Controlling Community: John Sumser

John Sumser has taken on a mission impossible because there seems to be a desire to transform Recruiting.com, which is currently defined as blog community portal, into a niche social network that will be managed like an online magazine with Sumser as editor.

It cannot be done.

Sumser is not alone in making the mistake of combining what are opposing objectives. Many companies are struggling with the same self-created issue, which is what often gives rise to community members screaming unfair criticism, blatant censorship, and/or totalitarian fascist rule. Eventually, it leads to protest, exodus, or even negative public outcry beyond the niche it serves.

You can see it all over the net. It ranges from alleged censorship of The Black Donnellys fans at NBC online and Jericho fans during the cancellation protest at CBS online to the broadest brush strokes and ample examples being advocated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. All of it, big and small, stems from the same problem: a lack of strategic oversight on the part of the site moderators that often leads to gross confusion over whether or not the First Amendment might apply on the part of the participants (mostly, it doesn't), which I'm inclined to write about another time.

Today, I'll stick to the misconception being applied by some companies: they think "if we build it (a framework for an online community of sorts, whether it be a blog, portal, forum, social network, or some combination), they will come." And, as soon as the "open" sign goes up, sometimes they do come — participants who quickly take up residence and build their community.

Did you catch that? I said "their community" because it's the most important part of the equation. Companies that create online gathering places only own the framework; it's the participants who own the community. Because without them, there is no community.

And that brings us back to Recruiting.com. Whereas Jason Davis (former management at Recruiting.com) moderated with a guiding hand, Sumser seems to use the rule of law. After all, as editor, Sumser claims it's his job to ensure the content is worthwhile by some subjective standards only he knows.

While I understand this thinking from someone who often considers social media and blogging as, more or less, immature and brutish (although, mysteriously and magically, not so in many, many places), it represents the direct opposition to developing an online community. You see, the model for editorial control, beyond the loosest guidelines, (eg. no pornography, etc.) is much better suited to running an online magazine or news source like, well, Electronic Recruiting News.

For a blog portal, like Recruitng.com, any sense of community can only be accomplished by applying the simplest of concepts: "it's easier to pull a chain than to push one." That means "editors" must abandon their propensity to manage and attempt to lead.

Real leadership does not work under the rule of law. It requires something else all together. So instead of "editing" and reserving the right to make even the best intended critiques, the moderator who hopes to build a community will see better results if they focus more on making people feel welcome, praising those who provide the best examples, and adding unique value for the residents.

No, it doesn't have to be this way. Recruiting.com could just as easily operate as an online content provider or magazine (in which case, it needs more exclusive content) and a blog portal, giving up on the idea that it is somehow a community (it's not). While this means it will rarely be considered home, the model can work just as well while affording the owners control, which they seem to want.

From a more general perspective, any time a company, organization, or group launches a product, service, or online "something" (or applies sweeping changes to such things), it's always best to develop a strategy first. And, if these things already exist, it's never a good idea to remove previous tactics without knowing what you need to replace them with. Ergo, if you blow little things all up without a plan, you might be surprised to find out some of those little things made the big thing work.

Ideally, developing a strategy can be largely accomplished by understanding the environment in which you hope to operate and your true competitors. Then, you offer added values to your product/service/offering or, at minimum, positive communication contrasts between yourself and your competitors.

Apple and AT&T's positioning of the iPhone is a pretty good example. Verizon's new message, which they think will keep customers from switching to an iPhone, is not.

The bottom line. You cannot be all things to all people, especially when you aren't all things.

Behaving Badly: Jobster CEO

Jason Goldberg, CEO of Jobster, an online career network, has once again succeeded in doing what he seems to do best. Any time the sailing seems too smooth or the skies too blue, he veers his venture capital-funded ship and its shareholders’ money off course to find a storm of his own creation.

This time, apparently prompted by moderately reliable Alexa analytics, he sent former employee and shareholder Jason Davis a cease-and-desist letter to either close down Recruitingblogs.com (which I recently reviewed) or force broker a deal to, in Goldberg’s words, “work this out in a way that benefits everyone.”

