Email The Lost Jacket Subcribe to the blog via RSS

Rotnem Philosophy

by Stuart Foster on October 30, 2009

vending machine failure

Edelman did not make a social media mistake.

Edelman made a PR mistake.

Reverse mentoring isn't a bad idea. In fact it's a fantastic idea. Younger workers benefit from exposure to strategy and framing that an older executive can offer. The executive can benefit by becoming versed and competent in the technology.

Strategy will always be more important than tools. (This is why more experienced executives usually captain the ship.)

What Edelman did wrong was allow people who weren't entirely on the up and up into the conversation. Where were Steve Rubel or Blagica Bottigliero? Those are the big guns in social at Edelman. They are the ones shaping social strategy, NOT the executives mentioned. (Of course, the reporter who did the story needs to at least do a follow up on who really makes decisions about social at Edelman.)

Intellectual curiosity is a necessity in marketing. However, is it realistic to expect that someone who can't make it to their desk most days will be able to explore the finer points of social media?

No. Sadly, it's unrealistic to expect a department head involved in day-to-day operations to be fully versed in every new technology. Should they have been on the boat earlier? Absolutely.

However, they are here with us now. Major brands are now getting into social and making it a priority. Let's focus on that aspect. Change comes more slowly at the executive level, it's just a fact of life.

The main problem that I had with this situation is the qualifications of the mentors quoted in the article. The younger executives? Not exactly stellar social footprints:

Ashley Spohn:

Her Twitter: http://twitter.com/ashleyspohn

Her Blog: http://ashleyspohn.wordpress.com/

Matthew Clay:

His Twitter: http://twitter.com/Matthewdclay

His Tumblr: http://keeptheballrolling.tumblr.com/

Meh. They have presences but can't exactly be described as prolific. However, I'm sure they do more work internally. Here's the rub: juxtapose them with Amanda Mooney's social footprint and they look downright prehistoric (Amanda is a 23-year-old Edelman Strategist).

Amanda Mooney:

Her Twitter: http://twitter.com/Amandamooney

Her Tumblr: http://wearethedigitalkids.tumblr.com/

Now that's a kick ass presence.

Now, I'd love to have Ashley and Matt come here and tell me more about what they do at Edelman. In fact, I'm counting on it. They certainly aren't slouches if they are both AE's.

If you are going to talk about the youth movement at your company? Trot out your best team and prep your executives. Age doesn't have to do with anything. It's the social footprint, expertise and quality work that matters.

Did Edelman do the right thing by being this transparent? Or did they undercut their social efforts with this article? Let me know where you stand.

Photo Credit: Salimfadhley

Related Posts with Thumbnails

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment, showing us some social love or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Digg this article
  • Bookmark this post on Delicious
  • Stumble this post
  • Upvote this article on Reddit

tagged as , , , , , ,

  • advertisables
    The entire "rotnem" thing is just insulting. There is nothing wrong with an old dog learning new tricks. Go back to school. Get a mentor. Learn. I would have had more respect for the executives if they would admit they don't know everything. Quid Pro Quo - youthful tech savvy for years of experience. I think it shows poor leadership when the person has to hide behind a made up term. I hope one of these "rotnems" puts their boss on myparentsjoinedfacebook.com.
  • I for one am just so darned tired of my generation being painted as social media dummies because we happen to NOT be 20-something...
  • Agreed. So annoying. The people in the article sounded like complete neophytes though.
  • Stu - I'm just now getting into the story w/Edelman and what's been said here - and other places. As much as I've read the original post on the Trib, I'm not quite sure it's as huge of a PR 'mistake' as you and others say it is. Sure, Edelman didn't necessarily shine the best of light on themselves or their SM arm, given the quotes and what was said in the piece during Rotnem sessions - as Sasha pointed out, some of it was fairly elementary. Still, I think we're quick to expect a retort or judge what's really going on behind the walls - and though we all could be wrong, I personally wouldn't take Valleywag's word for it.

    I'm not looking at this from a PR standpoint. Hell, not even from a social media stance. What I do see is a company, though may have not properly communicated it as such, taking part in a program that's trying to instill a culture within the company that's helping foster positive relationships between junior associates and executives. One that's opening doors, maybe not as much for the executives if SM talks are as low-level as they are, but more so to the development of the younger employees and feeding off of the leadership skills that the executives can share with them.

    Lastly, you question the qualifications of the mentors and how prolific their social footprint is. If we're going to be nitpicky, what makes Amanda Mooney's footprint any better if majority of her communications on Twitter is just links vs 2-way convo? Honestly, I think this is just getting into semantics if we're trying to see who has a 'kick-ass' presence and who doesn't.

    Should we sit here and expect Edelman to respond? No. Should they have done a better job at communicating their Rotnem program? Probably. Either way - it's something that's really getting blown up w/the wrong type of attention, IMO.

    Just my own 2-cents.
  • I blow things up so well though ;)

    Agree to disagree Sonny. We can't all kick ass. I just want to highlight the people that do.

