I knew about Guy's ghost writers and while it isn't for me, it seems to work for him. Compare him to Gary Vaynerchuk and it's two completely different experiences. I've been with both of them on numerous occasions and when Gary shows up, he goes in a room and works hard, tweeting until seconds before going on stage. The pace may catch up to him as he gets busier and busier. Guy, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to - or have to - connect on that level. He's just a steady stream of relevant content. Two completely different experiences each with their own pros and cons.  The power of consumer choice is still the most powerful democracy in the world. If enough people chose to not follow him because they oppose his methods, he would probably change. As it is right now, enough people have no issue with it to justify the approach.  

I'm with Guy on this one. The reason why I follow anyone is because of the quality of their content. I really don't care who wrote it, as long as it's valuable to me. The ethics only come into play for me when people deliberately mislead or misrepresent. Just as mass communications (TV, print) are 'mediated' by the reader, so social media is also mediated by those who use it. The responsibility is theirs to interpret, judge and value as they wish.

I wish I could afford to employ a ghost writer or three...

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised or why this is an issue. It's all about what works for you. If you prefer not to follow people that use ghost writers, don't. IMO, it's all about finding the "good fit". If you're trying to make a personal connection, you may not want to follow the Twitter-er that uses ghost writers or uses the service to promote their business only (not saying that this is Guy's agenda). I'm not at all surprised that Guy does this. It would be great if his ghost twitterers identified themselves w/ their own twitter id's or initials, but at least he didn't seem reluctant to disclose them. There are only so many hours in a day. I don't fault anyone for attempting to maximize those hours.

When it comes down to it, Guy is using Twitter as another marketing channel to get out his message, be that promotional for his companies or to extend his personal brand. Regardless of the fact that Twitter is the hot mode of the moment, it's just another marketing channel and as such, is likely to be treated as one, i.e. it's not unreasonable to expect that marketing professionals or other writers are behind any market facing activity. For example, we have ghostwritten countless articles for our clients, a topic we wrote about on our blog, http://inmedialog.com/index.php/archives/components-of-an-integrated-program-bylined-articles/. Why should it be acceptable for one market facing activity to be done by someone other than the person receiving the byline, and it not acceptable for another activity? I think that the vast majority of people not in the marketing industry would be surprised the degree to which the person receiving the credit for a public piece of information - speech, article, book, what have you - is not indeed the person doing the heavy lifting.

Hes a busy man, there is no way that he can do the reported 35 comments a day and still carry on his normal life. Look at any person who becomes famous or is a figure head, they become puppets. Most rapper and bands now dont write their own music, they have all transitioned over the to dark side of becoming "entertainers" rather then originals Even the President, the man who runs the country and even possibly the world has a 20 something writing his speeches. This is nothing uncommon.

Does anyone feel that we are getting into the age of Tweetpaming? (Tweet Spam). Last night alone I have 30+ tweets from Guy. I was following him, because I care what he personally has to say, I don't care about the links on wiered topics which they are pushing. Thoughts?

In this case, I see "Guy Kawasaki" as a brand vs. human/personality. It's really no different than a company tweeting via more than one employee via one account. The auto-tweets are a big reason why I see the @guykawasaki account as a brand v. person, too. With the disclosure of the other authors, I don't have a problem with it. Not even sure if I require the names/handles of the other tweeters (just making it public is fine by me), but it's certainly the way to go once the question was posed.

I want to add/reiterate one thing here, which is getting lost. I deliberately used the phrase "defuses issue" in the title of this post, as I think Guy's response to my email went a long way towards resolving things. This post was not meant to result in personal attacks on Guy Kawasaki, although I may have been naive to think that it wouldn't end that way. It saddens me to see some of the personal things people are saying. Yes, *in my opinion* he made a mistake, but he corrected that when I suggested disclosure. We all make mistakes. I'm not going to judge someone's character based on one lapse in judgement or one short email Q&A. I also don't take his one-line response to my question about broader ethics as dismissal of the topic in general, but rather a sign that he feels it's not a topic he feels it's necessary to discuss. I disagree, but again that's personal and I place no judgement on that. Make sense?

