Whoo-eee! LOVE a good argument!

Check out the comments over on Acronym to the post about Blog Brushfire, the August Associations Now case study which I was a commenter on. The case study was about how to deal with the spread of negative posts about your association in the blogosphere.

My follow-up post was here.

There seemed to be some issue with my comment that "it is a mistake for Bryan to discount the opinions of the small percentage of people who comment on blogs. They often represent the opinions of a much wider group and can be leveraged to change negative perceptions into positive ones." A couple of people said that's "patently ridiculous".

Now, I agree that my language could have been tighter here. I should have said, instead of "they often represent the opinions of a much wider group", that they POTENTIALLY represent those opinions. I hate to say it, but people tend to be followers. They will tend to agree with whoever makes the first comment, even if it's not based on accurate or complete information. Then as soon as someone offers a counter opinion, people think, oh yeah, right, hmmm.

I have a good quick example. One of our members died, and he had been involved in starting our Clinic, so someone posted on our listserve that it would be a great idea to name the Clinic after him. Immediately we had a whole ton of people agreeing. We in the office were meanwhile wringing our hands, thinking, crap, there goes the opportunity for a major gift! Luckily we were able to bring that to the attention of the Board, and to send out follow-up messages to explain that there were opportunities for attracting donors and that a committee had been formed to look at those, and we welcomed ideas for how to memorialize this member, such as a scholarship in his name. Everyone backed off (and the whole thing languished in committee and was never heard from again, but that's for another post).

So while this example is not specifically about a negative comment, it illustrates that one person's views can spread very quickly. Of course we know that the member is NOT always right, but the member can potentially create a negative perception about something unless it's nipped in the bud. You have to always be prepared to do the nipping - whether you ACTUALLY have to do it or not is for a communications team or person to decide, but you have to be prepared.

The debate sparked another post on Acronym about how we deal with member complaints. Because this is what we do! Like Lisa says, we waste time and effort catering to each squeaky wheel. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but it is what it is. I think a new culture of openness and dialogue could change our desire/need to do that, only time will tell. But ignoring members who complain? fuggedaboutit. Never gonna happen!

And as Lindy points out in the comments to the second post, in the blogosphere everything is now out there on your associations' permanent record. Forever. (She's pretty smart, that one). How would you like it if some negative stuff about your organization came up first in Google searches? It happens.

Anyway. Check out the debate. I'm lovin' it!