I’ ve been reading Ian Green’s blog post: Razor Sharp Twitter Wars (if you haven’t read it yet read it now…)
An apology was made by Porter Novelli London and accepted by Will King, founder of King of Shaves. But something contained within the Porter Novelli London apology “This act is in violation of our Social Media policies and is the agency’s – not the client’s – responsibility.”
reminded me of something I found on scribd.com – the Porter Novelli Blogging and Social Media Policy version 0.2 published on 16th July 2008.
I won’t go into the ins and outs of what happened – you can read that for yourself (see link in first paragraph or here) – but there are some huge lessons that can be taken away from this example of how NOT to behave:
- If you have a Social Media policy in place already make sure that it is reviewed periodically to ensure that everyone that is involved in your social media engagement programme is fully aware of the dos and don’ts, and on the same page
- Ensure that statements like “The web is not anonymous. Assume that everything you write can be traced back to the company, if not you personally” are fully understood and spell out the definition of transparency to anyone, no matter who they are, if there is even the slightest lack of understanding …!
- If you use statements like “You must do nothing to bring the company into disrepute.” – then provide examples of what you mean
- It might have been ok to use a guideline like “Use your own best judgment in deciding whether and how deeply to connect to clients, peers, supervisors, vendors and journalists on social networks.” but ‘own best judgement leaves too much to chance
- And above all else, never forget this, “The web contains a permanent record of our mistakes.” See the BMW scandal when they got blacklisted by Google for another example of how long things stay around for on the web if you don’t believe me
I’m not sure if Porter Novelli will remove their Blogging and Social Media policy from scribd.com to update it or otherwise – or if indeed at has been updated since July 08 – so just in case you can also download it here .
Let me know what you think… Have you experienced or come across a similar example somewhere else? If so post it into the comments below…
I want to thank Roberta Ward for bringing Ian Green’s blog post to our attention
Related posts:
- How to start using Social Media for business – Part 1
Why use Social Media? When looking at Social Media it can be a little daunting to understand why, how, when and where to start. And not knowing this can make... - Social Media in Property
This week I’ll be blogging over on the MyPropertyMentor blog on how Social Media can be used by property developers to create greater visibility for their projects; whether selling a... - A Retrospective Review of the week
Well, what an interesting week it’s been. Productive client meetings, networking at Bernie’s Late Late Breakfast Show and the conversation that’s been taking place on a post I wrote early... - Social Media: Getting approval from your boss
You’re on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn etc. and know and understand the benefits of using social media as a way of ‘meeting’ your clients and customers – current and prospective.... - Twinterview ‘Making Social Media Work for You’ hosted by @abarge
So as promised becasue the #shoestring tag wasn’t displaying the stream correctly – I think it was sabotaged #joke – I’ve integrated my tweets into the stream for those who...
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Your welcome, its a lesson we all need to learn, especially not getting into tit for tat tweeting etc or posting inappropriate pictures on Facebook etc. Better not to slag people off unless you can back it up in some way either.
The question “if you have a social media policy in place…” is a big one.
In my experience, too few organisations have and articulate a clear social media policy. They may have one, but it may not be communicated. Or it may not be clear and simple. It should come down to common sense…
It amazes me that high profile people known to have senior roles at major internet companies are often the most confused when it comes to recognising that their online persona is linked to their company. A certain senior exec at Yahoo! tweets some unbelievably stupid stuff on a regular basis, for example.
The last point about social media policies is they should be consistent – applying to all levels of the organisation!
You raised some great points there Des. It does amaze me that organisations overlook such a crucial issue as policies and guidelines when using social media. Especially when they have customer services departments that deal with the public everyday and have similar policies and guidelines when dealing with their customers/clients face-to-face, on the telephone or by email…
Thanks for taking the time to comment Des, appreciated
Your welcome Lee.One more thing to remember is if anyone in the company is active on forums too. People tend to forget that forums are social media too and they are well known for being hot beds of erm…forceful opinion. Forum stuff tends to stick around a VERY long time too. Its easy to get drawn into an argument when lots of folks hide behind avatars and someone is having a go at your comments. can feel like a very personal attack.
Hi Lee,
I'm part of the PN digital team based in the London office, and you're right there are some huge lessons for Porter Novelli and other companies to take away from this incident. Not least of which is make sure you have a policy and make sure that everyone, without exception, is fully aware of what the implications of online activity can be.
However, and I'm not sure if you agree with this, PR people are in an difficult position when it comes to the internet. There is little to no distinction between our personal and work lives and likewise our personal and work online personas. We also have to accept that as PR people our motives are viewed with suspicion, and therefore our intentions, no matter how actually purely intended, will be subject to that suspicion.
The only course is to be as Caesar's wife which then means that people have to restrict how they use social media and social networks to ensure that they stay above suspicion. As I said, a difficult position to put people in.
All of the above has been explained with much greater clarirty that I've just managed on a post by Mat Morrison, who pulled together the draft policy you've referenced above – http://mediaczar.com/blog/2009/03/pr-agencies-a…. Please go have a look, I'd be interested to know what you think.
