John Batelle has responded to some of the criticisms of the technosphere to Federated Media’s hamfisted attempts at “Conversational Marketing”, and for the most part, doesn’t back down. Microsoft had no ill intent. Neither did bloggers involved. We should all just try and get used to things because we’re all taking part in how new media marketing is evolving.

Meh.

How about less mea culpa and more solutions?

I think that this whole hubaloo could have been resolved with a bit of smarter marketing — with the goal to making the conversations and interactions seem a little more natural, a little less forced, and therefore, preserve the integrity of all involved.

How could we do this?

Well, the real problem with Federated Media’s gaffe is *not* that they got Microsoft to host a discussion about something. Rather, the problem was how they did it. The result seemed artificial, forced, and it made some of these bloggers seem like shills because they were getting compensated — in a round about way — to talk about something that they might never have done in the first place.The solution?

If Microsoft really *is* interested in hosting a discussion, it might have succeeded by doing the following:

• Choosing a generic topic: Don’t choose a bloody slogan that everyone knows the sponsoring company is trying to promote. I don’t care if Microsoft’s motives were the purest and most noble — the very fact that it wanted people to talk about what “people ready” meant to them is essentially asking bloggers to talk about what Microsoft’s new slogan means to them. If Microsoft was *really* interested in hosting a conversation, why make it all about Microsoft? Better yet, why not be subtle about it? Why not host a conversation about, say, the importance of people — real, fallible, yet extraordinary individuals, who are helping you succeed? Sure, have the “People Ready” label splashed along the top, if you want. But start it off on the right foot by making it seem like you’re interested in a conversation that’s more about the topic and less about yourself.
• Getting natural opinion leaders to participate: Why not choose bloggers who have an opinion about that topic? The importance of people? Why not get bloggers who know a thing or three about human resources or the humanity behind what makes blogging work? Or how about a blogger or two who have overcome particular adversities without any extraordinary technology or know how? Look at the bloggers who are involved with the People Ready campaign. Do any of these bloggers fit that mold? Some of them do. Many of them don’t. That incongruency leads to question the integrity of the campaign and the bloggers involved. Why not reverse that by hiring voices that make sense as part of the conversation?
• Ensure that a diversity of opinion is cultivated: In choosing those voices, doesn’t it make sense to not only choose voices which are relevant, but voices which are also diverse? Here’s another way to foster integrity: making sure that you acknowledge dissenting voices, particularly ones which don’t like you or even what you do. Can you imagine how much credibility Microsoft would have gotten if it sought out bloggers who might have a history of, let’s say, of being Pro-Linux, and yet still having something interesting or important to say about being People Ready? Or, having the guts to bring out an opinion about how *linux* enabled a blogger to be “people ready”? How much integrity do you think Microsoft would have then?

In many ways, these kinds of tips are quite similar to what, I think, makes a panel at a conference work. Same principles here as it is there — you’re aiming for a lively conversation that sparks some healthy thought and debate. Even if there are sponsors for the entire *conference*, you don’t want the conference to seem like its content is unduly influenced *by* those sponsors.

You would never see a conference panel being sponsored by Microsoft, and having the panelists discussing what “People Powered” meant to them, now would you?

I mean, that would seem artificial, forced, and quite frankly, a little fake. It might make you question the conference, the sponsors, and even the panelists up there.

And with all due respect to Robert Scoble, this is more than an issue of disclosure, because when you do it smartly, the issue of disclosure is really irrelevant. That is, no one will ever question your integrity, or any undue bias, because the conversation will sound — and BE — natural. You’d have people who would naturally talk about the topic to be … well, talking about it. And like the best conversations, you’d have dissenting opinions — even perhaps, against the whole notion of what the topic is about.

Is this so hard? Does this take an enormous amount of guts to do — to potentially be responsible for a conversation that might spiral out of control? Where you don’t actually *have* much control? Where you might be on the receiving end of some bad publicity?

You know what?

That’s new media, folks. That’s blogging, that’s podcasting, that’s social networking all rolled into one.

You can’t control the conversation any more — but you can be part of it.

And hosting a natural one is one way that marketers can participate. There’s enormous power — and credibility there — for them … if they have the stomachs to do it, and do it the right way.