Who’s looking after your online content?

Social media guru’s, community managers, producers and other roles that have sprung up — or evolved — around social media, are still fighting in some spheres for their roles to be taken seriously and considered “real” jobs. And that’s no surprise when some businesses still don’t put a lot of thought into what these roles entail and the kind of employee that can fulfill them.

Of course, it does depend on the company and there are obviously some shining examples of companies which are doing it right. But it appears social media is still being left to junior and inexperienced staff in many cases.

While I make no suggestion that this is what happened in Channel Nine’s situation, it’s certainly true that your content should only be entrusted to more experienced hands when it comes to customer service and social media understanding.

Just the other day I commented on the Facebook page of a major Sydney radio station. The response that came back could be described as glib, at best. I was genuinely taken aback and don’t think such a response would have been made by a senior and/or more experienced hand. And, yes, the response has impacted on the station’s brand for me, personally.

So who’s looking after your content? Who’s replying to your customers? Who’s uploading your content? Are they experienced, level-headed and fully aware of what’s going on with your social media strategy? Or are they inexperienced, perhaps not even a fulltime employee at all, and simply firing off random, glib comments into the ether, in your name?

You really ought to find out.

Our Vice President, Paris Searson, recently wrote on the topic for the RMIT Public Relations Society. Click here to read more of her thoughts.

Unfortunately, the media weren’t provided with Baron Cohen but instead a pretty bad impersonator.  OK, a terrible impersonator.

The trade media dutifully and objectively reported the campaign stunt. Predictably, the mainstream media, having flocked to Mad Mex to capture The Dictator having a burrito, were less kind towards the agency.

Cue industry debate over the time honoured adage ‘any publicity is good publicity’.

Really?  In the age of digital media that last bastion of tabloid rhetoric is still getting an airing?  Ask BP or Tiger Woods what they think about the power of negative publicity to damage a brand.

Supporters of the agency in question have been quick to defend its campaign, with the rationale that it got people talking, and therefore it was a success.

Putting aside the campaign’s gaping strategic holes for a minute (note the lack of even an attempt at a tenuous link between the Dictator and a Mexican fast food outlet), what happens the next time they put out a media alert, or in fact any of us do, with a legitimate celebrity photo-call?

The only thing this campaign achieved was to erode the agency’s, and the broader industry’s, credibility with the media.

To some degree, this is a statistic most people could probably guess at. We tend to believe our loved ones, friends and neighbours the most and, when it comes to online, we look towards blogs and the like because we feel that the people producing them are “real” and “have nothing to hide”.

All well and good but, as an ex-journalist, such feelings (let alone the hard data that backs them up), have always made me feel slightly uneasy. They suggest, for example, that the newsrooms of the world aren’t filled with “real” people. They also suggest the mainstream media always has an agenda.

I can put my hand on my heart and say that in many, many years of journalism, I was never asked, “leaned on”, nor was it suggested to me in any way, shape or form, that I should write anything but the absolute truth or, in review situations, precisely what I thought of a particular good or service.

Combined with the fact I am indeed a real person to boot, it was sometimes hard to think that my honest, heartfelt opinions, based on many years of industry experience, potentially weren’t being taken as seriously by some in the public as those of someone writing on the topic for a hobby.

And no, this commentary isn’t about to turn into an attack on bloggers. I have been a blogger, and I have worked with bloggers, since the concept started to take off in the US before the turn of the century. I also think citizen journalism is hugely, massively, amazingly important. Trust me on that.

But at the same time, I also know that it’s not infallible.

If people go to blogs, podcasts and other forms of consumer reviews thinking they are always getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help me, Flying Spaghetti Monster), it’s no different to assuming the same of the mainstream press. And that would be crazy, wouldn’t it?

While a blogger might never get told what to write (just the same as I was never told what to write as a journalist), there are still personal feelings and biases that can end up in the written word, either consciously or unconsciously. The medium itself – a blog – doesn’t stop that from happening.

So my advice, when it comes to dealing with mainstream media versus bloggers and the like is really quite simple: read widely. There is nothing more important than reading widely, from a variety of sources, and seeing what themes, comments and the like get repeated, regardless of the media type.

Sure, there will always be mavericks in the mainstream and citizen press who write commentaries that sit outside the boundaries of common sense, decency, truthfulness and other attributes that we might like to see reflected in the media we consume. But the more you read, the more you will be able to pick the mavericks for what they are, and instead concentrate on where mainstream and citizen media crossover on a topic. And it’s at that point of crossover that you will find the real answers.

Mainstream media isn’t perfect. But nor is citizen media. Find a balance between the two and, who knows, we might see Neilsen surveys in the future where the two media types are closer to each other than the current statistics suggest. And so they should be; they both have great things to offer.

This topic is a minefield in so many ways, yet it fascinates me.

First, to the employers out there. Are you comfortable with invading a job candidate’s social media privacy (which sounds like an oxymoron), in order to know more about them? Would you do it? Have you already done it? What did you gain from the experience? Did it help or hinder your hiring?