Thanks for putting this up Dave. It's wierd how I discovered Guy's on twitter, this morning (via ExecTweets) and set a mental note to follow him, and now I come across this note. I do assume that celebrities would use Ghost writers and I'm ok with that. But when I choose to follow a thought-leader, then I assume I am getting the best of his/her thoughts. While on the one hand my fundamental need for high-quality/cutting edge thought does get met via the content, but the acription in my mind of that content to Guy, and my connection, beliefs, followership to Guy as a result is untrue, and that's where I would be justified in feeling cheated. If Guy does think highly of the content of the other 3 Tweeters, then put out a note or RT their tweets, so we'll all know and follow them for their own merit. Which is what I now intend to do. I would hate to learn that Tom Peters or Stepehen Covey or Ken Blanchard are being ghost written! In which case, I'd rather engage with said Ghost!

I realized months ago Kawasaki was building a publishing infrastructure, not relationships (http://www.ddmcd.com/building.html) so I'm not as bent out about Kawasaki's subterfuge as others are. It's still subterfuge, though. The fact that he doesn't think it's a big deal speaks volumes.

"Disclosure once the cops catch you with the loot in your hand is not disclosure." Huh? Guy wasn't hiding anything and has openly discussed his "Twitter Style" for months. I realize Twitter is very much a back patters club, but all you did is rehash a story that came out months ago and made a little noise to grab yourself some attention. To make any comment that claims Guy is breaking some sort of Twitter community rule or norm is ridiculous. Twitter is a rapidly evolving community, so Twitterers are constantly testing how to tweet and different Twitter styles. If you don't like someone's style, unfollow. It's simple.

I find this concerning because Guy Kawasaki has used his own name for the account and not disclosed that he has ghost writers. If he had disclosed this clearly from the beginning I would not have any concerns. I'm not about to trash him and say I'll never listen to a thing he says again because some of his stuff is great and he has achieved so much, but it has damaged his credibility in my eyes, especially being so dismissive of ethics. Sidestepping an issue and belittling it does not make it go away, no matter who you are Guy Kawasaki.

Great blog post. Thanks for sharing. I don't his tweets particularly interesting but that was something enlightening to know. I am not sure if all others of his stature doesn't do that.

Good that Guy says it's not him. And that's the point. It's NOT him.

Social media is supposed to be about relationship building. Let's assume that I think I am having a "relationship"- business or personal- with someone on Twitter. We arrange to have coffee. And then instead of Guy Kawasaki, or whomever, someone totally different shows up. There's an element of betrayal present here, whether or not you see it as a minor infraction in the unstated rules, or somehow ethical or unethical. I think one of the off-putting aspects of second life was all the costume and drama- people could not use their own names, and therefore became less accountable for their actions. What would happen in the unlikely event that a ghost twitterer went rogue? What if they got ticked because they weren't paid and decided to tick off everyone in social media? And then the person tried to explain away the insults by alleging it was a ghost twitterer? How would that play? Would it be okay because the person paying the ghost just got what they deserved? Would we question whether they were being authentic and truthful then? How would anyone know it was really a ghost and not twittering while intoxicated? When you play with roles and stories, it becomes harder to separate truth from fiction. When you lend your name and reputation to someone else, you put yourself at risk for the good and the bad. Is it worth it? Is your reputation worth the risk, when it is the most important currency you own on the web? I think that is the basic question worth discussing.

Its interesting this is the second post I have seen today that is discussing ethics in Social Media and what is or is not acceptable behavior. What I see here is that someone you held to a higher standard has failed to meet your expectations - that's life, that's not ethics, thats just human nature. Your expectation was that Guy Kawasaki was going to sit down and find all this cool stuff and tweet it out for your enjoyment just because he's a great bloke. He is a business man, he makes no qualms about it, he is a pragmatic marketer, he doesnt see blogging, tweeting or social media as a form of purist pastime, he sees it as a way to make a buck. Why be disappointed? Why expect full disclosure? Surely its better to expect that someone with his profile is probably using help, Alltop for example is mostly run by Neenz not by Guy. He doesnt specifically disclose this but if you spend anytime in conversation with him he doesn't hide it either. I think a discuss of ethics in Social Media is an excellent thing, but a rather unsurprising revelation that Guy uses at least 3 ghost writers really doesn't add up to that. What about the spammers or the cases like Belkin paying for reviews?

