The mindless NBC/Global new game show 1 vs. 100 is fun to watch. Whereas it is plainly sad to watch the controversy created by Nielsen BuzzMetrics‘ decision to ban the “consumer generated media” conference attendees from blogging. As an unintended consequence, Nielsen has successfully created its online show entitled “100+ vs. the world of bloggers”.
Pete Blackshaw, CMO of Nielsen BuzzMetrics, seems to be conflicted as he first wrote [bold and italics are mine] ,
“The agenda, topics, and key questions all flowed from their [Nielsen BuzzMetrics' paying 100+ clients] input – even their desire to tackle issues privately.” And then Pete continued with, “Quite frankly, as the CMO of Nielsen BuzzMetrics, and a principal architect of this client-meeting, there’s nothing I’d like to see more than our case studies aggressively communicated externally.”
And Pete later took cover behind the claim of, “But at some point basic principles of “permission marketing” must also apply to paying customers themselves.”
Jonathan Carson, CEO of BuzzMetrics, also tried to explain their decision here. David Armano, a Creative Director at Digitas, also commented about this news here.
To me, since this is a conference about “consumer generated media”, shouldn’t it be more advisable to strongly suggest to the paying clients that, in the new blogosphere age, the preferred approach (even by Pete himself!) is to blog and to “aggressively communicated externally“? Have the creators of the conference not envisioned the possibility of this negative word of mouth?
I don’t know how it feels to be in the club of 100+ participants of a “consumer generated media” conference where blogging and, in essence, knowledge sharing have been specifically banned. They must feel “special”. To me, it is interesting to see Forrester had a group blog up and running and written by attendees of its Consumer Forum. (thanks to Steve for the link).
In my humble opinion, the competitive advantage derived from the feeling of holding “exclusive knowledge” (like those in the 100+ no-blogging-club) are slowly being replaced by the network benefits resulted from the interactions and sharing of knowledge between everyone, plus the positive words of mouth — before, during and after the conference.
It is unfortunate and perhaps unfairly, but my (and a few others’) first impression of Nielsen BuzzMetrics will forever be associated with the banning of blogging in a conference about “consumer generated media”. I am not sure if this kind of press is expected but unintended consequence has suprisingly lead us here. Even a master like Tim O’Reilly had his moment with his own “Web 2.0 Service Mark Controversy“. But at least Tim faced up his mess head-on and resolved the misunderstanding as soon as possible.
In the new blog age, lets hope the 2006 Nielsen BuzzMetrics CGM conference marks the last paid conference that bans blogging. (Wishful thinking? Maybe.) Of course, as a private corporation, Nielsen is free to do what it thinks is in its best corporate interest. Many think that the corporations rule. But does the corporation have absolute power?
In my humble opinion, Forrester gets it and Nielsen BuzzMetrics (and its 100+ clients) doesn’t. Finally, in the blog age, is negative publicity still a good thing at the end (better than no publicity)? I don’t know. But “negative words of mouth” does sound bad. (smile)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe by email
Tuesday, 31 October, 2006 at 3:37 PM
You say: “In the new blog age, lets hope the 2006 Nielsen BuzzMetrics CGM conference marks the last paid conference that bans blogging.” The event in question was an intimate client-only event, which paying customers didn’t pay a dime for. It was an off-the-record venue for clients to discuss issues whereas they might otherwise not. This was their conference, it was a user-group meeting.
*************
Hi Max,
Thanks for your feedback. If you read the posting by Mr. Pete Blackshaw, CMO of Nielsen BuzzMetrics, in detail, you will see that Pete worte, “our paying clients preferred that format, and this was basically their conference.” So Pete used the words “paying clients” first, I just follow.
As for your other idea, my main points in my posting stay. It is up to people from Nielsen BuzzMetrics, who are supposed to be more experience in CGM to guide the conference attendees to the new-new approach of sharing.
Thanks again for your feedback,
Kempton
Wednesday, 1 November, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Kempton-
When Pete said “paying” he meant that the clients pay our company for our services around CGM monitoring. The event in question was a private meeting which we invited 100 of our best customers to attend – for free, no charge to them. The reason the event was “off the record” to media of all types, including reporters, bloggers, etc. was that numerous clients presented confidential case studies which they would not have been allowed to present in an “on the record” event.
Nielsen BuzzMetrics runs and participates many events which have proactive blogging efforts attached to them, and we agree with you that this is an excellent policy for many events. For this particular customer meeting, we felt that the “on the record” format would not work well.
Jonathan Carson
CEO
Nielsen BuzzMetrics
******************
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your feedback.
These customers may not have been paying to attend the conference itself but they were all paying customers before and thats how they got invited. So I view this “free” conference basically as an after-sales service to them (which they have already paid).
The blogging I am (and others are) referring to are those done by the attendees (i.e. your customers) and not “professional” bloggers. Again, Nielsen is a private corporation and can do whatever it likes. I just feel sad to see lots of great opportunities for learning, by these attendees, being lost. To me, it is up to Nielsen, with its wisdom, to set up the conference in the right format and guide its customers to view “consumers generated media” in the right light. (I used the word “light” here in contrast to the “darkness” that a “close”, “private”, “confidential” or “off the record” conference has implied.)
Allow me to quote a bit of Jeff here, “Nielsen also needs to understand that this isn’t just another business conference. It’s a conference about us and the wisdom of our crowd; we are the “consumers” who are “generating” that “media.””
Jonathan, thanks again for your feedback. It takes some courage to reply a blogger’s posting as CEO of Nielsen BuzzMetrics. At the same time, in the new blog age, I would have done the same if I were you. Even after you shared your insight, I am still not convinced. Although the circumstances and everything else are totally different, I still recommend you check out how Tim O’Reilly handled the crisis surrounding his Web 2.0 service mark controversy.
Cheers,
Kempton