Ghost blogging and the 'lunchbag let-down' effect

I've been listening to a fascinating discussion via Mitch Joel's blog. He and Mark Schaefer have been at loggerheads over the issue of ghost blogging, and debating whether it can be justified in today's business world.

It is an intriguing debate that can be summarised as follows...


The motion FOR ghost blogging
The case for ghost blogging [Mark] says that blogs are important channels that enable individuals - the argument centred on the example of CEO bloggers - to communicate directly with the people who buy the products. And to use those channels effectively, it helps to be a good writer. If the individual in question happens not to be a natural writer, why not enlist some help?

...and the motion against.
Mitch's response is that social media is all about personal connection. The world has changed and techniques like blogging are a natural consequence of the need for a more personal level of communication. Therefore it is fundamentally wrong for this to come from a third person.

Both guys argue their case very eloquently, and I have paraphrased their arguments for the sake of brevity here. I encourage you to listen to them in person on Mitch's podcast here.

Ghost blogging and B2B
But what about the world of B2B marketing that we occupy here on this blog? This argument is particularly relevant to the world of B2B because we arguably have a greater need to connect directly with customers [because there is a greater variety of customers who demand a greater variety of information] yet we are not good at it.

In my experience, the B2B world is full of organisations that believe in the power of social media as part of the marketing mix, but who lack the time/skills/resources to do it. And we, as an agency, are in the business of contributing external resources and skills to help them do it. So surely we come down in favour of ghost blogging?

Three important caveats
Inside every pragmatist there is probably an idealist trying to get out. So while I endorse the use of ghost-blogging, I also believe that personal connection and authenticity should be driving factors behind every social media initiative. So, for me, ghost blogging only works with the following caveats:

1. That you are not 'passing off'. That is to say, you are not pretending. This means that the message has to be from the 'signatory'. The way it is phrased can be down to the writer of course but the content must be genuine. Whether you acknowledge the existence of an editor/ghost writer is not the point - it is about where the original thought comes from. This has to be true throughout the dialogue, wherever it may take place. Managing comments on a blog, for example, without the involvement of the 'signatory' is a Bad Thing To Do.
   
   
2. You separate brands from people. The CEO is not the brand. The brand is represented online by a raft of people, from PR departments to sales teams to tech specialists. They need to make it clear who they are - that way people know what to expect from them. The brand experience is the cumulative effect.
   
   
3. That you have a long-term aim to become more self-sufficient. People prefer to connect directly. It was not viable until the social web came along, but now it is, companies need to adapt to it. Since it is not possible - and probably not even desirable - to change instantly, ghost writing has a valuable role to play in the near-term. But it is in the long-term interests of every brand to adapt to this new movement.

The nature of the social web is such that if you try to fool people, you will be found out eventually. And people will be disappointed. This is the "lunchbag let-down" effect that Mitch memorably refers to in his podcast. And when people are disappointed, they will tell each other, and all your effort will be undone.

Whether you agree with Mark or Mitch is up to you. Have a listen and make your mind up. But no one should think it is a good idea to pass themselves off as someone they are not.

We've got to be honest about this. Ghost blogging can be justified; ghost thinking cannot.