Hi Kerry
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to discuss what's happened. I think everyone who reads this blog – and it's comments – will appreciate it.
In answer to your question – paragraph 2. I think that everyone needs to think/re-think their position and the ripple effect their online 'reponse(s)' or 'involvement' has both from an individual perspective and also who they represent.
I don't believe this position lies purely on the shoulders of PR people – although some may take a view that they are the people that are on the 'frontline' so to speak. However, others make take a view that because PR people are on the 'frontline' that they should in fact be role models for everyone else to follow the example of… It would interesting to hear what people think regarding that matter…
From a personal perspective, I work for M4 Design Limited – a design and marketing agency, and advise a variety of clients (some are small some larger more recognisable brands) on social media implementation, transparency and guideline and policy creation. But this blog, my twitter account and any of the other social media platforms I use all are recogniasable as me – because of the account name. They are my own thoughts and opinions – and may not represent the views of the company I work for or the clients I work with. However, I don't take anything to chance…! Anything I say may be repeated, re-tweeted re-posted and create a potential s**t storm – and that in it self acts as a very good 'reminder' for me!
I don't have separate personal or business accounts. I prefer the Ronseal take on things… I don't bring personal points of view into an online conversation that might bring the company I work for or clients that I work with into a 'bad light'. And I know that although there are quite a few people who also take that view I'm also aware that there are others who like to separate their personal online personas from their work ones.
The question then is – and the jury might be out on this – should people who have a personal online persona still have a responsibility to the people they work for and with?
Should common sense prevail here?
Personally, I prefer not to take anything to chance by ensuring that everything I publish can't come back and bite me on the bum – that's why I prefer complete transparency… but I appreciate that this is a subjective opinion?
Let's see what others think – after all, I'm not perfect and don't pretend to be as I'm Welsh and Ginger
– and I'm only one voice amongst a sea of others.
Over to you chaps and chapettes then…
Thanks for your lengthy response.
I think the crux of the matter is your question -' should people who have a personal online persona still have a responsibility to the people they work with and for?'
To which the answer must be yes, but I really don't think it is possible for a PR person to have an online persona that isn't intrinsically linked to their work. One of the things we talk to employees about is transparency, we request that if they have a blog or twitter profile that they state they work for us. Facebook is less problematic as it has greater granularity of privacy. However in stating that they work for a PR agency they then have to understand that people will be suspicious. Of course if they don't disclose their employment it is possible people will think that they are trying to be deliberately duplicitous, which would make it worse.
We rather stuck between a rock and hard place on this one I think,
Lee, an excellent post in the first place. But the ensuing conversation is even more insightful and thought provoking. There is a lot to take in and think about here.
Hi Robbie. You're absolutely right. Forums can at times be as you describe 'hot beds of forceful opinions'
Why is that do you think? It sometimes seems that people who use 'forums' like to try and 'get one over' or 'out do' people on there, rather than collaborate?
Do you think it's how the forum has been set up i.e. 'it's how it's always been so people see it as acceptable behaviour' or is it a moderator issue?
Be interested to see what you think…
Thanks again for posting
Hi Kerry
Again, thanks for taking the time to post
I really empathise with you as this episode must have been a very trying and disappointing one. I certainly would've felt 'let down' by a colleague – if that had happened to me…
I think one of the points you've raised is a fundamental question that's on many business and organisations lips:
How can organisations using social media be seen to be doing so for 'the right reasons' – as defined by their customers/clients – current and prospective?
But also, people might ask 'why would people be immediately be suspicious if a person (not just one from a PR agency) connected/reached out to them on social media platforms? – Do you think it's what people are expecting based on passed experiences or is it more how it was done and what was written?
I found your following twitter post interesting:
“Everybody is talking about Porter Novelli but no-one is talking to us, pls send any questions – @us/DM/email & we'll answer 11:36 AM Dec 1st from TweetDeck”
Again, this I've found to be one of two re-occurring questions that many people ask, “How do I get involved in the conversation?” and “What should I do if people are talking about me but not to me?”
But I believe you've already answered the latter as we're having and have been 'talking' for a couple of days now
– and there are many people interested in the conversation that is unfolding here…
In my humble opinion, the number of organisations 'doing it right' online are shadowed by the ones 'doing it errr … not so right'. Many organisations that either have internal or use external promotional functions are looking to see if there is a way of 'controlling the conversation' when in fact it's not possible – as this implies that the conversation can't possibly take place without 'us' being involved. However, the truth is – as you know – that the conversation will take place whether 'we're' involved in it or not!
I wrote the other day that 'Social Media is evolving… and the rest is up to us' which could have read 'Social Media is evolving… BUT the rest is up to us' – however before posting I changed it as the 'but' implied an element of control & I felt the 'and' was more appropriate as it represented an 'opportunity/obligation' (delete as appropriate) for us to 'add' to the conversation…
I think all outsourced resources, marketing, advertising and PR are having to re-address what they/we do and the way that they/we do it. It's a huge learning curve and the how-to 'book(s)' is/are being written as we go – as they are for organisations who don't outsource these functions…
But I'd be interested to hear how you think PR is evolving from using a traditional 'push' methodology to a more engaging 'pull'?