    To be honest? Every organization should have had their shit together years ago. Unfortunately (or fortunately dependent on viewpoint) they didn't. If you are going to put yourself out there? You are going to get scrutinized. Don't have the presence? Unless you can show me 2-3 examples of awesome client work that you are doing I'm going to be suspicious.

    Walk the walk.
  • I made a comment earlier on Twitter in which I said, IMO A lot of social media marketers seem to have the infinite ability to rationalize stupidity, this is, in a sense, a case in point. What was thought to paint the agency in a hip, cool light, gives off the impression as Stuart implies, that the big guns are not forming strategy, and noobs are calling the shots based on the fact they might be digital natives. I see it all the time, where title and experience in this space do not meet in the middle.
  • I think it's completely dependent on the organization in question.

    I know my shit in social. I may have tons to learn still (admittedly) but at least within this arena I have the tools and strategy to compete with the big guns.

    I learn tons from talking to older executives. They probably learn tons from me. I'd feel comfortable having a a reporter check out my legitimacy. I wouldn't if I was one of the first two individuals.
  • BillSledzik
    Let me characterize this post with a cliche: No good deed goes unpunished.

    Reverse mentoring makes perfect sense, and I give Edelman credit for including the entire staff in its discussions. The firm has 3,500-odd employees. Gomes and Rubel can't train all of 'em at once. Also, the story doesn't say the "kids" are guiding SM policy for Edelman clients. They're just sharing what they know and helping to broaden the knowledge of senior strategists. How is that a bad thing?

    For the newcomers, let me remind you it was Edelman that pioneered the use of social media in PR. Yeah, the firm had a few missteps along the way. That happens when you lead. But no other international firm has come close to Edelman in contributions to the SM knowledge base. I've attended 2 of Edelman's 3 Academic Summits. Lemme tell you -- these folks are pros.

    I'll close with a couple more cliches: This is much ado about nothing. Don't read too much into it.
  • Note: I don't have anything against the concept. Just the way it was thrust into the public eye with very little forethought. I even called out someone who I thought was doing social right (and WAS a kid) Amanda Mooney.

    I think your issue is more with the Valleywag article then my post here.
  • laurenfernandez
    I could probably bet money on the fact that this was a hiearchy thing - and where many companies fail at social media.

    Some companies don't understand the social media footprint. They are completely unaware of what SM is, so when a 20-something spouts off anything related to Twitter or Facebook, they sound intelligent. Some just aren't willing to learn about first the platforms, then the engagement. The buy-in isn't there. They think they are "too busy" and "why should it be if they can just depend on the 20-something to teach them?" Sad, but true.

    On the flip side, the companies that succeed recognize when someone understands social media and how to rock it. That's why there is a blatant difference.

    Edelman made a huge PR mistake - they pitched the right topic, but the wrong people.

    Great post Stu. :)
  • I'm interested in some return-on-investment from the different accounts. You can be prolific on social media... you can even be outright popular... but does that mean you have a positive return? I'm still struggling over the concepts of being prolific and running/driving a business.
  • Fantastic question Kyle.

    I'm prolific...but haven't seen an immediate impact on my bottom line.
  • Stuart, wow, good catch. This is a PR mistake.

    Comments like this,

    "We grew up with social media," said Matthew Clay, 23, a media executive at Edelman. "We spent eight hours every day on AOL IM."
    [end direct quote]

    bother me so much because it's wrong. Just because someone spent hours on AIM or Facebook doesn't make them a social media genius or strategist. There is a PR firm where I am from, who I shall leave unnamed, that is a very popular one not only in South Florida but the state as well.

    Recently, they promoted one of their AEs to being their Director of Social Media. About four weeks ago, I was at a evening panel/session where this Social Media Director for the unnamed firm told a group of about 100 social media people that they were given the position because "Social media is Twitter and Facebook."

    *gah*

    Articles like the one you are referring to, and well this PR mistake, really get on my nerves.

    But you know what? I think it's up to us, as people who are learning, growing and know the true business to disseminate those 'stories' and tell it like it is.

    We can be architects of change by simply putting proper information out there, continuing to learn and striving for being the best. In my opinion, it certainly beats saying, "I love to play on Facebook, let me get you more friends on your Fan Page." -- that's not going to fly when the s*it hits the fan.
  • davevandewalle
    Stuart - Great post. I'm actually acquainted with @Blagica - through Chicago entrepreneurial circles - and I know that the company has the goods with Social Media Marketing.

    You are 100% correct that this is a PR mistake.

    I have shared this analogy elsewhere: back in my professional services days, we had an office leader who did "etiquette training" and wanted to tout this to the press. My boss -- smart guy -- suggested the headline would be "XYZ Consultants Don't Know Which Fork to Use." So we put the kibosh on it.

    I read and re-read this Edelman story as "Edelman Strategists Don't Know Which Fork to Use." Even if they absolutely do.
  • The Valleywag Article that inspired this all: http://bit.ly/C7wAq
blog comments powered by Disqus