An Educated View

With the popularity of social media continuing to rise, it’s common for incidents to arise from online accounts. A few months ago an employee of the Philadelphia Eagles got fired after he posted a comment on Facebook about an Eagles player being trade. This week, news came about via Mashable’s Web site about the NFL creating fake Facebook profiles in an attempt to get dirt on potential prospects. At first I was taken back and immediately criticized the NFL. But looking back on it, I don’t have an issue with the premise behind the tactic; but I do see the actual tactic being unethical.

It’s common sense that employers check the online profiles of potential candidates when interviewing. There’s the common adage “if you don’t want your mother to see it, then it probably shouldn’t be online.” I have no problem with this and actually think it’s a great thing to do. You can learn a lot from people by their Facebook profile or blog. It’s an easy and cheap way for HR personnel to quickly weed out those who they feel wouldn’t be a good match for their organization.

So what’s the difference between Company A doing it and the NFL? The NFL is a business and with their push to improve their image, monitoring online accounts makes sense. However, creating a fake profile simply to gain access to view a profile reminds me of a snaky con-man. It brings up the image of that used-car salesman that everyone tries to avoid - it’s slimy.

One of the issues with the emergence of Web 2.0 is knowing and understanding the motive behind the participant. Some companies and employees are great about coming out and announcing their affiliation. Others, not so much. This has been a criticism of PR professionals for years and PR 101 teaches the importance of identifying yourself and your intentions. Actions like this - the NFL creating fake profiles - go completely against what an organization should be doing to sharpen its image.

A few keys to remember when integrating Web 2.0

• Identify yourself .
  
• Be clear, be concise.
• Don't post anything you wouldn't want your mother (personal) or CEO (professional) to see.
• Info on Web 2.0 travels fast.
• Make sure your online message matches/compliments your offline message.
• Use common sense. You would think this would be common sense, but often times it isn't.

* Image from gossipboulevard.com

Labels: Cost of Social Media, Facebook, NFL, Public Relations

Read more!

Before you start scratching your head on why I would suggest that spam is good, let me clarify. Spam, in its current stage on Twitter, is actually good. Let me try to explain my madness.

How can something defined as disruptive be thought of as beneficial? In its current stage on Twitter, spam actually confirms that Twitter is mainstream. It confirms that Twitter isn't just a useless fad. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying spam alone defines Twitter and proves it's effective - that is achieved by a successful marketing and communications plan. Spam usually follows where users are gathering. Again, another way to reassure that Twitter is growing and the potential to reach and engage with your audience is something that needs to be considered.

Like most SM tools, spam is easily ignored on Twitter. All spam can do right now via Twitter is follow you. That's pretty harmless. If it's a nuisance, simply block it. The only really problem, and it's more an annoyance than a threat, is the "auto-dm." Again, that's something easily treated by blocking the person who sent the auto-dm.

Think about it, all popular and effective communication channels have had spam at one point. Telephone? Yep. TV? Yep. E-mail? Definitely. Spam isn't usually associated with useless and deserted channels. MySpace had it's run with spam, Facebook has had its and now Twitter is finally getting blasted.

The point of this post was to show that with popularity comes spam. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing. For those who aren't "sold" on Twitter yet, the presence of spam is a clear indication that Twitter is just beginning to grow. If you haven't had a conversation about creating a presence on Twitter, you need to immediately. Not being on Twitter means potentially missing a huge segment of your audience that you could be engaging with.

Jeff Jarvis, author of What Would Google Do, states: "Amazon.com knows how we shop. Google knows what we're looking for. And Twitter is headed to knowing the most about what we’re doing and thinking." So come jump on the wagon and emerge yourself with a powerful and effective communication tool.

Labels: Cost of Social Media, Facebook, Spam, Twitter

Read more!

The hot topic in 2009 is the advancement of social media (SM) with Twitter being one of the more intriguing SM tools. Per its Web site, "Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?" However, to marketers, PR professionals, advertisers and most importantly, brands, Twitter is an invaluable tool. With all new things, though, Twitter does not come without varied opinion. Some love it, some don't see the value and a lot don't understand it.

My opinion on Twitter is this: it has the potential to be a beneficial resource for those individuals/companies to put forth the effort. It's a pretty unknown tool compared to Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn; but I think it has the potential to be a lot bigger. Why? The return is so much better than other forms of social media.

Imagine you're a small floral shop. You don't have the big budget for advertising, nor do you don't have the tools to put out a huge marketing campaign. Sure, you can put an ad in the local newspaper, you can place a coupon in the local pennysaver. But what is the return on those investments? More than likely, pretty small.

Now you have Twitter. It's a free service. The only real cost is the time you spend, or your employee(s) spend on it. Granted, that time could be used for other activities; but a quick 5 minutes on Twitter announcing "Dozen Roses $19.99" is a free form of advertising. I understand that larger companies would need to scale this approach quite drastically, but the concept is still the same. Why can't Polaris have a Twitter account? Why can't Best Buy tweet that they are having a 1-day sale?

The biggest concerns are security and control of content. However, I don't see why this should be viewed any differently than the content being placed on radio, print, etc.

There are a couple of good discussions out there regarding Twitter and social media. I'd encourage you to check them out. Social media is the new "it" in PR and advertising...jump on board!

Interesting read on social media in general - http://marketingpie.risdall.com/?p=700
Cost of social media via the MNPR blog - http://www.mnprblog.com/2009/01/cost-of-social-media.html

Happy Hunting!

Labels: Cost of Social Media, Social Media, Twitter

Read more!