Comments on: Is GM Trying to Control the Conversation?

By: Geoff Livingston

Geoff Livingston — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:36:36 +0000

Ironically enough, four days later I end up invoking our comment policy for just the second time in a similar situation. I guess you had a point, Chris.

By: Geoff Livingston

Geoff Livingston — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:09:04 +0000

Yeah, I hear you. But I get called many things n this blog and I let 95% of them through. Why? Because I think it stands to make the attacker look worse than me. But, whatever works. I respect where you are coming from.

By: Christopher Barger

Christopher Barger — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:36:03 +0000

Hi Geoff… I guess I’d say, “But you even moderate comments on LivingstonBuzz.com/blog.” There’s a reason for that. If you were being attacked by people campaigning you for something you wrote, and the comments were either verbatim or full of personal attacks (which was what was happening to us), would you post them all and just let that “conversation” happen? You have reasons that you moderate… would you waive those reasons in the face of an attack?

I know, it’s different when it’s a company vs. an individual. And I’m not trying to flog a dead horse (which I have been known to do). ;-) I’m just genuinely curious as to whether people think that companies have to leave themselves open to all manner of personal attacks or even libel in order to optimize conversation.

By: Geoff Livingston

Geoff Livingston — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:00:47 +0000

Thanks, Chris for making that clarification. Though, I think leaving it open and letting the conversation happen would probably have achieved a similar end. I think the activists would have looked pretty bad just by continuing their poor behavior. Also, perhaps guidance could have been given in the middle of the conversation to bring it back to civility.

It’s GM’s turf, and the company has a right to do what it wants in its own forum. But instead of optimizing conversation, the company attracted a black eye.

By: Christopher Barger

Christopher Barger — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:48:29 +0000

Hi guys. Thanks for the analysis. I just wanted to clarify the situation, since I’m not sure it’s entirely coming through in the coverage that’s out there. Participation in the consumer forums — just like commentary on our blogs has been for years — has always been moderated. That piece of the GMNext program hasn’t changed and won’t.

Comment moderation is in place on our sites, just as many sites elsewhere in both the corporate and individual blogosphere, to prevent vulgarity, personal attacks, or off-topic or otherwise un-germaine remarks. It’s never been, for us anyway, about “controlling” the tone or nature of the conversations that occur.

In this particular case, 1) we didn’t shut down commentary on the site, nor even on the entire green section of the site… only the comments on the user-generated content posted by the activists. 2) We didn’t remove any content — none of their photos, and none of their comments. We just closed down further comments on those photos/posts.

3) We did so in order to facilitate better conversation. If you’re an environmentalist who is asking us direct questions and genuinely wants to engage, but there are 70 people in the room shouting everything down but their own opinions and trying to drown out anything but their own sloganeering, then how can you hear us or we you? We recognized that there was value in having conversations around the subjects being raised, but we didn’t feel that we could have a constructive conversation in the environment the activists were creating. (By “constructive,” I just mean an environment where people actually engage one another and listen to one another — even if they still agree to disagree when it’s over.) We saw no reason to “punish” people who genuinely wanted to engage just because a vocal fringe wanted to shout all sides down. So we set up the chat series based directly on the subjects that were being raised in the more thoughtful commentary.

So to reiterate, we didn’t change our moderation policy as a result of this campaign. All we did was try to facilitate a more constructive environment to have an actual dialogue. Sorry for the long reply, but I thought it was important to explain this point.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:26:32 +0000

Actually GM has a long history of engaging with detractors as much of enthusiasts. About a year into their blogging program, they launched a private community and invited not only internal people and outspoken fans but also those people that criticized them on their various blogs. For a company GM’s size, I think they’re relatively progressive in relation to social media. I can’t imagine I would keep a forum open if it just provided a forum for non-constructive criticism of my brand. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of places to go if you want to criticize Hummers.