Blogging our blogging policy
By Leo Ryan April 28th, 2007
In Blogging · Customer conversations · Stories
In the last few weeks some of our posts (okay one of them was mine) have caused minor and unintended (natch) ructions. As a result we thought we’d better have a blogging policy so it was clear to all of us at RMM what was and wasn’t ‘on’. The policy follows;
Our blog is a marketing tool. We use it to communicate our values and some of our thinking. What then are those values, and what should that thinking be about?
Values and what they might mean:
- Civil - don’t use abusive language
- Fair - before writing a comment about someone we know or can easily identify we ask for their opinion and give them prior right of reply
- Informed - we research our facts and statements and so we are able to link to our sources
- Commercial - assume that some of our clients and potential clients have a
less than firm graspview of the digital world and how it operates - which is sometimes at variance with ours and which is why they are our our clients and potential clients. We should therefore be wary of making sweeping generalised statements about advertising agencies, brands and media owners. This doesn’t give a free reign to idiocy but rather imagine you might be sat next to them at the next industry event you attend. Make your point but make it logically and politely. - Experienced - bringing in relevant RMM examples where we can
- In context - assume that some of our target audience have a
less than firm graspview of the digital world and how it operates (ibid). that is sometimes at variance with ours. Provide context especially when writing about new trends and technologies. It won’t make us look cool - but smart peers will know that we’re writing for a different (target) audience.
Thinking - what should we be commenting on? We want to demonstrate knowledge across digital media, technologies and audience behavior. So we should blog across;
- New developments in digital technology and our personal experiences of them
- Other blog commentary that we admire - explaining why we admire it (always identifying and linking to the original)
- Relevant (across digital media, technologies and audience behavior) news stories and our view of them
And some stylistic rules from Orwell:
- Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
1 Mat Morrison // Apr 28, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Excellent. Now, about your Pamela post… how exactly does that meet your objectives? Mmm? In context? Informed? Commercial?
Dan has a very neat list of do-s and don’t-s for blogs and bloggers that we use in our training programmes - that might also be said to operate as our blogging “policy” What you’re listing is “what we should blog about”, and “how we should go about it” - two important ingredients, to be sure.
Am I being civil and fair? I do hope so.
Incidentally, aren’t we rather ramming it down people’s throats about them having “a less than firm grasp of the digital world and how it operates”?
Listen up you digital n00bs. We’re going to speak s-l-o-w-l-y and LOUDLY so you can understand what we’re saying!
2 Leo Ryan // Apr 29, 2007 at 6:50 am
Perhaps I should have added ‘calm’ as an objective; a calm approach to new media, grounded in the recognition that its various phenomena are frequently just new iterations of old or even intrinsic human behaviours, which is possibly why they work so very well. See my reply to your Pamlea comments to get the full gist.
As for fair and civil - maaaaate - you are rarely anything but, and I agree with your defence of our readers grasp and I’ll update it with “assume that some of our clients and potential clients have a view of the digital world and how it operates that is sometimes at variance with our own”.
Gentle reader - I certainly didn’t mean to be patronising - that is to say - to speak down to you!
3 Trouble at t’Mill… at Ryan MacMillan // Dec 6, 2007 at 5:12 pm
[...] Yes, but should they be allowed to? There’s a war on, you know… I can see Jarvis’s point about democracy - of course it’s great that we can all create our own content and say whatever we like online. But, in all honesty, most of what people say online is crap (takes quick look at RMM blogging poilicy) really not very good at all (including this post, quite possibly). The most attracive plank of Keen’s article, to my mind, is his defence of expertise: I’m nostalgic for the world I grew up in where there was a clear distinction between author and audience. I’m not attracted or impressed by the idea of collapsing that distinction. It’s hard to be good at what you’re doing, it requires expertise. In the same way that not everyone should be doctors or teachers or astronauts, not everyone should be an author. Most people do not have anything interesting to say. [...]