Why I don't believe in anonymous (corporate) blogging... Strumpette, you can stuff it

Because it's bogus.

What I mean is that, as amusing or clever as anonymous blogging can be (of course sometimes it's nasty), it's still slippery. Only half credible. And therefore ultimately an artifice. It's not real. It's not *authentic.* It doesn't carry the weight of legitimate commentary.

Even when an anonymous blogger makes a good point, we find ourselves saying hmmm...

The obvious, of course, is that an anonymous blogger is cloaked by er, anonymity, and can toss grenades at anyone or any company without fear of being personally attacked in return.

By contrast, the essence of effective business or corporate blogging is that it *reveals* something about the individual blogger... his or her smarts about a particular issue or discipline, whether it's PR or PVC (polyvinyl chloride). Or lack of smarts. Or willingness to take a hit from readers. We are usually as interested in the "who" of a good corporate blog, as in the "what." Of course if you're the blogger, it can be a bit scary to reveal who you are and how you think.

A company that has a corporate blog - or officially sanctions employee blogs - usually reveals something about itself by virtue of having the blog. The company is willing to let a senior exec - or a lower-level employee - speak candidly and risk being criticized. Unless of course the blog is written anonymously in which case there isn't much point in readers taking the trouble to converse with the blogger.

God, am I getting tangled up here... see my comment below.

So my take on Strumpette (A Naked Journal of the PR Business) is... baloney. Heck I could be just as outrageous and clever and nasty [did I mention sexy and catty??] if I didn't sign this blog. Dontcha think?

Useful Links

Who is Strumpette? (The Washington Post - Howie Kurtz - July 19, 2006)

Strumpette's snarky post about Shel Holtz. [Shel, are you too cool or what to get noticed by Amanda?!]

Interview with Strumpette in The Ragan Report

About Strumpette
Apparently it's four people. Principally Amanda Chapel but also two other women and a man. All are PR professionals; none wants to reveal her or himself. Oh so much easier to act like you're in seventh grade that way. Although she/he/they are wickedly funny sometimes.

Two asides

*Of course, you can use the blogging platform anyway you like. I make that point repeatedly in The Corporate Blogging Book.  As long as you're comfortable with the fact that you (as a corporate blogger) may not be publishing a blog, per se. What you may be doing is using blogging software as an instant publishing platform.

** I make exception for anonymous blogging for those writing from war-torn countries or who live under repressive governments. See Global Voices Online.

Technorati: anonymous blogging, the corporate blogging book

Comments

[Amanda Chapel]

Debbie,

With regard to anonymity... excuse me, if Benjamin Franklin were alive, he surely would have an anonymous blog. Franklin truths invariably arrived under a variety of names. Ol’ Ben knew that those he put a spotlight on would seek to crush him.

Here's what I suggest: First, think before you talk. Also, get off your high horse. Considering it’s PR, and that you're a blogging coach, your self-righteous assertion is pretty ridiculous.

- Amanda

[Debbie Weil]

As I said in a comment above... too cool that Amanda / Strumpette is reading my blog and taking the time to lob a few at me.

Hmmm... high horse. Well I can see how you might take my post that way. I struggled a bit over how to articulate what I wanted to say.

I *do* believe in the power of anonymous blogging when it comes to sensitive political or human rights issues.

And I think what you do is awfully smart and funny. BUT I sometimes get asked if anonymous blogging is OK for a corporate blog... and I think the answer is no.

As I see it, you're in the media/entertainment/publicity stunt business. Effective corporate blogging is an ongoing marketing communications strategy and as such generally isn't a publicity stunt.

Am I making more sense?

[Amanda Chapel]

Indeed, you are making sense. And a reasonable response at that. Good for you. I am kinda imagining the scene in “Gone with the Wind” where Belle Watling is treated nicely by Miss Melanie.

Here, I think you articulate our difference very well: “As I see it, you're in the media/entertainment/publicity stunt business. Effective corporate blogging is an ongoing marketing communications strategy and as such generally isn't a publicity stunt.”

Exactly. I actually see PR as more honest when it is in the media/entertainment/publicity stunt business. No pretense. Consulting, and some of the smarmy snake-oil salesmen that come with it, is where the business gets in trouble.

With regard to effective corporate blogging... Hmmmmmmm I think the jury is still out there. Actually, I have an article in the works that pretty much shows that that bubble has broken.

- Amanda

[Judy Gombita]

Would Strumpette not land in the category of a "character blog," Debbie? (I seem to recall a Tris-Debbie tag team vigorously defending the value of character blogs to Steve Rubel at the May mesh conference....)

Of course maybe the strenuousness of your defence depends upon the "character" established and the topics and tone of the blogging posts and comments! :-)

(Interesting debate. I'd say the two of you were running neck-in-neck so far re: scoring valid points. Which is a good thing!)

[Deon Botha]

If there was no cause and effect to blogging; like getting sacked if your opinions go contrary to your employers, then the need or use for anonymity becomes meaningless.

Using an alias to distance yourself from your opinions and rants tends create a certain invulnerability from reality and as such writings become more assertive and bold. It may make your opinions more believable because of whom and what you are.

The marketers and advertisers have it that all attention whether good or bad stimulates thought in a subject and that is good.

In the end it comes down to who we turn to for information. A qualified source or a unqualified alias.

[Mary Gilmartin]

Thanks for linking to us.

Feel free to ask if you ever have any questions.

[Stephen]

Benjamin Franklin? You mean that Franklin? From the 18th century?? Didn’t almost every writer in the 18th century write anonymously? Wasn’t that kind of a fad or something waaaay back then? Common Amanda. This is the 21st century – the century of transparency. Reading the Wonkette is like reading a comic book. When I want real information, I go to real people. I always visit the “About” page. I like to see a picture there. The more information I get about the real person behind the post, the more I tend to believe the post reflects that person’s position exactly. Anonymity is a cloak behind which you can be anything you want, for instance, a fake. Usually a fake. Like Amanda, who is probably fat and who, I’m betting, doesn’t sleep with her boss. So, we will never see her. She will never admit who she really is. Why? Because she is embarrassed by who she really is. And she prefers to live the sex fantasy of that naked picture. Amanda is no Benjamin Franklin. Remember? Franklin soon stepped out into the light, and he was every bit the man he was behind the mask. Every bit and more.