Jenn - re: formatting - it's gremlins I'm afraid. I can go through and insert spaces in each blank line, but it'll have to be tonight when I'm not at work. Not sure if you can do that as you create comments. Note to self: get that fixed...

I hate the idea of ghostwriters, but not as much as I hate the alltop spam. I do wish they'd identify with initials at the end of the tweets, so at least maybe we could identify a personality. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind so much if he had a few people following thousands of accounts and retweeting the really interesting stuff anonymously. Retweeting, to me, seems a whole different ball of wax. I do follow a few multi-user twitter accounts, but most seem to use ^PC type initials to identify the individual making the tweet.

Y'see, Mark? There's the part I don't get from your side of the aisle. Who cares? Why should any of this call into question anyone's legitimacy? Does the fact that he didn't post it make the links' value any less? I can understand if someone is a little miffed because Guy isn't the non-stop posting machine you though he was, but how relevant is that really? And how realistic? Did you think about how much time it would take to average 35 tweets -- links at that -- each and every day? Never mind that most of them are automated; it still takes time to set those up and to at least do cursory research on all of them. I mean, com'on! Guy Kawasaki has what? 4 or 5 kids? He's every bit as much a family man as he is a businessman. I respect him for that because I know how fine a line I have to walk in not tweaking my own wife off with the amount of time *I* spend on Twitter, which is minuscule, compared to most 'power users.' Sure he was trying to pad his image a bit; who among us hasn't? (Be honest, now...) All I'm saying is, we're not talking about blatant deception; we're not talking about a blatant cover-up; we're talking about a sin of omission -- not one of commission. I can certainly forgive GK for that.

"The ethical issue isn’t the nature of the content in his Twitter stream, it’s the source of that content and the transparency. Even more concerning is that when he was asked to comment on the ethical issue, he basically said “no comment” — a decidedly broadcast media response from a social media evangelist. I suspect that for many, this will call into question the relevance and legitimacy of Guy’s digital network and some of his work." You're certainly entitled to your thoughts on it, just as I'm entitled to disagree (I don't expect to sway everyone to my viewpoint). I do in fact think the type of content plays a role. No one will ever likely convince me that who posts a link matters. And I'll probably be amused long into the future that people in one of the most ghostwriting-heavy industries out there are so quick to scream "lack of transparency" every time something like ghostblogging or ghost-tweeting comes up. And obviously we read Guy's answer differently. You take it as "no comment." I take it to mean he really doesn't consider it enough of an ethical issue to be worth saying anything else. And he's as entitled to that opinion as we are to ours.

Dave (or is it?), this may or may not be me who is or is not commenting on your (or someone else's) blog post. How can we be sure? In all seriousness, if Guy was upfront about his ghost writers on day one, I would have much more respect for him. This issue didn't come out until he had 90,000 followers all believing that he sat on his computer day and night scouring for the best material to share. Disclosure once the cops catch you with the loot in your hand is not disclosure. This may or may not be my opinion, but who is to be sure this is really me ...or you?

I think you're not quite connecting with what I feel the main issue is, Jenn. Guy WAS using his Twitter account as a digital representation of himself and his ideas. At some point, he decided to make his personal identity into an enterprise by delegating communications to an anonymous and unidentified team. The ethical issue isn't the nature of the content in his Twitter stream, it's the source of that content and the transparency. Even more concerning is that when he was asked to comment on the ethical issue, he basically said "no comment" -- a decidedly broadcast media response from a social media evangelist. I suspect that for many, this will call into question the relevance and legitimacy of Guy's digital network and some of his work.