According to Goldberg’s letter to Michael Arrington at TechCrunch, Davis is in violation of a non-complete clause that Davis signed as part of a contract to manage Recuiting.com for a year (after he sold the site to Jobster). After the one year contract was complete, Davis launched Recruitingblogs.com. Goldberg’s position and the message he thinks he is communicating is this:

“Our overarching intent at Jobster and with our Recruiting.com Website remains to foster online community in the recruiting industry — the more the better. At the same time, Jobster needs to ensure that our employees and contractors uphold their commitments.”

It seems to me and others that Goldberg is communicating something else …

• He has not learned that virtually no communication, especially bad communication, will remain private. Sooner or later, it will be made public.

• He is not above attempting to manipulate and intimidate people into giving Jobster and Recruitng.com some sort of leverage over others, Recruitingblogs.com in this case. It’s laughable at best, unethical at worst.

• He does not have faith in John Sumser’s management of Recruitng.com to retain and attract visitors. If he did have faith, there would be no reason for Jobster to threaten legal action to protect a Digg-styled blog portal against a very different offering, which I called an open niche social network on Ning. (Even Sumser, who I enjoy from time to time, doesn't seem to have much faith in his abilities either.)

• He is a rash, impulsive executive without empathy; it sometimes seems like he wants to come across as a hardhearted bully, but in reality, this action seems more like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because he made a bad decision in not renewing Davis’ contract.

• He comes across, once again, as being disingenuous by saying that “We at Jobster are actually big fans of the Recruitingblogs.com Website … we’ve also offered/suggested that there is probably a good way for us to work together going forward.” A cease-and-desist letter is usually the last communication, not the first communication, in fostering positive business relations.

From a communication perspective, legality issues aside, even if Goldberg and the much-loved-by-the-recruiting-industry Davis can reach an amicable agreement as they both suggested they might, Goldberg has already lost. He has created a potential crisis in using the supposed weight of his company to censor a niche social network, that has yet to make any money, just because he feels threatened by even the most indirect competition and comment.

Goldberg’s best course of action, assuming he doesn’t want to become another “laugh piece” for The New York Times, is to admit that he overreacted and retract any hint of taking legal action. If he does not, the potential ramifications will likely be that Recruiting.com will continue its decline (caused by its own inability to remain relevant even though it could be), and Goldberg will solidify his personal brand as someone who is either not to be taken seriously or to be avoided at all cost. This would not bode well for Jobster, as mentioned on the Recruiting Animal Show.

Falling Skies: Daily Mail

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! And the culprits bringing it down are anyone who happens to use the Internet, especially youth.

At least that is what A.N. Wilson with the Daily Mail would have us believe with this article, entitled "The internet is destroying the world as we know it."

It was brought to my attention yesterday, being cited as a discussion point by the collective Amanda Chapel, this time at myRagan.com.

"Your child is next door on the computer, destroying the world as we know it and wrecking two of the most fundamental values that underpin society..." leads Wilson.

Yep. Ten-year-olds are the new villains of modern society, responsible for destroying the record industry, the publishing industry, newspapers, and cinema; while amazingly enough, still finding time to become addicts of gambling, pornography, and insidious forms of self-deception.

Fortunately, my son is still two years shy of this now infamous age group when he will be formally indoctrinated into the new axis of evil that is the Internet. Or maybe, something much simpler will prevent him from taking the plunge. What's that? Parental guidance.

So at the risk of sounding like overly cautious parents, we created a hot list of sites that he can visit and put up parental blocks on those he cannot. (And never mind what I think about most shows on Cartoon Network, which he no longer watches.)

To be fair, Wilson starts by thinking through some questions about online privacy (though sadly, no one seems to care). But then, it turns toward good old fashioned doomsday op-eding. You know the kind; the same stuff that sold millions of Y2K books.

For example, Wilson warns us that the Internet is filling our children's heads with blatant propaganda by drawing a comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica online, but never gets to the real reason Wikipedia is better read (online, at least).

It seems to me that the so-called seductive power of Wikipedia is not the reason it ranks higher than the Encyclopedia Britannica on the Web. It's much simpler than that: Wikipedia is free, void of excessive advertising, easier to navigate, and enjoys the benefit of major consumer marketing. (Despite this, I too caution people against considering Wikipedia the most reliable source on the planet.)

So where does this leave us? Are we to bar our children from all things Internet, starving their development to make independent judgements?

