I understand your point Bryan, as well as those made above - a lot of execs expect ROI numbers and require a number in order to justify the outlay of time and money. I also understand that some great work is being done to determine the calculations at companies like Powered, where I worked in the past, my current employer Pluck and many others.

But my key point is that for many, ROI is not the next step, even though they want the numbers to justify or eliminate further efforts.

I think the next step for those companies who are "blogging, podcasting, and engaging with customers and community members on social networks like Twitter and Facebook." is to internalize these connections. ROI is important, but until a company has woven social media into all major areas of the business, they won't get accurate numbers as to the potential impact it can have. That reluctant executive won't even know the right questions to ask.

One of the most important aspects that I stress when speaking with people who have implemented social media tools and best practices is for them to step back and examine whether, and how well they have internalized the two-way communication that is the bedrock of these initiatives.

Has the feedback penetrated the company beyond Marketing and support? Are people throughout the company involved, directly interacting with customers, taking ideas back to their desks, solving problems with a new perspective and returning to their blog/site/FaceBook/Twitter to continue the discussion?

All too often you'll find that they haven't moved beyond 101, though they did everything that a social media "expert" told them needed be done.

It's a grand idea to determine the ROI of social media, but I don't agree that it's the next step for those who are ready to go further. It's an understandable desire (or perhaps expectation/requirement depending on the organization) to try to justify the expenses and time spent, but it takes attention away from the work that still needs to be done analyzing successes and failures in order to refine the tools and processes, and as noted above "Rethink, reshape, or abandon what doesn't" work.

If a company is using social media tools and practices properly, then its very foundation has or is changed. It embraces a mindset of communication and has woven clients, employees and fans into its core processes. There are not many companies where this is true, and the more established the company the less likely it is that they have dropped their old habits and embraced public dialog with their customers, prospects and even employees. They haven't truly embraced the core principles and they are not ready to move beyond the first lessons.

"Squishy" is a good way to put it and that squishy area seems to be the hardest problem to solve for as it can be different fro msite to site and article to article.

A more general thought - a key thing to keep in mind, is the expectation of transparency within a site. No matter which paths you follow in regards to moderation and registration requirements, it's important that your site's community is aware of how the decisions are made and why.

Yes, I do think its different and I believe that different organizations within each of those sections would and should handle it differently.

I agree that many comments go off the rails and can be frustrating, but let's keep a couple of things in mind before we seriously think about throwing away anonymous commenting altogether.

1. The worst comments stick out in our minds, and I think lead us to paint all anonymous commenting with that brush. I don't think the amount of bad comments is the issue as much as I believe it is the issue that the extremes are just as visually prominent as the posts in the center.
2. It's very easy for us to want to squash hateful, mean spirited posts. While I agree that attacks have no place in a community discussion, we need to be careful that those people who have an unpopular opinion still have the ability to post safely. Eliminating anonymous posting removes the ability for the minority to speak up and it blinds the site/author/company and community to a dissenting viewpoint.
3. Allowing the community to address the alarming and scary comments makes that community stronger and more vibrant.

Every community does need guidance and a watchful eye should be trained on comments to ensure it doesn't go astray, lead by a small group hoping to take over, but we need to be careful about curtailing expression, most especially on MSM sites, which exist to serve a community.

I think it's always important to have an editorial level of control in addition to community policing, for exactly those reasons you mention Scott. Plus, it's important to keep in mind that a site's owner or an articles author does indeed have responsibility for that community and an interest in moving it in a good direction.

Hrrrm, I hadn't thought about it in that manner Chip, thanks for opening up an alternate viewpoint. If newspapers/magazines had unlimited budget and paper, do you think they would print more anonymous letters, assuming they were well written?

It causes me to wonder about the breakdown of MSM article comments in regards to the poster's purpose. How much of it is to correct what is perceived to be factually wrong and how much of it is to speak up about a particular viewpoint. I'd like to figure out how that ratio is different for an MSM site versus a print paper or magazine.

All that said, at my core, I can't quite subscribe to comments being treated like letters to the editor - it misses the value of opening a site to its audience. The very act of funneling and making editorial decisions (beyond removing obviously abusive posts) weakens the community.

Perhaps commenting should be considered a bit closer to a public ombudsman instead of a letter to the editor? Or more likely a combination of both plus the concept of an open town square.

It looks like I was posting my reply at the same time as y'all were commenting. I agree that the bar to entry should be low for those who drop in.

I think there's a definite bonus though in rewarding those who are willing to speak up with their real identity. If someone is invested in the site, and are willing to register in order to gain a bit of status, and perhaps some extra tools (extra weight when the vote something down or report abuse etc).

Do you think threaded replies, like those we're using here would improve the likelihood that conversations would occur more often? I think it would, as it makes the conversations and questions easier to follow for both the author and the contributors.