And is there a trick to getting the comment spacing right here? I see a few folks' comments display correctly early on, but the rest are rather squished from one paragraph to the next. Or are the Wordpress gremlins just making things difficult?

"Besides, we weren’t talking about GK taking the stage for JF. We’re talking about Jane Fonda Twittering her own links and writing her own blog posts. More importantly, we’re talking about @janefonda being a personal Twitter account and @guykawasaki as having secretly made the jump from personal to enterprise." Personal vs enterprise is exactly my point. Fonda is using the tools for more personal communication (and that's great - really). Kawasaki is using the tools blatantly for marketing (and that itself I don't think has been disguised in any way). They're two different animals living in the same environment. Rules that apply to one don't necessarily apply to the other. It doesn't make one "right" and one "wrong" (no matter how much many of us might despise that second group at times for the spammy nature of the tweets - whether ghostwritten, automated, or just entirely self-serving). "I’d go with the comments that suggest he’s only being upfront about it since being “found out”. Makes you wonder about his other “enterprises” and how much is actually his choices and not some stranger in a remote part of the country." Rather than deciding based on other comments, why not read the actual interview where Guy brings it up (linked above in the post)? He wasn't "found out" in any way there. He didn't have to say a word about ghostwriters. He chose to mention them, and chose to give them credit there (in January). But perhaps I missed something and he was called out prior to that about the issue (if so, please correct me - it wouldn't be the first time I've made a mistake). Aran's post calling the issue out, while listed first here, actually came much later (about 2 months). "The distinction I'd make here, and the reason I think it's a different topic, is because I'm not pretending to be someone else. " There's more to behaving ethically than being transparent - and remember that no one had to exactly twist his arm about it. He was asked a simple question and chose to talk about the ghostwriters. He certainly didn't have to come out and name them - completely voluntary. Not everyone in business comes out and shares what every person is doing behind the scenes. Sometimes there's no real need (which I'd argue is the case with something like posting links), and sometimes it just isn't something they think to do - not that they're intentionally trying to be secretive. I'm just not willing to assume I know his original intentions as some seem to. Call me naive if you will. On another note entirely, I just want to emphasize I'm not a Kawasaki fan in any way, and I'd be annoyed as all hell by his Twitter stream (I don't follow him). I'm not saying everything he does is in the right by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just not foolish enough to think I, as an individual, know what that "right" thing to do is for every person in a particular situation, and I know not everyone would agree with me. This obviously works quite well for Guy. It wouldn't work well for someone in PR where transparency is a hot button issue. But I doubt most of Guy's followers are going to jump ship over it - and frankly I think there's a lesson to be learned in that itself. Maybe Guy's right in saying it's more about what's being said than who's saying it (also in the interview linked from this post). Perhaps the real question is this: Should companies or executives have to disclose things in every possible new media outlet that their customers / audience might follow, or is it the responsibility of those people to do their research on the Web as much as they would have to offline before making decisions about people (or brands)? In the grand scheme of things, which is worse - corporate dishonesty (or lack of transparency) or lazy consumerism? Anyway, I'll look forward to your thoughts on the link spam issue separately.

The distinction I'd make here, and the reason I think it's a different topic, is because I'm not pretending to be someone else. I'll take your suggestion on that issue and add it to my list of topics to write about, though - I've often wondered about whether it's a good idea to do it, and it would be good to have a discussion on that. Like I said, though, that's a different topic that doesn't revolve around misleading people.

