It has become very fashionable to write blog posts that are critiques of the way some company has mis-managed a social media crisis. The general premise of these posts is that the social media manager/team has mismanaged things and that if they only had the insight of this particular social media "guru" then things would have worked out perfectly. I'm a little tired of it, and here's why.

There's something missing from these critiques. Reality. 

Most of the time I read these posts I have to think that the person writing has never actually been involved in social media in the real world. If they had then they would know that reality isn't the perfect world they've constructed in their review. Things get in the way of even the most perfect plans. Things like budgets, time constraints, overzealous legal teams and more. Yet to make a "good" review none of these things are considered and it's often assumed that the community manager (or social media director or whoever manages social for the company) has made mistakes in their handling of the situation.

The problem is that even if the social media manager has a perfect plan in place and is ideally situated to respond to whatever crisis may arise, there are always other factors. Perhaps there are posts on your Facebook wall that really should be responded to immediately. But what if the situation is still developing and the CEO has ordered that nothing goes out to the public without her approval? Maybe there's 25 new blog posts about the crisis. Obviously the manager should be monitoring and responding as appropriate. But what if the social media manager is also responsible for talking to the media and is completely occupied with that?

In an ideal world each company would have a huge team of social media and community managers with an unlimited budget and an executive team that totally gets "it." Unfortunately, that's not the case. Yet how often do we see someone pointing out each little flaw in a response as if the person running things was a complete idiot?

Here's what I propose. Stop assuming that everyone is an idiot. Start giving people the benefit of the doubt. In the real world you don't always have time to plan things a week in advance. In the real world there's not always the budget the social media manager would like. In the real world the person (yup, often just one person) tasked with monitoring may be stuck in meetings for a couple of hours while tweets are flying about them.

Even huge companies with entire social media teams have their limitations. The point is the person writing the critique has no idea what's going on behind the scenes.

Yes, I understand that we can learn things from evaluating what others have done. I don't think we have to stop learning and critiquing. Let's just do the community a favor and give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes while we're looking at their response. No, it may not generate the same link bait headlines we're used to but it might lead to a more valuable discussion in the end.

(No, I've never had one of these critiques written about me that I know of. However, I have been involved in crisis management response for an incident that made international headlines and I know first-hand that the text book response isn't always possible.)

What do you think? Am I off base? Do these people deserve to get slammed for their crisis handling? 

Wil Reynolds of Seer Interactive in Philadelphia spoke on the difference between what Google tells us will work for search and what actually works. His final point, and the one that really stuck with me was to make a point of helping someone out every single day.

He was speaking specifically about those in your online community but this of course could apply offline as well. He gave examples of help he's received from others and benefits that come back to him when he does something to help those in his community.

There are great benefits to helping people out online. It can help strengthen your position as a community manager, it can encourage others to return the favor and it can make it clear to others that you're a good resource for the community. 

However, I don't think that any of those things were the main point to Wil's presentation. I think the main point was that we should be doing this because it's good for the overall health of the community. When we answer someone's questions or give them advice on a problem it can come back to help that individual but it echos throughout the community. Others may be looking for the same information later and it will serve to aid them as well. Other community members will also be encouraged to pitch in when they see that it's needed. Eventually the group as a whole will be stronger, more vibrant and a better experience for all involved.

This is true if it's a community of SEO professionals as Wil was talking about or if it's on your favorite local forum. I've seen it many times on forums where I've been active. Those that put the most into the discussion boards and helping others out are the ones that reap the most benefits. Those benefits can be visitors to their businesses or in connecting with like-minded people offline. 

But again, the main point isn't about the individual benefits. The best reason to help those around you is to strengthen the overall community. That will come back to help you and everyone else involved.

I'll post a follow-up about a few ways to find people that need help in the next few days.

One of my favorite presentations of the day was from Rand Fishkin of SEOmoz. He ran through a list of 50 tools to help solve your marketing problems. He's been generous enough to post the presentation, check it out on the SEOmoz website. Check it out, you'll find a ton of great information.

I’ve recently been noticing inconsistencies in what I’ll call spin-off pieces created by clients (not just my clients, but many businesses). Spin-off pieces are created in-house by client teams and, with the best intentions, are designed to fit with the current ad campaign. These could be things like newsletters, email marketing or employee communications to name a few.

The problem is that without a clear guide for the current campaign, small changes can creep into the designs. Sometimes the wrong weight type is used in the headline or a photo is reversed to better fit a particular application. These initially seem like minor details but soon you have half a dozen pieces that are all slightly different from eachother. These projects typically happen away from the eyes of the agency and the small variations can leave the original campaign diluted.

Will the client notice the problem? Maybe, maybe not. Will the consumer notice? They probably won’t put a finger on the details but I believe that it does make a difference in brand perception.

The solution isn’t difficult but it does require deliberate action. Agencies and designers need to talk to the client about possible in-house spin-off projects that may borrow from the campaign. If such projects are a possibility then the creative team can develop a simple one page guide that covers basics such as type weights used in copy, tagline placement, color palettes (with color values for print and screen) and any other details specific to the campaign. A brief guide will be simple to follow and will actually make things easier on the client.

However, the responsibility can’t all be left to the creative team. Clients need to be aware that design choices are made for a reason and it’s important to remain consistent throughout communications. Without client buy-in the guides will be ineffective.

As an art director I’d love to be able to sign off on every single piece of communication that a client puts out. Unfortunately that’s not realistic. The next best thing is developing a clear set of guides that can be followed so that future pieces can build on the work of the initial campaign and create a stronger brand.