Social networks can breathe a sigh of relief since the Social Networking Privacy Act was shot down in the state of California. The bill, backed by State Senator Ellen Corbett, would have forced online companies such as Facebook, eHarmony, and Google, to make their user settings private by default.
WebProNews spoke with Tammy Cota, the executive director for the Internet Alliance, who explained to us that this type of bill could harm these companies so much that it could even put them out of business. Although it didn’t go through, she expects an amended version to be proposed at some point.
Filed under Internet Marketing by on Jun 17th, 2011. 
It’s time to step up and address one of the great myths pervading the social web — that an essential best practice is decentralizing social media marketing and pushing it down to employees at every level of the company. This is a philosophy that sounds good, but is often detached from practical reality.
I have been immersed in the social web for more than three years. It’s a big part of my job. I teach about it. I consult about it, and of course I write about it. And here is a conclusion that I can confidently make: Social media marketing can be very, very difficult to do successfully.
Why force social engagement?
So why do so many people insist that we should be shoving social media down the throats of employees at every level of the company? This is like forcing me to do accounting. It would not be a good fit … I just don’t have that mindset. Not every person has the right mindset, ability, or openness to succeed with social media but that doesn’t mean they can’t still fit in your company.
Of all the people I interact with on the social web, I would say I am most in-tune with Jay Baer. He is a true intellect and I highly recommend a regular dose of his blog Convince and Convert. But we disagree somewhat on this point.
I’m not picking on Jay … his viewpoint is widespread. But his recent post Speak No Evil – Why Trust Isn’t a 4 Letter Word in Social Media, is a good focal point for the issue.
A hiring problem?
Jay concludes that “it’s everyone’s job to represent the company on the social Web” and that if you don’t have employees who can represent you, ”you don’t have a social media problem, you having a hiring problem.”
The underpinning of this hypothesis is that every employee should be both skilled and trustworthy on social media or you are not running your company well. This logic gets further twisted for me with claims that people are communicating stupid things to the outside world in emails any way … so why not trust them to put it out into public on the social web? Seems like apples and oranges. Emails don’t go viral. Just ask NFL player Rashard Mendenhall.
Should everybody tweet?
Jay uses the example of Mendenhall and his recent litany of tweets that were outside mainstream American thinking.
Let’s look at the Mendenhall example. Yes, he was out of step with mainstream thought. But who isn’t to some degree? The man was hired to carry a football toward a goal line, not necessarily to “stay on message” during a news event. So did the Steelers make a ”hiring mistake” because he sends out stupid tweets? No. The guy is one of the best football players on earth.
Part of the ”social media is for everybody” myth is that we should humanize our companies — trust people to be themselves and everything will be OK. Again, this is just too simplistic and disconnected from reality. You just might get what you ask for, as the Steeler ownership discovered.
I work with an extraordinarily gifted man who is one of the best sales people I have ever met. He is kind of “folksy,” maybe even leaning toward redneck. But he is a perfect fit for his marketplace and there is nothing he would not do to serve his customers. The man is a star and he has single-handedly built up his business — he’s probably the most valuable employee in the whole company.
Putting this fella into the public social media spotlight 140 characters at a time would be a disaster. I imagine his tweets would come across as incredibly embarrassing — taken out of the context of the individual and his environment. Does this company have a “hiring issue?” Of course not! His customers understand and love his quirky humor but that doesn’t mean the whole world would. Here is what I would say to him — “You just keep selling your heart out buddy. Don’t worry about Twitter.”
Uniform political correctness is impossible
When consultants pontificate that every employee should have enough common sense to be on the social web, what they are really saying is we need to hire people who are always politically correct. Which of course will create the most boring, ineffective companies — and who would even want to work there? Not every employee has good judgment about everything — especially when we are turning them into public spokespersons.
Before you drink the Kool Aid on this perspective of “cover the world with social media,” ask yourself one question. Think about some of the best bosses and employees you have ever had. Would they take naturally to the social web? And if not, does that make them a bad hiring decision?
Let’s put this into a practical context
Theoretically I agree with Jay. But I think applying social media effectively requires business sense and balance. We wouldn’t force everybody into a sales role. We wouldn’t put everybody into the glare of the six o’clock news in a PR role. Why would we set an expectation that everybody should be able to have a role in social media or that is a sign that we have a “hiring problem” if we don’t? Being adept at social media is NOT EASY for everybody. And we should be able to live with that human diversity.
Instead I think it makes sense to encourage social media participation in the context of the goals of the company, the available resources, the competitive environment, and the talents of the employees:
- I agree with Jay that the PR or marketing department hasn’t cornered the market on social media greatness. Certainly employees can become online ”beacons” for your brand, but don’t force them to do it or dismiss it as a “hiring problem” if they don’t want to blog or participate in Twitter.
- Acknowledge that social media participation is going to occur, sanctioned or not. An explicit social media policy is a must.
- If employees do want to be formally active on the part of a company, give them the training and guidelines they need to do it well. Explain how it connects to strategy and the implications of representing the voice of the company.
