CEOs as Citizen Journalists

{self}A Twist on Target Marketing{/self}

Marketers always have targeted the different selves of consumers, and the media has given them the tools to do so. They give us media for our business selves, our parenting selves and our adventure selves. But, what happens when the media model is turned upside down, and the reader or viewer becomes the media? Then, is the media, in the form of the individual, allowed to assume these different identities?

Of course, people do it every day as they assume different personas for different blogs, or even different personas within the same blog for the benefit of interesting dialogue.

But, what about public figures? Should they be afforded the same right to assume a variety of personas in social media?

As the Federal Trade Commission considers the merger of Whole Foods and Wild Oats, they have become increasingly interested in Whole Foods co-founder John Mackey’s once anonymous contributions to a Yahoo finance bulletin board .

Should the CEO of a major retail chain be precluded from participating in a social community about his industry? He certainly is free to participate in these communities in the real world. Yet, like many in the virtual world Mackey was assuming a different identity.

Visionary CEOs are evangelists for their cause or idea. This certainly is the case for Mackey. Yet, once they reach a certain pinnacle of success their causes or ideas are boiled down to singular thoughts and are duplicated by others. People expect to hear these leaders take the same point of view on the same topic that has come to represent his or her success.

For the company’s communication strategy team, they have achieved success when this singular idea has engaged a consumer base. But, for the restless, visionary CEO, he or she has a whole lot more to say, and some of it is probably controversial. In our land of sanitized communications, CEOs of publicly traded companies are rarely afforded the opportunity to create controversy even if it is beneficial for the company.

Now, with the power of online social networks, they have a mechanism for engaging in controversial dialogue anonymously. Executives and other leaders can spur debate, take positions and build a convincing case to support their positions. At the same time, other members of these communities provide ideas and thoughts that inspire new strategies and directions for a company. It is a form of consumer research. It is a real live focus group.

But, what does this mean for corporate reputation management in the digital world? Public relations executives might counsel a CEO to start a blog to give a human touch to the corporate web site. But can the CEO really say anything interesting on the blog, and will real community form around this effort? Probably not.

But if a CEO or other corporate executive participates in an online community under another persona, are they manipulating their company’s reputation? They have access to more information than most and could use that to their advantage to sway opinions about competitors and ideologies. When people are turning off mainstream media for more authentic, personalized exchanges, is an exchange based on alternate identities any more authentic than the evening news? Will this identity exchange eventually delegitimize social media?

Or, is it the new form of target marketing? Does an individual, especially a public leader, have the right to assume different personas for different audiences and occasions? After all, if the market is a series of conversations , the leader will have limited engagement with the market, if he or she has to assume just one persona. And our democratic debates and exchanges, and ultimately market growth, will be limited as these visionaries are told to play it safe.