It’s a good point, Dominic, re role. Yet we’re seeing signficant change going on partly driven by the technology (social media) and partly by people themselves. In this context, that translates into: everyone’s a spokesperson official or not.

A real dilemma for companies who have in place a well-oiled traditional communication machine.

And ditto, by the way, re your last line above.

However, I don’t think they can be spokespeople for their organizations as a whole, unless that is their role. That’s where you still need official spokespeople who speak on behalf of their organizations as a distinct collective or legal entities.

Where it gets fuzzy is on the question of who is more credible. Authority is only one part of the credibility puzzle. Other things are required — such as believability — which bloggers may have more of than the organization itself.

Perhaps we can look at bloggers as providing legitimacy to the company’s official position. Maybe if they agree with the official position it has more credibility than if they say nothing or if they reject it.

Or perhaps a company that permits a healthy debate in public over its official position will benefit from its argument being seen as being based on careful thought and due consideration for all sides.

I don’t have the answers, but I love thinking about them.

So more to say later.

I missed your post on credibility and authority and bloggers.

Robert Scoble can be both authoritative and credible, and so can his employer Microsoft.

Robert is authoritative when he speaks about what he personally knows. He is credible when he acts in a trustworthy manner, which usually means he needs to act against his inherent perceived bias to favor Microsoft.

In other words, we believe him most when he says negative things or allows others to say them about Microsoft and himself because he has a disincentive to allow that criticism. When people act against their perceived self-interest, we tend to interpret this as evidence of their true beliefs and we trust them.

The same applies to Microsoft at the corporate level. The company by definition has a lot of authoritativeness. It is well known and has a track record. Its authority might be dented recently by its lack of expertise to get Vista out the door on time, but that only makes it slightly less authoritative.

Where the company is hurting is on believability. It has not been open about what is going on with Vista. Today, we learn more about what might be behind the Vista delay, and we have an official spokesperson saying something that is hard to believe.

So Scoble may be more believable on the topic than his employer, but he’s not as authoritative as the designated spokesperson, who is not believable.

They both have credibility, just different levels of it made up of different amounts of authoritativeness and trustworthiness.

What’s relevant is the issue, and whether it calls for authority or trustworthiness to deliver a credible message.

Sorry for rambling, its early, early here.