"Link spam is a separate issue to ghost writing, and perhaps one for another day. If the glass houses comment is meant to be a shot at me, I’d invite you to check how many times I post about my site per day and what proportion of my twitterstream that comprises." I think it is definitely relevant to this issue, given that we're talking about link-oriented tweets, strictly for visibility. Had the discussion started in reference to ghostwriters tweeting personal or experience-based information for someone else, it might be a different story. I think you also made it a part of the discussion by emphasizing in your closing remarks how important ethics are to you - if so, it's certainly relevant to question your own potential ethical issues in the same channel, no? Especially since you then brought up the supposed "customs" in ethical behavior on Twitter - popular behavior isn't necessarily ethical. As for proportions, does it really matter? If Guy had only one ghostwriter instead of 3, how much would that change your views on the ethics of it? What if that one ghostwriter only wrote 3 tweets out of the 35 instead of 5-6? How about if it were only once daily? Logic would say if someone's problem were with the ghostwriting itself (assuming undisclosed, since that was the general issue), the frequency really shouldn't matter. I'd argue the same of the link spam, so perhaps I fail to see your point on that aspect. No one is 100% ethical in everyone's eyes (I know I'm certainly not). But I think it's silly to a degree to make ethical judgment calls about assumed "customs" and violations thereof, when you yourself are engaging in practices of questionable ethics in that same medium (and in a much more measurable and obvious way). I have to assume you have no ethical problem with the link "spam" or you wouldn't be doing it. Would me calling you out stating otherwise mean that you should immediately change your practices in some way? Of course not. And neither should anyone employing ghostwriters in a way they can justify as being ethical. Anyway, I do hope you'll post on the potential link spam issues of Twitter as well. I'd be interested in seeing what you consider spam and what you don't, what frequencies you deem acceptable, and what you think about link spam on Twitter versus other common outlets (such as social network comments and messages, garbage press releases solely for links - very hot in the SEO world, or adding one's own links obsessively to social bookmarking services). Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.

I don't follow Kawasaki since his stream would annoy the heck out of me. I'd go with the comments that suggest he's only being upfront about it since being "found out". Makes you wonder about his other "enterprises" and how much is actually his choices and not some stranger in a remote part of the country.

Jenn... I've never heard of a theatre disguising the understudy as the star or hiding scheduled appearances of the understudy from the ticket buying public. In that respect, this is an apples to apples discussion. Besides, we weren't talking about GK taking the stage for JF. We're talking about Jane Fonda Twittering her own links and writing her own blog posts. More importantly, we're talking about @janefonda being a personal Twitter account and @guykawasaki as having secretly made the jump from personal to enterprise.

"Isn’t it ironic that this social media whippersnapper has a ghost writer while Jane Fonda, a 72 year old actor and celebrity who is still busy on stage and with various types of activism, takes the time to do her own tweeting *and* her own blogging. When asked about the possibility of ghost writing, Ms. Fonda’s response was: “I write my own blogs. Otherwise, I really don’t see the point.” Hmmm… So much for old-school." Does Fonda ever have an understudy ready if she can't go on with her stage work? If people are paying specifically to see her, would that be unethical too? Really - why compare apples to oranges? Fonda and Kawasaki are hardly comparable in their approach and what the "norm" might be in each of their industries (one of the biggest mistakes the "SM gurus" make is treating social media the same from one industry to the next without adapting the strategies and tools). In this comparison though, Guy isn't employing ghostwriters to share his personal stories and experiences (which is what Fonda references in her blog post). He has people helping him link to interesting things on the Web - big difference. Don't get me wrong - it's wonderful if Fonda, or any celebrity, is making time for their fans through a personal blog like that. But that doesn't mean everything else is intended to be equally personal, nor should every potential use SM be held against or compared to all others.

Jenn - thanks for responding. I appreciate the opposing perspective. Link spam is a separate issue to ghost writing, and perhaps one for another day. If the glass houses comment is meant to be a shot at me, I'd invite you to check how many times I post about my site per day and what proportion of my twitterstream that comprises.

Isn't it ironic that this social media whippersnapper has a ghost writer while Jane Fonda, a 72 year old actor and celebrity who is still busy on stage and with various types of activism, takes the time to do her own tweeting *and* her own blogging. When asked about the possibility of ghost writing, Ms. Fonda's response was: "I write my own blogs. Otherwise, I really don’t see the point." Hmmm... So much for old-school. http://tinyurl.com/7vdfxw Let the ghost times roll....