- With the increasing importance of social participation, start adding this to the job requirements of new employees, if that is key to their role in the company. For example, I certainly would not care if a star engineer doesn’t want to blog. You know, some people have to be about the business of actually making stuff. Again — “context.”
What do you think?
So I absolutely recognize and appreciate the opportunity that Jay and others put forth, but I think this nuance is important – It’s not that everybody SHOULD be a marketing voice for you company. It’s that everybody COULD be a marketing voice for your company depending on context. This approach simply recognizes human diversity and that an employee can be extremely valuable … even if they don’t participate in the social web. What do you think?
Originally published at {grow}
Expert Articles – WebProNews
Internet Marketing Tools For The DIY’er HERE
Filed under Internet Marketing by on May 23rd, 2011.
Numerous reports have been coming out that Facebook is taking down Facebook pages that are accused of infringing upon copyrights. The keyword there is “accused”. Apparently, Facebook does little (or nothing) to verify the legitimacy of the claims before taking action.
Should Facebook be doing more? Tell us what you think.
Several well-known tech blogs, including Ars Technica, Redmond Pie, and Neowin have had their pages removed by Facebook as the result of such a situation (though later the pages were reinstated).
“Prior to the account lockout, we had received no notices of infringement or warnings,” says Ars Technica’s Ken Fisher. “Truly, we awoke to find that Facebook had summoned a judge, jury, and executioner and carried out its swift brand of McJustice all without bothering to let us know that there was even a problem.”
“Further investigation has revealed just how flawed Facebook’s infringement reporting system is,” he adds. “To begin with, someone making a complaint can provide any third-party e-mail address they choose. So it is rather easy to spoof the origin of a complaint, while giving Facebook and the accused no chance for a direct rejoinder.”
Fisher also retweeted this:
@GlennF
Glenn Fleishman@ashponders @kenfisher Even with this, FB is better than Google. Google has no good appeals for _anything_.
3 hours ago via Echofon · powered by @socialditto
NeoWin’s Dave Legg wrote, “We (Neowin) tried to file a countercomplaint, but Facebook just refused to acknowledge it, they simply ignored the content of the email and said once again that we had to contact the complainant and resolve it with them or take them to court.”
Here’s the form for people to submit complaints:
Facebook is developing quite a reputation for being hard to get through to at a human level. David Fagin is suing the company for a dollar to make a point about this, after getting blocked from sending friend requests, being labeled a spammer, and having issues getting through to Facebook.
Facebook’s statement on the page takedown matter, as obtained by Sarah Perez at ReadWriteWeb goes like this:
We want Facebook to be a place where people can share and discuss openly while respecting the rights of others. We take seriously both the interests of people who post content and those of rights holders. We work to ensure that we don’t take content down as a result of fraudulent notices. However, when a rights holder properly completes our notice form alleging intellectual property (IP) infringement, we will take appropriate action including removing or disabling access to the relevant content. When we do this, we notify the person who shared the content so he or she can take appropriate action, which may include contacting the reporting party or following up with Facebook.
Submitting an IP notice is no trivial matter. The forms in our Help Center require statements under penalty of perjury, and fraudulent claims are subject to legal process.
Hmm. That’s it? They wouldn’t even say why they don’t validate email addresses, which is unfortunate, considering claims have been exposed as being bogus.
Facebook eventually responded to Ars Technica, simply saying it is “looking into the specific takedown request that was made.” Later, they followed with an apology and finally reinstated the page. Ars Technica’s Jacqui Cheng wrote in a later article, after the publication’s page was reinstated:
There are a number of things Facebook needs to fix, however. Let’s start with the vague notifications and slow responses: in nearly all cases, Facebook did not specify which content was supposedly infringing before taking down the entire page. According to Condé Nast’s crack legal team, a proper DMCA takedown is supposed to specify the infringing material, and that content is supposed to be removed immediately until a counterclaim is filed. Facebook did not do this—instead, it claimed “Ars Technica” was the infringing material, and subsequently removed our entire page.
Facebook also did not tell us who filed the claim until moments before the publication of this article—not technically required for the DMCA process, but providing the name of the claimant is industry-wide best practice. So, Ars has only within the past couple of hours found out who filed the bogus complaint against us, and we still don’t know why or for which content. (We’re hoping to follow up with this person, assuming he’s real, in order to find out his motivation for filing the takedown notice.)
This is the second copyright-related blunder Ars Technica has been a part of recently. A while back, Righthaven filed suit against a contributor to the site before realizing that it it didn’t have much of a leg to stand on and dismissing the suit, calling it a “mistake”.
Facebook can drive a lot of traffic to a site – particularly a news site or blog, so having a Facebook Page taken down can be a tremendous blow to such a site.
Facebook’s practice is drawing a great deal of criticism from the Blogosphere. The whole thing is rather interesting considering how Facebook is trying to cozy up with journalists lately.
Should Facebook be doing more to verify claims before taking Facebook Pages down? Comment here.
Top News – WebProNews
Internet Marketing Tools For The DIY’er HERE
Filed under Internet Marketing by on May 1st, 2011.