Hardly. Our responsibility lies in guiding our youth (our own children, specifically) who sometimes place too much faith in a single source of information (like television commercials with irresistible toys or Wilson's article for that matter). And, we can educate them so they know that history is being rewritten as we speak, every day, and has been for all of, well, history. Among other things.

Then again, maybe Wison and the collective Strumpette aren't really to blame for this point of view that puts our children at risk. Perhaps it is because they too, it seems, bought a questionable bill of goods. The argument they are forwarding is not original; it comes from author Andrew Keen, who claims to "have invented the model of integrating commerce, community, and content." He's also a F**ked Company Hall of Famer.

Ironically, Keen employs the same tool he chastizes for creating a "grand utopian movement" similar to "communist society" that "worships the creative amateur: the self-taught filmmaker, the dorm-room musician, the unpublished writer," preferring, I imagine, a fascist, snobbish world where an elite class of overmen might dictate who makes the cut into the professional talent pool.

Never mind that almost all of our greatest writers, artists, poets, and filmmakers once belonged to the ranks of this lowly amateur class. (No, Keen, not everybody starts as a child television star, not that there is anything wrong with that; some of us start by mowing lawns and drawing pictures of the neighbor's dog.)

So therein lies the rub. Just because something has a cover doesn't make it any more truthful, credible, or accurate than something you might find online (and vice versa). To find the truth, you have to dig deeper, look at multiple sources, ask the right questions and, if you are able, conduct your own research beyond giving in to citing other people (including polar opposites, which is the trend nowadays).

I think social media is as much the same today as it was when I likened it to the Force a few months ago. How one uses it will make all the difference. How we teach our children to use it will also make all the difference.

There are Sith, Jedi, and everybody in between. But the Internet is largely just a public space that can be used to further a business strategy, for individual or collective good, for entertainment, and, as some people know, to peddle "fear" and polarizing viewpoints as if the world were black and white.

Fortunately, the world is not black and white. The sky is not falling. And our children (though you might want to check up on them) are not ushering forth a world of unparalleled evil because of the Internet. On the contrary, they might just use the Internet to prevent it.

Understanding Connections: Social Media

As part of my study of human capital a few years ago, I tapped insights from a fast growing company called Direct TV. At the time, Direct TV was simply known as a company to watch. Today, it is the largest provider of DTH digital television services and the second largest provider in the multi-channel program distribution industry in the United States.

What Direct TV understood then, and still does today, is that even "soft" employee programs foster better communication. While social media was barely a blip on the radar of communication, it doesn't take much to see how what was being done then could be reinforced with the tools we have today.

"Fifty to 75 percent of our employees at the corporate office attend every program," said Caroline Leach, ABC, then senior manager of employee communication for Direct TV (now vice president of communications for Direct TV). "Typically, we host them at noon or late in the day. Sometimes it's a recognition program or simply coffee and donuts with executives. They help maintain our family-oriented, entrepreneurial style."

While some companies will always remain skeptical of employee programs, Direct TV found they worked well in moderation. Specifically, they connect employees to management, exposing people to different departments they had no contact with, and generate new ideas. The programs were augmented by a well-defined, integrated employee program, strong benefits packages, and performance incentives.

"Measurement is key to understanding what your employees want," Leach said. "For example, we survey employees electronically after every company broadcast, which gives us an immediate response to how well the information was received. The surveys are anonymous, which empowers the employees to give us candid feedback."

From a broader perspective, the company's (then eight years old; now 13) strategy was simple. The executive team communicated the top one to four quarterly goals to each department while managers were charged with translating these goals into terms that individual employees can apply.

At the same time, employees were empowered to be part of the decision-making process. After the company implemented quarterly bonuses (based upon earlier satisfaction with annual bonuses), employees evaluated and eventually requested an annual bonus over four quarterly bonuses.

The reason in 2002: because Direct TV is an industry with seasonal growth, non-performing quarters (without bonuses) were found to be disheartening and counterproductive to the overall success of the company. The old adage "success produces success" stands.

"Employees also prefer to get most of their information direct from supervisors," said Leach. "We try to augment any communication with face-to-face communication. Our president's day breakfast with 8-10 employees, for example, has a powerful ripple effect throughout the company when the employees return to their departments and share highlights."

