The thing that scares executives the most about social media is that people can get on negative rants that go on and on.   There’s no stopping what people may say.  But there are ways to respond to the negative and to politely hijack conversations and turn them in a new direction.

The three secrets to responding to negative posts are to recognize, respect and acknowledge the person’s views as legitimate and valid.  Then respond to the person's points honestly, sharing  more background on the issue to provide helpful context,  explaining how you're gong to address the issue or fix the problem, or  being open enough to admit that you or your company screwed up on this one.

But how do you hijack a negative conversation? How do you change the subject to get off a very negative track when emotions start to run high?

One recent example of an intense conversation and polite hijacking happened a few weeks ago when Cymfony's Jim Nail’s  posted, “Has the Web 2.0 Hype Cycle Kicked In?”  In the post Jim suggests that the Joseph Jaffe – Society of New Communications Research (SNCR) study on conversational marketing  “smacks of the hype cycle ‘peak of inflated expectations’".

"I'm as bullish as anybody about the growth of social media and the impact it will have on the relationship between brands and consumers. But this study makes me think "Bubble 2.0" with its conclusion that 81% of marketers will spend as much or more on Conversational Marketing than traditional marketing by 2012."

Where the conversation got interesting was in the comments to the post. Joseph Jaffe replied saying that maybe conversational marketing would constitute 25% of marketing budgets by 2012. Then Jim calls him on that because the study reported that 81% of those surveyed said they would be spending more on conversational marketing than traditional advertising. Jim notes tat there’s a big discrepancy between 25% and 81%.

Then Jen McClure of SNCR steps in and nicely hijacks the conversation, well timed as Jaffe’s math and research was starting to look bad, and McClure’s organization co-sponsored the research. study.

"So, let's open a new discussion forum/comment stream. If we agree that significant dollars and resources will be allocated to making this shift toward a more "conversation based" paradigm, then what will that look like? What steps do companies need to take to be successful? What will new organizational structures look like?" What new roles will emerge? And, where will these dollars actually be spent?"

 
Jen acknowledges she’s changing the conversation and suggests new questions related to the issues that have been talked about.  She let the conversation go on long enough so that it was interesting and credible. But knew when to politely step in, just as all organizations can do. Just as we all do in meetings and in social conversations when things start to veer towards head bashing vs.healthy conversations.

 
Some suggestions for politely hijacking a conversation:

-- Attack the argument, not the arguer

-- Be polite

-- Inject relevant examples to help people see situation differently

-- Don’t get toocomplicated as it can detract rather than clarify

-- Avoid emotionally charged words

-- Ask new questions

-- Introduce new facts

--  If a person is a condescending, insulting bully, choose whether to engage at all

-- Interject "bridges" like these:

-- This is interesting but the real issue is X; why is everyone ignoring it?

-- If you look at the issue from a different context, no one cares about this debate. What matters to them is …

-- Let’s ask so-and-so to weigh in. (Someone all parties respect.)