Corporate Influencer – Reputation Booster or Brainchild?
Employees are increasingly taking part in public discussions as representatives of the company via social media. Many companies not only tolerate this but encourage their employees to do so. For communication professionals, this is both a curse and a blessing. A curse, because the quality of this communication cannot be well controlled. A blessing, because in the positive case, the company is supported by credible representatives. As a survey conducted a few years ago among the members of the Harbour Club (heads of communication of the 80 largest Swiss companies) showed, they see risks above all in this area and consider the loss of control to be their greatest challenge. A quote from the study*: “The seemingly chaotic demands of realigned communications turn notions of hierarchy and control on their head”.
On 6 June, Prof. Dr Guido Keel, Head of the Institute of Applied Media Studies at the ZHAW, opened the “IAM live” evening on the topic of corporate influencers with two provocative questions: “How can you still be strategic about communication when everyone is communicating? What does the communications department do if everyone communicates well or with good intentions?”
Prof. Dr Nicole Rosenberger of the IAM then presented a model that gave cause for hope. Is it possible for communication managers to regain the sovereignty of communication? If they are to lead their more or less competent communicators, they need to be given concrete tasks. It is true that internal ambassadors emerge because of their social status and that they are difficult to control. But the “corporate influencer” is a new category of communicator that can be created, selected and managed. These influencers should be selected internally for their high level of expertise and made fit for their specific role through training and coaching. The corporate influencer then communicates digitally and acts as a topic leader for the company, while the “normal” employee communicates only as an external ambassador for his or her network – analogue and digital. The model that provides clarity and structure:
In the panel discussion that followed the presentation, Sarah Stiefel, head of digital communications at SBB since 2015, wasn’t really comfortable with the role of corporate influencer. Instead, she advocated “letting things happen” and seeking dialogue with the most active social media fans among employees. Panel guest Edi Estermann, head of the SRG media office, took a similar view. In the case of the “No Billag” initiative, he said, it had been shown that employees would certainly seek contact if they were unsure about communicating in social media. What has proved successful in the “No Billag state of emergency”, however, is the temporary adaptation and supplementation of the social media guidelines and the internal communication of facts that the company considers helpful to correct and offers to share with employees.
To bring in the journalistic perspective, Moritz Kaufmann, business editor of the “SonntagsBlick”, joined the panel. He, too, would probably rely less on corporate influencers in his search for information. In addition to the official press office, he also uses Twitter messages from employees as a good source of information. For example, he was the first journalist to discover that SBB CEO Andreas Meyer was taking a sabbatical – in a private comment by an SBB employee.
One should not be too quick to write off new approaches and give them time to develop – this also applies to the corporate influencer. From today’s perspective, however, it seems rather unlikely that this function will be able to establish itself in corporate communications. There are several reasons for this: The greatest experts in a field with many years of experience are not necessarily to be found among the digital natives who feel the constant need to share themselves with the world via social media. In addition, selecting topic leaders can be difficult, especially in agile organisations, as topic leadership shifts depending on the project and the composition of the team. In addition, recognising a topic leader also means denying others the status of corporate influencer – a signal that can be misunderstood. It can also be difficult to deal with a corporate influencer who is no longer fit for purpose in his or her area, but who has gained a lot of good quality followers. There may be specific areas where specialists should be motivated to use social media (e.g. in HR for employer branding). But the hope of being able to control employee communication in the digital world is likely to remain an illusion.
Corporate communications should focus on empowering the entire workforce to use social media and keep them informed of new opportunities and applications. And it should work with management to ensure that employees find meaning in their work and in the company, are passionate about what they do and enjoy being there for their stakeholders. In short, with an investment in good culture, not much can go wrong with social media.
And what if an employee is really bad at communicating? Then, in the worst case, a shitstorm sweeps over the company. Can you think of a Swiss company that was triggered by an employee’s communication? Really? And did the company suffer any damage as a result – lost customers, sales or market share? No? Not really. Sarah Stiefel from the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB) aptly described what you need to get used to in corporate communications when it comes to social media: Of course you have to clearly communicate the framework for social media activities. But then you have to trust your employees and let things run their course.
* Study commissioned by the Harbour Club, “The Transformation of Communication: Faster, Higher, Better”, gfs.bern, October 2014