Ghost writing is as old as the hills (or as old as the bible). Did you know that your favorite comic strip might not be drawn or written by the person who you THINK creates it (Charles Shultz was a notable exception to this practice). Bylines for columnists and book authors have been ghosted for ages. Many TV talking heads aren't writing what they're reading/reporting. I myself have ghosted articles and entire book chapters for well-known tech journalists. A byline is a brand. It's up to the writer to preserve their brand equity by building their editorial team such that they ensure quality writing as good or better than what they would produce on their own. They should, and often do, edit it, as well as produce most of it themselves. That said, the ethical issue is an interesting (and old) one. I personally believe transparency is king, and anyone who is not producing 100% of their own work, regardless of the medium, should disclose that. That's called honesty, and it also shows readers you value their loyalty, which further preserves the byline's brand equity. Disclosure: Guy bylined the forward of two of my books.

"all I’ve seen so far is arguments that ghost writing happens in other channels so it must work here. Newsflash: this is a new channel, with different customs and different expectations." Newsflash: Twitter isn't as special as I think you think it is. Like it or not, Twitter has become a marketing tool just as many other SM tools have before it and as many more will down the road. New channel? Sure. I'll give you that. But does that qualify it as something more "pure" than other channels, that is (or should be) immune to blatant marketing? It isn't. As for whether it should be, well, I'm still not sure how anyone utilizing it to spam links to their blog (for that same visibility you're talking about) could really make a believable case against it - glass houses and all. It's my opinion that both can be equally unethical. But frankly, my opinion doesn't really matter. Link spam on Twitter has become commonplace, and I know that won't change. When the spammers annoy me, I de-follow them. If you find out someone's using a ghostwriter, you have the option to do the same. Not finding out is a risk you take when you take part in any public medium (just as employing ghostwriters to post in that channel is a risk to someone's own credibility). Who are you (or the collective "we" in the PR / communicators fields) to think that we make the rules or that our purposes and desires for that tool should have any impact on anyone else? This reminds me of the BS claims the PR crowd used to constantly make about blogs - that they were PR tools and just about any other use was "unethical" (such as those blogging as a business model). Twitter hasn't been around long enough to develop true "customs." It's still morphing to an ever-growing and ever-changing audience. Beyond that, who's to say whether ghostwriting on Twitter isn't somewhat of a "custom" in itself? By its very nature, it's unlikely you (or anyone else) know exactly how popular ghostwriting really is in that channel anyway.

I am new to Twitter and I am glad to see it's out in the open. I always knew there was no way this Guy Kawasaki was doing all the posts himself. Too many sound generic, and I always wonder why these people never take the time to RT other posts. Granted whatever works for him is spot on... But, it was misleading especially when I have clients wondering how they could spend the time to "brand" themselves on any social network. It takes time and there has to be some format in this case (formula) or way clients can contract "twittering" for example. As far as I am concerned they could do the same with FF as long as it's connected to Twitter, Technorati etc. Only drawback is people who ask you direct questions on lets say Twitter won't get a response from you. Look we, as copywriters/social media people have to find a way to make all of this social networking seamless. Some choose to be upfront about it (in this case seems he was pressed into being honest) or have transparency from the onset.... this conversation can go on into analysis and what works for one client may not work for another. Therefore I won't go on and on about my opinion lolol. It's all so very confusing but suffice it to say you are my new hero for putting this out there!

The reason I believe the ethical issue of ghostwriting by individuals in social media is important to discuss is that it shifts the role of the individual from being a person to being an enterprise with a communications infrastructure. Why is it important for Guy to have three ghost Twitterers for which he gets the attribution of the extra work? Can't those individuals contribute and communicate using their own accounts and Guy (or his ghosts) could retweet the content if it's that important for his stream. So long as their thoughts make it to Twitter, it should satisfy Guy's desire to have "a constant stream of the most interesting links in all of Twitter."

Actually, AJ, almost half of them are automated. Still, that's a different issue. The bigger issue is, why do the figureheads need other people tweeting under their name? I'm fine with it ethically now that Guy discloses, but why is it necessary? Answer: visibility. These people are massively busy but, for their personal brand's sake, they want to be seen constantly putting out content. It's about them. Therefore, if it isn't them and that's not clear, that's deceptive. I have a problem with that. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but all I've seen so far is arguments that ghost writing happens in other channels so it must work here. Newsflash: this is a new channel, with different customs and different expectations. If I see a compelling argument, I'm willing to consider it.

