You can’t control communities – but you should inspire them

I went to an interesting discussion group today – unfortunately I arrived late, so I’m not sure how much I can disclose, and I also missed all the introductions.

But there were a range of people in positions of authority for digital products, services and communities from a range of institutions, both commercial and governmental.

And what I can talk about is the fact that we’re still debating whether brand owners should be prepared to relinquish control of what is created, published and discussed on their digital products.

Here’s something shocking:

You can’t, and you don’t control ‘your’ community. Never have. Never will.

The reason is that ‘your’ community isn’t just the people you moderate on your forum, or the people creating content that you can edit and publish. ‘Your’ community is spread far and wide, and comprises of everyone who has any type of interaction with your brand, product or service. At it’s most tenuous, it’s seeing someone in branded clothing, and your opinion of them informing your opinion about that brand – and discussing that offline, on forums, on Instant  Messaging services, and where-ever your conversations are.

Now try and convince me that you’re able to moderate and control everything someone does, everywhere they go? (Obviously I will accept arguments by Chinese Government officials…)

You should look to inspire communities:

This isn’t a new concept. The ideals of inspirational figures have been remembered and followed long after the names of those who tried to control/persecute/murder them. Pick whichever example is most relevant, from Jesus, through Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

If you want a certain type of content produced, or certain types of interaction, you need to plan to inspire your community to predominantly produce it. Whether it’s seeding a community with the right content, rewarding it (with fame or fortune), or simply being a part of the community in the manner which you would like to see, there are plenty of ways to do it – but don’t expect everyone to follow the example.

The only time I can ever advocate control and moderation is in the face of legal issues or persecution of individuals or groups. But this has to be accompanied by free and open explanation of the reasons for your actions. If not, the best case will be an annoyed user. At worst, you could see a forum revolt. Just look at the example of Sony HD DVD codes on Digg.com.

Don’t forget users once they’re signed up

Maybe it’s a sign I’m getting bored with hearing Social Networking talk, considering the main players have been the same for a fairly long time now. But I was surprised by how unfriendly Facebook can be to it’s users.

I’ve got a couple of accounts, and one was used to spread the word about something of interest to a particular group of hobbyists. I belonged to a number of suitable groups, and left some wall messages, which included a website link, but was written so that it was clear that no-one had to actually visit the website to take part.

I’m presuming this was the post that was removed by the Management, but in the official emails that told me I could be banned, deleted or hung, drawn and quartered, no-one thought to tell me what the offending post was.

It’s not useful being told not to do something, but having to try and guess what that thing is.

Don’t fall into the ‘new customer trap’. Even once you’ve got them into your site, don’t annoy them. Because they will bugger off, believe me.

Digg’s impressive response to HD-DVD row

In my last post I mentioned Catherine Toole, and one thing I totally agree with is her view that anyone talking to readers should be honest and transparent. At which point the perfect example has appeared.

For the past day or so, there’s been a hoopla at www.digg.com. Basically someone posted a code to crack HD-DVDs and the post got deleted by moderators. Then another one appeared. And soon it escalated to the point of the Digg homepage swamped in the HD-DVD code.

The Digg team had said that it would remove posts due to legal issues. But then, this happened….

“Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…”

Digg founder Kevin Rose posted on the Digg blog, explaining the previous decisions as necessary to avoid any risk of the site being closed down. But then he goes on to say something you’d have a hard time imagining from a traditional company dealing with customers, investors, PR machines etc:

“But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

Digg on,

Kevin “

So the Digg users now have the founder stating that Digg is co-opting the standpoint of users and are willing to risk legal action to maintain integrity. A rare thing these days, assuming that the lawyers haven’t just found a loophole behind the scenes, and one which has generated quite a turnaround and positive stance from commentators and Digg users.