Conversely, if you are a job seeker, would you let someone do it in the first place? Why? Why not?

Employers, putting aside the legalities of poking into someone’s private life, which will vary from region to region and country to country, my advice is that if a job candidate has an open Facebook account, or an open Twitter feed and is using social media in a social way, by all means, take a look.

If you see them firing-off dubious comments and/or images publicly onto the Interweb, or some other behaviour that gives you pause, then they probably aren’t going to be for you. That’s fair.

But if a candidate’s Facebook or Twitter is closed, back off. Aside from the fact that whatever they might (or might not) be saying on those networks isn’t public anyway, there are other skills an interviewer can use – and that have been used long before the invention of social media – to determine whether someone’s going to be a fit for their business and act in a professional way “in general”.

To job seekers, I don’t recommend lying to your potential employer about not having social media accounts (because not only is it bad news to start a relationship with a lie, but it’s also something that would probably count against you when interviewing for roles that might expect a certain level of understanding of the platforms), and while part of me wants to encourage you to simply stand your ground and refuse access if asked to produce your username and password, I know the reality is that a lot of you might have been looking for work for some time and will want to give access.

Weighing this situation up, here’s my advice. If the employer hasn’t heeded my earlier advice and asks to see your private social media networks, and you feel that the job is going to be a good one (Facebook- and Twitter-prying antics aside), why not try negotiating with them?

Assuming you have nothing to hide, offer to log into your account during the interview and take the employer on a tour of the groups you belong to, how many friends you have, and some example comments. Use it as an opportunity to sell yourself further. Hopefully this will be a happy medium between being snooped on in great detail from behind closed doors where you have no control over the process and a flat-out rejection of the request, or a denial that you don’t use social media (which again, doesn’t look good, or realistic, for PR and social media candidates, anyway). What do you think?

Now a (somewhat hilarious) spoof video of the Shire has appeared on YouTube.  Network Ten, in what must have been an act of premeditated marketing genius, has tried, and so far failed, to have the spoof removed. Can you say ‘viral’?  But assuming for a moment Network Ten didn’t want to draw attention to the spoof video and had no legal justification to have it removed, what could or should they have done instead to protect the reputation of their precious series?

1.     They could have done nothing.  An option too often overlooked in issues management, and in this case probably one they should have considered.

2.     Fight content with content. If the spoof is nothing like their program as the network is asserting then prove it by releasing a trailer. When brands such as Dominos and United faced damaging viral videos they (eventually) posted their own content in response on the same site. Don’t forget to use SEO and SEM to ensure people searching for the viral video will also find yours.

3.     Embrace it. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Diffuse the situation with a tongue in cheek statement applauding the effort or by offering the stars of the viral a walk on part or an audition.

Unfortunately (or possibly fortunately) for Ten, in this instance the Streisand Effect* once more held true like a fundamental law of physics.  While ultimately the controversy will probably translate into higher ratings, Ten’s reaction in trying to block a viral video will not do the same for their reputation amongst target audiences.

*Wikipedia: “The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicising the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbara Streisand whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.”

So instead I want to hone down on a nasty side effect of social media that I’ve watched growing and it’s not going to go away. Infact, it’s only going to get more obnoxious in some ways.What is this side effect? The rise and rise of social media activism.

That might sound fairly heartless so let me acknowledge there are certainly genuine causes out there which call for activism. And whether that activism involves sending a Tweet, joining a protest rally or chaining yourself to an immovable object, I dare say it’s worth it.

However, there are also people sitting out there on Facebook and Twitter who see successful (not to mention worthwhile), examples of activism and have decided that anything and everything should be changed if it doesn’t suit their own whims at any given time.

Here’s a timely example. 

My wife recently bought a PC and console game called Mass Effect 3. As the title handily suggests, it’s the third part in a storyline that gamers have been hooked on for years.

As the Mass Effect series is based on roleplaying, gamers like my wife have become attached to their character over the years, carefully making decisions that can affect the rest of the game.

With Mass Effect 3 being advertised as the final chapter in the story, however, proceedings were obviously going to be brought to an end, to some degree, to bring closure to the story.

Well, that’s what my wife and I thought, at least.

Without going into detail (spoilers!), the potential endings have underwhelmed some Mass Effect fans. Personally, the endings made sense to me, and I like them. A lot of other fans do, too.

Some, however, have formed the, “Retake Mass Effect” movement, creating a list of wants centred around the maker of Mass Effect 3 rewriting sections of the game and giving new potential endings to gamers. Aggrieved Mass Effect fans then donate money, rather than a signature to the petition, through the fundraising site www.chipin.com which will allegedly be handed over to the charity, Child’s Play.

I have a problem with this.

Putting aside the fact that I thought the endings offered by Mass Effect 3 were perfectly fine, I see this fundraising as an obnoxious effort to not only divide gamers (because suppose I like the endings and don’t want to sign their petition… does that mean I don’t support charity?), but to also strong-arm the Mass Effect 3 makers into changing a work of art because a group of people didn’t like the ending.

And it’s all come about through the ease of using social media tools to create and join causes.