Hi Rob
Thank you. I think what's happening here is also being echoed in many, many conversations.
The paradigm shift in the way that organisations are having to change the way their promotional activities are huge. This is a subjective opinion, but I think that what we're experiencing is similar to when the 'printing press' was invented in the early – as up until that time control on what was written/distributed was 'controlled' only by monks or the monarchy!
Thanks for posting Rob
David Henderson's blog – http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/11/24/5-ways… – has a interesting discussion also taking place there, which I think is worth bringing into the equation. But, as the comment I wrote (awaiting moderation) said, I believe that Porter Novelli can turn this around and be positioned as knowledge source.
Would be interested to hear what people think…
As always, happy to be challenged and educated…
Hmm, not sure if PR is evolving into a pull methodology. PR to me is about getting your message to the right audience, we worked with the media as they were the ones with the audience. Today the audience has fragmented but we continue to put our content where the audience is already, or possibly more accurately where the audience is looking for information. Obviously we can use SEO to pull those searchers to a single site but it's far more effective to have a cohesive presence in multiple places.
You mentioned “Today the audience has fragmented but we continue to put our content where the audience is already”
“or possibly more accurately where the audience is looking for information.”
but what information do you think they are looking for and from whom are they looking to obtain information from?
In esscence, do you think that in a social media environment/platform/space the content that you consider putting there would influence people more than the content published by their peers?
If not, then let me put the question I posted at the end of my previous comment in a different way, how do you think the role of PR will evolve when 'people' are influenced more by what their peers think than by that of any other source?
Re forums, its in my experience, about the moderators and what they allow- and a clear statement of intent from the owner. It also takes courage from the owner to deal with disputes quickly.
Forums with lots of avatars/ code names in place of real pictures of people with their names make them an easy place for anonymous posting of comments-which in turn leads to bad behavior from the posters. Very easy to be a camoflaged bully.
Often people feel they are not being heard and hence a forum is a good place to sound off at anyone who will listen. In the past they were known as 'flame wars'.
There is a popular property forum which I write on and the owners said from the off it was about support and collaboration and slanging matches would not be tolerated, nor is any form of blatant advertising without any contribution to the knowledge bank, on the whole it has worked and people tend to apologise if they upset someone by tone or comment.
The lack of advertising banners winking away makes for a friendlier atmosphere too. But, long term, forums tend to be like new nightclubs-one opens up and everyone rushes to check it out, then it gradually dies down over time when the hyped up crowd go elsewhere.
Forums require more effort to keep going than most owners realise IMHO, and can die pretty quickly if not regularly used by posters and users.
Sorry Lee, thought I'd done a response to this on Friday, but obviously didn't hit post.
To answer your last question first, people have always been more influenced by their peers than any other source. The issue or PR is that the amount of peers people now have access to is increasing dramatically. The Edelman Trust barameter tells us every year that we most trust people like us. The question for PR is how do we define what people mean like people like us? It's not just a case of those people we know in real life, we make judgements on people in the media and about how like us they are, think of all those people who claim passionate hate or love for celebrities who they have never met. They form an image and make decision from what they see of them in the media.
Back to your first question, people are looking for answers. Think how many of your little trips on the internet start with a search page, I have heard a figure that 80% of all internet journeys (horrid phrase) start with search but I don't have the reference so lets take it with a pinch of salt. And I think they are looking to obtain information from a site that they think is trustworthy. For some they are outsourcing that trust check to google, a recent study showed that most British teenagers think that Google ranks on truthfulness.
Personally how I react to branded content depends greatly on my experience with the brand. I use a certain internet bank, which I have the warm fuzzies for due to the way they have treated me, so would trust its content. Another rather large sporting brand gave me a bad personal experience and so I'd distrust its content.
For other people it will be different. I think the harsh reality that we have to face as PRs is that the best PR a company can have is excellent customer service, if you have that at your core then it is easy to amplify and capatilise on both through traditional channels and newer ones.
Hi Kerry, no problem at all – I do that all the time (I think I've hit post/send and it just sits there…!)
The 'Edelman Trust barameter' is an interesting one. When people purchase something online (e.g. from Amazon) many take notice of the comments left and the rating each book/product has been given. They even have an opportunity to see what other products people where interested in when looking for reviews of product they were initially looking for…
Comments/ratings/other products viewed etc are all valid even though people don't know the Commentors from Adam or Eve.
Subjective opinion? Definately! And these types of 'opinions' apply also to celebrities or even Marmite!
Your last paragraph stood out. But I don't believe that the only thing PR can hope to capitalise on is excellent customer service. I think it starts with excellent customer service, as you say, however, I think 'we' need to rethink our perceptions of Social Media – or what they're evolving into – as just another channel and see it more as an obligation to the people that want to have their views heard and acted upon accordingly.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think if 'we' didn't apply the traditional viewpoint to Social Media as just another way of reaching an audience but instead say that actually social media engagement is in fact an opportunity for the audience to have a direct line of communication with organisations and the people that work within them…