Social media certainly change the dynamics. I think one of the most important changes is that it’s harder for companies to make the classic mistake of structuring feedback mechanisms so that they hear things they want to hear – for example, discovering what all your current customers want in the next product (but missing out what would make all those non-customers start doing business with you).

Certainly there’s been lots of ineffective one-way marketing in the past; I think social media make that much harder to maintain, and that’s a great thing.

That’s the context I read your quote with.
“Not all feedback and suggestions can be adapted by the company for a wide variety of reasons. How can a company harvest those conversations to effectively gage the marketplace before its too late? In some cases, feedback may not be recognized as valuable, but taken into a larger context that feedback may be part of a critical trend.”

Outbound marketing will soon be one of the tools in our toolbox. Inbound marketing, the people talking back to us, will require a different process. In this scenario, I see marketing in your proposed role of Ombudsman, facilitating the flow of conversations to departments that can make the judgments on what is critical. Marketing will be the filter that allows other business departments to get their work done without sacrificing participation in the in-bound process.

One question I have is whether marketing needs to be consolidated under that model? Core messages should come from a specifically responsible group of traditional marketers. But product development, customer service, sales, management, should all have someone within the department, embedded marketers if you will, with the front-line responsibility for monitoring in-bound communications relevant to them and coordinating with other departments to act on it.

Decentralized marketing with skills in other functional areas. Now we’re talking. (pun intended)