I'm sorry Dave, but this is just too nitpicky for my sensibilities. 98% of Guy's tweets are links to interesting stories, news, etc. We're not talking about him making value judgments or offering his personal opinion in any way, shape or form. We're talking about links. I would contend that we learn less than half about who Guy Kawasaki is in a week's worth of his tweets than we do in a single one of his blog posts; multiply that tenfold if you replace that blog post with an interview video. The point is, he's not being disingenuous by employing ghost tweeters; he's simply trying to spread the info, as do so many others (many of whom I'd bet heavily are getting a little help themselves given how many links THEY post). I appreciate Guy for what he does and even more for what he's done in his non-Twitter existence. I really have to shake my head at the thought that this development should cause anyone consternation. Kawasaki has betrayed no one. Why don't we give the guy (no pun intended) credit for wanting to actually have a life, y'know?

Having a ghost writer or being one is not unethical. It is a standard practice across industries, in both professional and personal writing. Thank God for ghost writers. Who would have time, otherwise? Also, I have seen so much atrocious writing and grammar on blogs, I would suggest more people hire them. Why struggle when there are professionals who could save time and embarrassment?

It's also good practice to disclose who posted the tweet on multiple user twitter accounts. That is giving credit where credit is due. http://twitter.com/sparkcbc does it by putting the initials of the poster at the end of the tweet.

The most significant thing in this article is Guy's last comment about "more important things." Ghost writing is a long standing tradition. One of the big controversies of my seminary days was over who wrote the bible... newsflash! Chost writers! I often work as a ghost writer for a whole lot of different people. When I do so, I take it as a VERY big responsibility to address the issues from the POV and in the voice of the person I am writing for. THAT, to me is the "ethical" issue. Is what I write for someone else TRUE to them and their perspective?

"GK: Surely, there are more important things to think about." Hahaha, I love that quote. But one thing that I think makes me regard Guy less now has to be his Twitter account description of "RSS merchandizer". That sounds like a real greasy title. The blend of messages and ads based on his numbers are far too close in my eyes. Around 50% of his Twitter stream is advertising?

I stopped following Guy in disappointment due to the fact that he uses his @guykawasaki address to spam alltop. I mean, isn't that what the Alltop Twitter handle is for? I pinged him about this and he claimed that only 10% of his posts were Alltop spam. Not so: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p44CadMArFG4vhbh_yQjBQg I just look at a handful of days, but you can see that over a quarter of the time he is just spamming an Alltop section. This doesn't even count the Alltop mentions or links to interviews with Guy about Alltop. I have a great deal of respect for what Guy has done, and would love to follow Guy the person - but using your own name as a spam vehicle is a recipe for failure on twitter.

I think Guy's last response really gets it right. There are far more important things to think about. If these ghost-tweets were giving some kind of professional advice under Guy's name, that might pose a real ethical problem. But that's not what this sounds like. Really - aren't there bigger ethical dilemmas in the social media space? This is barely a blip on the radar in comparison to most. I'd be more inclined to call someone (Guy or otherwise) unethical for essentially spamming Twitter and social networks with constant links to their blog posts (link spam deemed useful by those too lazy to subscribe to a simple RSS feed anymore - substituting updates for conversations). If we classify these rather basic types of ghost tweets as unethical, wouldn't we have to classify much coming from PR and marketing folks as such? How about press releases contracted out to independent writers and consultants who aren't handling the resulting media response (therefore not named on the release as a media contact or anything else)? How about anything put out by a speech writer? Or what about an internal newsletter contracted out to one or more freelance writers (commonly without credit)? What about a white paper credited to the company and not a specific writer (in-house or freelance - also not that uncommon)? What about ghostwritten feature articles often published in trade magazines and newspapers under an executive's name for publicity's sake? The list could go on. If there's really that big of an ethical issue with ghost-tweeting, at least keep it in perspective. Perhaps Guy's situation just wasn't the best example.

