes something like "how do we get the rest of the world to understand the promise of social media? How do we get all those laggard companies blogging and tweeting with us?" I've always cautioned my clients not to jump too far ahead of their customers and stakeholders in adopting any technology, and though I do believe that all companies should factor social media into their outreach and marketing strategies, it is far from appropriate for every company in every situation to use social media as a primary tool. Here's an example of where caution is warranted: the situation facing CACI in their response to allegations that their employees were involved in the Abu Ghraib torture scandals in 2004.
Last week I attended an Executive Biz book signing for the book Our Good Name which documents CACI's response to what Chairman of CACI's Board, Jack London, insists are false accusations against the defense contractor. The book is voluminous and detailed and London's defense at the event was impassioned.Shashi Bellamkonda from Network Solutions was there also and blogged about it. Check out his video from the event (note: I took the picture of him with Dr. London).
Explaining the situation in 2004 when the story first broke, Dr. London portrayed the company as on the defense against a media juggernaut that forced them into a public relations response strategy he characterizes in the book as "Whack-a-Mole". Four years after the fact, despite the book and the company's PR defense strategy to prove its innocence, legal and media allegations persist.
At the book signing several of us asked Dr. London about the company's decision in '04-'05 to pursue a traditional PR strategy of defending the company, specifically their decision not to blog about it or confront bloggers in public fora, opting for private communications which attempted to set the record straight. Dr. London's response was insightful. In essence he said that the company chose not to engage in public (including social media) dialog because it did not want to legitimize bloggers and journalists who it perceived were jumping on the attention-getting bandwagon of a hot story based on incorrect information.
Explaining the situation in 2004 when the story first broke, Dr. London portrayed the company as on the defense against a media juggernaut that forced them into a public relations response strategy he characterizes in the book as "Whack-a-Mole". Four years after the fact, despite the book and the company's PR defense strategy to prove its innocence, legal and media allegations persist.
At the book signing several of us asked Dr. London about the company's decision in '04-'05 to pursue a traditional PR strategy of defending the company, specifically their decision not to blog about it or confront bloggers in public fora, opting for private communications which attempted to set the record straight. Dr. London's response was insightful. In essence he said that the company chose not to engage in public (including social media) dialog because it did not want to legitimize bloggers and journalists who it perceived were jumping on the attention-getting bandwagon of a hot story based on incorrect information.
While some social media enthusiasts might think this decision by CACI's management and public relations team is too conservative, let's consider several things at the outset. One, the Abu Ghraib incident was not about corporate profits or marketing consumer fads; it was about the dignity of human life and it called into question our nation's commitment to the values at the core of our society. Second, not only wereCACI's reputation and revenue base on the line, but criminal charges were being pressed and both the media and the government were on the hunt for who to blame in this incident that gave the the United States of America (including the President) a black eye. Thirdly, because of the serious nature of the offenses, theAbu Ghraib incident and everything about it was - and continues to be - highly emotionally charged with a wide variety of individuals around the world feeling strongly about the victims, the players and the principles at stake.
Regarding the players and how CACI chose to get its story out, let's look closely at who counts among CACI's stakeholder set and whether a social media strategy would have been appropriate in reaching them with the story of CACI's defense. The company's customers are primarily U.S. Government defense and intelligence agencies who do not value dirty laundry aired in public - theirs or anyone tied to them. These agencies are funded by Congress, relevant committees of which are tasked with spending the public's tax money wisely and who are constantly under public and media scrutiny. Though individuals in Congress have been known to take advantage of media scandals, few want to see the bloggosphere erupt in a ranting frenzy fueled by one of the companies they've contracted to carry on the serious work of a foreign war.
In short, CACI had little to gain in the eyes of its primary audience by pursuing an open information war to correct misinformation. The channels which were available to them to defend themselves, including direct communications with Congress and participation in government investigations provided them solid opportunities to communicate with very targeted messages to their primary audience.
Even if a more public dialog-oriented communications strategy might have been unnecessary to reach the company's customers and stakeholders, would CACI have been more successful in countering the tide of misinformation in the eyes of the general public using social media? I think there is a case to be made for this since their decision not to engage directly positioned them as less forthcoming than if they had put a spokesperson into the public debate in the same way Dell has in responding to Dell Hell.
However, let's remember something else about spokespeople and corporate participation in social media; companies in the midst of (or vulnerable to) legal proceedings need to be careful of what "they say" because it can and will be used against them. As I said last month in a post about organizational identity in the era of social media, "it's somewhat Utopian to think that good will alone will keep us safe from negative consequences of humanity unleashed." This is the reason that corporate bloggers such as Shashi (Network Solutions) and Richard Binhammer (Dell) often have their own personal blogs which, while highlighting their company affiliation, also have clear disclaimers noting that the opinions expressed are not those of the company.CACI was not only undergoing government investigations when it decided not to engage bloggers and journalists in social media, but it wisely understood that it would be a likely target for civil suits once criminal investigations were over. Thanks to Google's elephant memory on the web, whatever the company spokespeople "said" in public will be around for years to come, possibly fueling more legal action against them. In fact, this proved to be true even without their spokespeople actively using social media as demonstrated by a new suit filed against them this month.
In conclusion, despite my personal proclivities in advising my clients to open dialog and information , and regardless of the actual facts and culpability in this particular case, I respect CACI's decision not to engage on these weighty issues in the constantly recorded town hall meeting of the social web. They had little to gain from, and on behalf of, the folks who mattered most to their business and the potential downsides to employee spokespeople going "off message" were (and are) very high. As a result, the company's more traditional public relations strategy of press releases, journalist relations, a painstakingly researched book, congressional information meetings and legal action - while appearing mild to some social media mavens - was both aggressive for the previously low profile government contractor, and appropriate for the situation and audiences that mattered most.