Flash forward to today and it is not difficult to imagine how internal social media might have been employed to augment such proven internal communication practices. In fact, it demonstrates something that we've offered up here on several occasions. If 8-10 employees can create a powerful ripple effect throughout a company after a single breakfast with decision makers, imagine what 800-1,000 readers might do after reading an authentic executive post where they can engage the executives by asking a few questions on an Intranet. Hmmm... virtual coffee and donuts with that many more in attendance.

In addition, through such online interaction, companies might be better equipped to solve a growing problem for many businesses (according to an article in the Harvard Business Review, which I'll be writing about later this week) and that is developing a talent factory to fill what seems to be an ever-shrinking pool of strategic thinkers.

Sure, I doubt social media will ever replace face-to-face communication as the most powerful tool in the communicator's arsenal, but it stands to reason that more companies will find unique internal communication methods that demonstrate social media will become the second most trusted source of information within a company (assuming the company does not over-propaganda it).

And, if it can work within a company to provide a bird's eye view to keep departments up to speed, then what is the difference between an internal social network or one consisting of loyal consumers? Virtually none at all.

Selling DVDs: NBC, CBS, and The CW

In Nov. 2003, after seven months of strong DVD sales, The Family Guy became the first canceled series to be revived based on DVD demand and syndication ratings. More than one million DVDs made it the top-selling TV show on DVD and fourth most bought television title ever (in 2003).

Often overlooked, strong DVD sales and impressive fan support campaigns also revived Firefly (Fox 2002) for a movie spin-off, “Serenity," in 2005. In 2006, fans then released a documentary called Done The Impossible. It features interviews with various cast members, making the words "Firefly and Browncoat symbolize a sense of community, family, and believing that the impossible can be accomplished."

Currently, there seems to be three standout TV series that were cancelled (with one already resurrected) that networks will be watching closely. Maybe one of these will be the next big DVD sales surprise.

The Black Donnellys. Due to be released Sept. 4, DVD sales seem to be the most important aspect of this fan effort if there is any hope of pulling off the impossible on any level.

Working for the fans. There seems to be a well-executed effort by Universal to deliver a 3-disc product that promises to do justice for Paul Haggis' smart, well-written crime drama. It may have been too powerful for prime time, but it might be perfect for DVD. They also have the benefit of a Sept. release and still active NBC page.

Working against the fans. TBD has a smaller fan base (but no less passionate) given the series did not have a full season. There are almost no Amazon reviews and online HDNet sydication did not help these fans as much as reruns on another network would have. (Amazon pre-order sales rank, pre-order: 2,441)

Veronica Mars. The third season is due to be released with a 6-DVD set on Oct. 23 (not available for preorder on Amazon). Although fans pulled together a campaign that sent Mars Bars (Snickers and marshmallows too) to The CW, creator Rob Thomas confirmed a dead end on June 12.

Working for the fans. They have two seasons under their belt, both with very strong sales. They've earned Thomas' appreciation as fans, and he promised to do something with the Veronica Mars character if not in comic books, then perhaps in a new series based on the character or even a film (if you believe some rumors).

Working against the fans. There is the simple fact that many of the stars (Kristen Bell, Chris Lowell, Enrico Colantoni, and Tina Majorino) have already moved on to new TV and movie projects. So even if a character revival rumor beyond comics became true, it's likely not to be Bell. (Amazon season one sales rank, 634; season two, 573)

Jericho. The DVD, recently bumped from Sept. to Oct. 2, is not yet available on Amazon. However, it has managed to earn 47 5-star reviews.

Working for the fans. Momentum is clearly on their side, given they already scored the largest show cancellaton protest in history, fastest network cancellation reversal, and the knowledge that CBS is already considering moving beyond seven shows. They also have a very large fan base that can turn on a dime (it took fans less than three hours after yesterday's post for them to become upbeat like they used to be). Jericho DVD sales will also be pre-supported by reruns starting July 6 and new episodes this fall.

Working against the fans. Not too much as long as they stay focused. CBS might do more to target new viewers as opposed to simply pleasing the fan base with Internet ads. And one wonders whether the availability of Jericho on iTunes, CBS Innertube, and now the new Amazon download feature will dampen DVD sales. But then again, some fans have pledged to buy five sets and send them to friends so who really knows. (Amazon sales rank, not yet available)

Of the three, Jericho seems to be the easy favorite to lead the pack, which could make all the difference in securing season three despite what numbers Nielsen offers up. While Veronica Mars seems likely to have comparable sales, The Black Donnellys may find DVD sales are their one real shot to be publicly counted.