Since I'm short on time, I'll only post that Guy's deflection of the ethical issues by saying "Surely, there are more important things to think about" is the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from a corporation taking cues from a PR agency during an image crisis, or a government that refuses to be held accountable for its mistakes. Guy lost me on that one comment.

Thanks for linking to my original post on this. I've followed up with an update, and there's some commentary at my blog at www.aranhamilton.com Jesse summed up a thought that had crossed my mind (but I’d been too bashful to blog) “I think that this breaks the spirit of an implicit contract amongst Twitter users.” Twitter is open to all - anyone and everyone can share their ideas. I believe that a contract exists that states: Thou Shalt Not Take Credit For Another Person’s Posts (even with their permission). It’s just not authentic. Guy is Guy and that’s not gonna change. But I find it disappointing that he dismissed Dave’s question about ethics. For a man who has so much riding on his personal brand it’s a really confusing that Guy responds to a question about integrity with the quip ”Surely, there are more important things to think about.”

Dave: Great post. I'm not sure that I want to let him off the hook so easily. I suppose for those users that research his interviews and blog, it is possible to learn that his twitter persona is actually an aggregate of people who he thinks are brilliant. But I think that this breaks the spirit of an implicit contract amongst Twitter users. I mean, we're choosing to down shots of 140-characters-or-less; it seems counter-intuitive that in order to know who we're dealing with we have to perform complicated forensics beyond reading a profile and satisying ourselves through tweets that someone is who they say they are.   No, I think a trust has been broken here though he's right, there are bigger things in life to worry about.   At the recent PodCamp, I asked a couple of presenters about the issues surrounding ghost-twittering for an artist (my wife) who isn't inclined to spend much time at a computer or smartphone (jazz singers can be funny that way). The consensus was that the genuine article is best, but in a pinch full-disclosure that a proxy was doing the writing would be sufficient. But where does that disclosure take place? And how would a casual user bellying up to get a quickie at the Twitterbar know?   If Guy Kawasaki had called himself GuyKawasaki&Friends there would be no issue here. But the authentic voice thing is going to be a real hot button for this service as it seeks to monetize. I hope that some wrong decisions towards using it solely as a marketing channel don't strip it of it's primary qualities.   Thanks for the balanced article; it has created much food for thought.

Ghost writing is more pervasive than we may think (reviews/forums/blog posts/tweets). It's just that Guy Kawasaki has a higher profile so anything associated with him would be picked up. I think he responded well but yes, not addressing the ethics of doing this is of concern. Not concerned about him in particular, but the whole notion that ethics is not important enough to write about or discuss. It IS important and we all should have a sense of what is ethically correct. It would be nice other comments on this - perhaps a post on ethics in general...hmmm blog idea :)

Dave, I had not heard of Guy Kawasaki's ghost-tweeting. Thank you for posting and tweeting it.   While I follow Guy, I don't often read his blog. If he says he doesn't "hide the fact" of others using his Twitter account and posing as him, then why did he update his account only when you contacted him?   While he may not hide it, it seems he's not eager to disclose it on his own. That's a huge red flag. (If it's clear elsewhere, I apologize.)   And, I agree with you and am concerned that Guy doesn't think ghost-blogging, -twitterting is an important enough ethical issue. It kind of takes him down a couple notches in my book. (Though, practically-speaking, he wouldn't care what I thought.)   In my discussions with Toledo-area social media professionals, many seem to be open to the ghost services -- and that's scary. PR has enough troubling issues already, to add ghost-twittering & etc. to the list won't help. Take care, -Mike

I'm with Guy on this one. The reason why I follow anyone is because of the quality of their content. I really don't care who wrote it, as long as it's valuable to me.

The ethics only come into play for me when people deliberately mislead or misrepresent.

Just as mass communications (TV, print) are 'mediated' by the reader, so social media is also mediated by those who use it. The responsibility is theirs to interpret, judge and value as they wish.