Marcus: How about a bad example or something that could have been done better?

Naples: There are so many of these. It seems like every day that I get pitched for one or another. I don't want to call any of them out though. No need to make enemies.

Battelle: I can't think of one that comes to mind on FM sites, but there are certainly examples of this done with something of a tin ear. The Subway pitch comes to mind.

Huba: McDonald's has a corporate responsibility blog called "Open for Discussion". The company does deserve kudos for having a blog at all, but the blogger could be doing a better job at handling a recent issue that has surfaced. Environmental bloggers are criticizing the company for distributing 42 million Hummers as prizes in Happy Meals this summer in a marketing promotion with GM.

The McDonald's blogger has been very slow in approving comments on the blog that are critical on this issue. A recent post by the McDonald's blogger indicated that he is frustrated that more people are not commenting on the issue on his blog. He needs to realize that the dialogue is happening in the blogosphere and he should reach out and comment on the blogs that are being critical. The conversation doesn't always come to you; sometimes you have to go to where it's happening and jump in.

Hespos: Fake MySpace pages are a big drag. There are all these people out there connecting with one another in very human ways. They post messages back and forth, invite people into their social circles, engage in conversation-- basically they're living their social lives online. And then these brands come along and post pages for their mascots or their ad icons, and they think it's a success because people become "friends" with the icon. They say, "Ooh, look. A gazillion people 'friended' my ad icon. That proves that people identify with my brand." It's pathetic-- like those kids in high school who would compare how many people signed their yearbook as if it was some sort of validation that they were popular or something.

What these companies could be doing is empowering somebody at their organization to speak directly with the market. I know it's a scary concept because marketers think they have control over the marketing message. What they don't realize is that for communication to have credibility in this sphere, it needs to be a two-way dialogue between human beings, not a one-way message from a marketing department to a "target audience." When people within companies speak directly to the market, we recapture some of that "mom and pop-ness" we've lost over the years. Personally, I identify with brands that listen to me, demonstrate that my input is important and don't keep me at arm's length.

As far as things that could have been done better, I really identify with the idea behind Ford's Bold Moves campaign, but I think the execution could have been a lot better. They started a blog and I thought they were prepared to listen to the market and respond to reactions people had to what's on their blog. Instead, they simply comment on stories written about them in the mass media or on A-list blogs. They don't respond to the individual sports car enthusiast, for example, who shows up at their blog and wants to get involved in a discussion with someone at the company about why Ford can't seem to build a Corvette killer.

It's nice to acknowledge what's going on in the blogosphere, and that definitely is a step in the right direction. But I don't know that what Ford is doing is legitimately encouraging participatory dialogue. There are still a lot of people out there still being ignored.