Casting Shadows Of Doubt: Jericho Season 3

As much credit as I have given to deserving Jericho fans for convincing CBS to reinstate their program, I'm equally inclined to write how they could unintentionally be responsible for destroying any chance for a season three. Right now it seems, the only shadows being cast by their cause are shadows of doubt.

You only have to look at history to find some similarities between the town and its historic namesake to appreciate that if the walls of Jericho are going to fall, it's likely to be from the inside out. Sure, it hasn't happened yet, but the writing is all over the CBS boards. Without a common enemy any longer, fans now fight from within.

It's disappointing, but not surprising. Throughout history, and even today in faraway places like Iraq, humankind has an uncanny ability to put differences aside in order to rise up for a common cause. But then, they are equally inclined, after winning the day, to quickly descend back into tribal rivalries, jealousy, and petty bickering.

Ergo, I like Jericho fans (you've all been good to me), but after reading an "Open Letter to Jericho Fans or CBS and other boards," I think it's time someone reminded them where the focus should be.

If the fans continue to single out people who helped move the protest forward, guess at their motivations, and levy charges against them that smack of character assassination, then all your efforts will be for naught. As I cautioned back on June 10, only focus will ensure continued success and see this show capture a third season.

Worse, what new fans will want to participate on boards ripe with infighting as opposed to the finer points of programming that appear front and center on the CBS message boards? This is precisely why I suggested you move such discussions off those boards.

Alas, the egos (not the eagles) have landed in the fan base and my second case study on Jericho is coming dangerously close to crashing down as fans pit themselves against one another. Why is it happening? History repeats. A lack of organization, not all that dissimilar to several Jericho episodes, demonstrates how internal politics is always the greatest threat for any loosely formed government, organization, company, and, well, fan base.

Never mind the details of the arguments as they are always the same, regardless of the group. Never mind them because none of them does anything to further where the focus should be: in establishing a fan club, promoting the reruns, and creating a friendly environment for new fans who are interested to see if season two is warranted.

No, some would rather argue the finer points of things like whose name might appear on the Guinness application or how much effort needs to be devoted to taking down Nielsen. Ha! Since the fans are not privy to everything we know, please allow me to spell it out.

You don't have to change Nielsen because Nielsen already knows it needs to change. In fact, just yesterday, it already did. The Nielsen Company (formerly VNU) and NetRatings, Inc. completed the previously announced merger of NetRatings with a wholly owned subsidiary of The Nielsen Company.

They know they need to change because advertisers are not as enamored by them as some people have suggested. Just yesterday, one of my clients (whom I won't name), a mid-sized agency in my market, declared they were tossing out all their Nielsen and Arbitron books because the rating system is broken after being sliced too thin in an effort to retrieve more ethically diverse demographics.

"We don't need to look at ratings to pinpoint where our clients' consumers are coming from because we already know what they watch and listen to based on our own independent research," said the agency principal. "So, the only time we need to know the numbers, which are provided by local stations on demand anyway, is a matter of price point negotiations and nothing more."

But never mind, go ahead and beat the dead horse anyway. That makes much more sense than organizing show promotions and being the front line of communication in a viral consumer-based marketing effort that welcomes new fans with enthusiasm. That makes much more sense than flushing out the expanded Jericho Universe since CBS is too slow to do it for you. That makes much more sense than allowing Jericho Monster to host the Nielsen debate because she does a better job at it than the fan boards.

Ho hum. I would have much rather written about solutions today than a potential fan base meltdown, but I'm not the one who distracts the focal point of the story as much as fans do. Some fans seem to have made this the most visible priority, not me. And frankly, if there is any lesson to be learned here, unless Jericho fans reverse course today, than let it be for fans of The Black Donnellys. Whatever TBD fans do, don't do this.

With luck, maybe next week will bring happier news for Jericho fans as the countdown to bringing the show back continues. Today, however, it seems to me that the Jericho fans are on the wrong side of the mountains in the picture that accompanies this post.