What does this mean for you and your brand? Potentially, quite a lot.

It means that, as time goes by, social media users will feel more and more entitled to tell you what they want. In some cases, this might be justified. You might have a CEO, for example, who decides to go elephant hunting and the images end up online. Fair cop. In other cases, however, they might not be justified, such as the Retake Mass Effect movement which is akin, IMHO, to telling JK Rowling to rewrite the final Harry Potter novel because some fans didn’t like the way it ended. It’s not how art works.

But try telling that to a young, motivated and social media-savvy audience. As time goes by you might find demands on your brand and/or its products to become increasingly ludicrous and misguided, yet they will generate publicity, column inches, and negative sentiment against your brand.

Are you ready for that?

Not to be outdone, Woolworths’ biggest competitor Coles, invited Twitter followers to finish this sentence “In my house it’s a crime not to buy…” Again the replies from the community were met with heavy sarcasm and cynicism.

Many other iconic brands have had similar ‘social fails’, and there is now an internal struggle with marketing, public relations, corporate affairs and external agencies as to who should ‘own’ the Twitter and social media accounts. Some social campaigns will lead to a crisis situation, while the others believe that being overly cautious on social media won’t engage the community and will generate no benefit for the brand.

Social media is a great way to get up close and personal with consumers and customers. However it appears brands are often posting first and asking questions later, which can lead to a media issue scenario.

Regardless of which team or discipline ends up ‘owning’ the social media channels, it is important to ensure that there is a strategy in place to guarantee regular and engaging content. There needs to be a crisis plan in place in order to contain and mitigate any issues that arise from using social media, and there needs to be a tone and voice set for the channel to ensure consistent messages.

These basic elements should be in place before the channels and accounts are activated.

It is how I keep up to date with everything – news, gossip, leads and people – and helps me to build and maintain relationships with key journalists, bloggers and influencers. I’ve learnt that people don’t make much time for the phone or even email these days, but they most definitely make time for Twitter.

It’s no surprise that majority of the media industry is on Twitter. It has been dubbed “the new press release” with announcements being made on a daily basis in 140 characters or less. It is a powerful tool for journalists but it can also be just as useful for all the PRs out there.

Below are some key steps to making it work for you:

Follow all the journalists you want to have a relationship with. AAP’s Media People database now includes Twitter handles alongside phone numbers and emails. If you need some more help, refer to the list of Australia’s top 100 media people on Twitter on The Early Edition. This rule also applies for bloggers who are extremely engaged in this space.

Monitor what your media contacts are commenting about. Your best leads can sometimes come from a single tweet. Tweetdeck makes it easy to monitor what people are saying about you, your clients (and their competitors) as it happens. It has also helped me keep on top of the latest call outs on Source Bottle. First in, best dressed.

Respond to a journalist’s tweet even if it has nothing to do with your clients. If you see a Tweet that allows an opportunity to pitch a story, do so via DM or email if it’s a sensitive issue.  Journalists and bloggers are often surprised at how quickly we respond when they use Twitter to ask a question or make a comment on a particular issue.

Some may argue that Twitter impacts productivity but if used correctly, it will put you in the middle of all the action.

In the UK, a human resources executive was forced out of his job after angering his employer by putting his CV online and advertising that he was interested in other “career opportunities.

With the negative connotations aside, LinkedIn has some great features that are outlined below.

If you want to build important and professional relationships online, you have to find places where you can consistently add value, spend quality time and have engaging and insightful conversations with members of your target demographic.

Many individuals and businesses spend time creating communities and online spaces like blogs, forums, intranets and all other manner of online spaces where people can interact and share content, knowledge and ideas. Many of these “manufactured communities” do work to an extent, and many of these are highly successful.

However, sometimes these communities already exist and are thriving hubs of content, knowledge and passion. Therefore, it is easier to tap into an existing and well-established community for insights, thoughts and networking rather than starting a brand new space.

When discussing online communities, many people have failed to see one of the great features of LinkedIn, LinkedIn Groups.

When using LinkedIn, users have the ability to create or join various groups. LinkedIn groups are a collection of like-minded individuals who share their ideas, thoughts and opinions on a range of topics. A group may be regionally specific such as the group “Social Media Asia Pacific”, or it may be centred on a particular theme or idea, such as “Search Engine Land” which focuses on all things search.

Why would an individual spend time participating in LinkedIn Groups? Participating in LinkedIn groups has benefits that include acquiring new customers through recommendations and word of mouth, keeping in touch with people who care about your business or products, building your industry network, you have the ability to get answers to tough business questions, win new business by answering questions in your area of expertise and many more benefits.

When participating on LinkedIn Groups it is important to remember these simple tips:

• Comment on other people’s posts with your thoughts and ideas
• Share links with the group that you think are valuable
• Ask a question or ask for opinions (don’t forget to reciprocate and respond to these requests)
• Be professional, kind, polite and respectful of other members
• Actively participate on a regular basis

So remember to be careful how you position yourself on LinkedIn and embrace the power of LinkedIn groups, Happy networking!