thanks in advance to anyone that leaves a comment. it would be great to get feedback on this!

Yay, Chris, so pleased for you that your blog is back up! Will try to take a look at the manifesto sometime this coming week.

And companies that don’t blog probably don’t because 1) they don’t “get it” and/or 2) they lack the culture of openness and trust that is implied in such a non-hierarchical kind of communication. Who will post, who will approve the posts, what if we say something we shouldn’t have, what if we don’t have anything to say, blah blah blah. Also, inertia and denial of change. (”We never needed a blog before, why do we need one now?”)

Companies not blogging.

I would add a number 3) reason:

Their customers don’t know what a blog is, so even if they did blog, that would be a waste of time and money.
You can argue that “in the future…” and that’s all right, but there are cases when there is simply no need to blog.

@Roland - so it depends on the company. I can see that. If you’re Sun or Dell or LinkedIN, people expect a blog. If you’re Hellmans Mayonnaise, people might not. Like that?

Thanks for providing the paper, and thanks for soliciting feedback. Personally, I think that the paper was lacking in two areas:

1. The paper talks about a “Return on Influence,” but doesn’t really provide evidence of any such return. Page 3 states that “it’s possible that building a stronger relationship will drive more recurring sales and referrals and further adoption.” Page 9 includes the phrase “when you reap the rewards.” I really want to believe you, but the paper doesn’t give me any evidence that there is such a return. I appreciate that a multi-year quantative study would be prohibitively expensive, but at least some anecdotal evidence would be good - i.e. someone who states, “Even when the guy from company A lost the sale, he continued to check in on me, not in a pushy way, AND I REMEMBERED HIM WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS REBID TWO YEARS LATER.” Without such anecdotal evidence, the claim that true engagement results in financial returns sounds like wishful thinking. (Perhaps faking friendship pays off in the long run; it’s sad to think so, but it might.)

2. Are the behaviors promoted in the paper designed to promote the company, or promote the individual? The behaviors that are discussed are individual behaviors, and if they’re only promoted on an individual basis, then the company may not benefit. Let’s restate my example above: “Even when the guy from company A lost the sale, he continued to check in on me, not in a pushy way, and I remembered him when the contract was rebid two years later. HOWEVER, HE WAS NO LONGER AT COMPANY A, AND THE NEW GUY WHO WAS AT COMPANY A WAS A REAL JERK.” Perhaps this is outside the scope of this particular paper, but what about the challenge of changing the behavior of an entire organization so that they work on nurturing relationships with their customers and potential customers? Again, anecdotal examples would work wonders.”

I hope you don’t mind my quibbles, but I just feel that the paper would have more influence if some of these things were tidied up. I noticed that the paper that I read has a “born on date” of March 5 (hope you don’t get sued by a beverage company), so perhaps these issues could be addressed in a future revision.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Chris and Julien, thanks for this!

I love the idea of business becoming something that is founded on relationships already nurtured for their own sakes. Will definitely share this with friends.

:o)