Archive for the ‘best practices’ Category

Social Media Policies For Your Company: Internal Policies

Your organization is dipping its toe into the social media pool, but you know you need the right policies in place to set the stage. Where to start?

In this post I’ll outline, at a top level, three internal policies that you should consider when your organization is getting started in social media:

  • Blogging policy
  • Outbound commenting policy
  • Employee guidelines

Step one: review your organization’s existing policies. Your existing employee standards may cover much of what you’re about to read here. If you don’t need to reinvent the wheel, don’t. In that case, consider finding a way to draw attention to those policies – basic training or an aggregation of those policies on your intranet, for example.

I’m not a legal expert, but here are some pointers on the internal social media policies you should consider for your company. Some of these specifically overlap, on the assumption that you may not implement all of them. Edit, tweak, add to your heart’s delight. These are just starting points.

Blogging Policy

With hundreds of millions of blogs out there, chances are that some of your employees have their own blogs outside work. You may have your own official blogs at work, too. 

Your blogging policy lets your employees know where the line is when writing on their own blogs, whether official or otherwise.

Consider covering:

  • Advice - tips on things like transparency, disclosure, human voice, etc – not necessarily rules; rather they’re guidelines for how to approach the medium with a minimum of risk and maximum effect
  • Attribution – state that if employees cite content created by others, they should acknowledge it
  • Copyright – may employees use the organization’s logo, name etc (you may want to restrict their use)? Also consider stating that employees should not violate the copyright of others
  • Ownership – who owns the content of employee blogs, along with the responsibility for the content?
  • Confidentiality - as with the employee guidelines below, consider stating explicitly that employees should not disclose confidential information. It’s common sense, but you should be explicit.
  • Disclaimer – should employees state that they are writing as themselves, not as representatives of the company (unless they are)?
  • Existing policies – note that the blogging police does not supercede other existing policies, and that employees must continue to abide by those.

Outbound commenting policy

Your outbound commenting policy sits between the “blogging policy,” which covers employee social media properties, and the general “employee social media guidelines,” which cover more generic use of tools. The grey area: when representatives and other employees comment on other peoples’ sites.

This policy can be a bit simpler than the other policies here. Consider covering:

  • Do no harm – may employees attack competitors via their comments (which may reflect badly on your company)?
  • Transparency – if commenting on a work-related discussion, should employees disclose their affiliation/conflict of interest?

Also consider the internal process for monitoring and responding to conversations. Which conversations will you engage in? Which ones will you simply listen to? The US Air Force blog response chart is a great starting point for this side of things, though you may want to amend this for your organization.

Employee social media guidelines

As social media tools become more and more ubiquitous, you can’t expect your employees not to use them outside work (or at work, in reality). What’s more, given that they spend most of their waking life at work, it’s tough to expect them to completely avoid talking about it outside the office.

Of all of the policies, these guidelines are most likely to be covered by your existing employee guidelines.

These guidelines serve two purposes:

  1. Protecting your organization by setting out boundaries for what employees can and cannot do online;
  2. Empowering employees to use social media tools by removing doubt over what is “allowed” and what is not.

Consider covering the following in your employee social media guidelines:

  • Boundaries - are employees actively encouraged to engage in conversations regarding the organization (may depend on organizational culture)?
  • Transparency - are employees required to identify themselves as employees when discussing the organization (likely: yes)?
  • Confidentiality - may employees discuss of confidential information (likely: no)?
  • Financials - may employees discuss financial information (likely: no)?
  • Consequences - outline the consequences both for the company and the employee when someone says something ill-advised
  • Work use – is social media use permitted during work hours (may differ depending on whether employees are encouraged to engage in conversations regarding the organization)?

This is part two of a three-part series on social media policies. To get the full story, check out the rest of the social media policy series. A massive tip-of-the-hat to Michael O’Connor Clarke for his thoughts on some of these topics.

What do you think? What is unnecessary and what am I missing?

Getting Started: Social Media Policies For Your Company

Is your organization looking to get started with “this social media thing?” If so, alongside the thinking you should be doing about culture and top-level support, organizational policies should be one of the things you think about first.

Next week I’m delivering a workshop on “Building A Solid Foundation: Social Media Policies, Best Practices And Ethics For Your Organization” at a conference in Ottawa. Thanks to this, social media policies are at the top of my mind right now.

What will you do when someone “talks” to your representatives online? How will you decide whether and how to respond? What if an employee goes rogue and starts posting confidential information online?

Social media moves quickly, and Google has a long memory. A lack of preparation for events like these can mean a slow response, an escalation of issues, and perhaps even lasting damage.

How should you approach this initial thinking?

We recommend two types of policies – internal and external.

Internal Policies

  • Blogging policy
  • Outbound commenting policy
  • General employee guidelines

Public Policies

  • Comment policy
  • Engagement policy

Over the next couple of posts I’ll take a look at each of these policies in turn, the kind of things you should think about and the kind of things they should cover. Sometimes these things may be covered by your existing employee guidelines; other times you may need to come up with new approaches.

Don’t worry; it’s not that complicated. It just needs a little thought.

If you’ve been around the blog with these tools, am I missing anything in terms of policy types? Which social media policies have you found the most useful?

Where’s The Line With Twitter “Spam”?

Do you find it helpful when people link to their latest content on Twitter?

Tweetstats says I’ve posted an average of about 25 tweets per day since September 2007. In the last few months, I’ve averaged over 40. Each weekday, one of those tweets is usually to my latest blog post. 

The question is, does that tweet add any value to your stream or is it just spam?

Back in March, during the ghost blogging saga, someone mentioned on my site that they were far more concerned about the ethics of people posting links to their own content on sites like Twitter than they were about people using ghost writers to produce content under their name. Ever since then, whenever I link to my own content I’ve wondered whether it’s a good practice.

Every day I decide that I think it’s ok.

Different types of self-linking?

Jennifer Mattern points out two different types of self-linking which may fall into the category of spam:

  • Manual posts
  • Automatic posts

My links fall into the former. If I feel my post is worth it (I usually do, or I wouldn’t have published it) I’ll manually write something in Twitter and post it. Others use automated services like Twitterfeed or blog plugins like Twitter Tools. I used to use them, but decided I preferred the choice of posting the link or not and being able to write something a little more ‘human’ to people.

Does it matter into which of these groups you fall? Not necessarily. A manual poster (TechCrunch, for example) may post multiple links per day while automated posts might be way less frequent.

The main difference here is in the level of personalization. I’m much more likely not to tweet an issue from within the post than I am to post simply the headline. That’s evolved over time, but it’s where I stand now. Meanwhile, automated posts are, well, automated – they don’t vary in format or based on nuances in the content. In that regard, perhaps automated links are more likely to be “spammy.”

Does volume matter?

Is there a line to be crossed? Is posting one self-link every 40-45 posts any different to posting 35 self-links within that same volume? Is it different to one post per day, always linking to yourself? Some would argue not. I would argue there is. If you’re constantly having conversations – discussing things, offering advice and sharing. I think that builds-up the social capital to be able to throw in an occasional link to your content.

If you post 39-44 tweets per day which converse with others, or point to other interesting content, does one post really constitute spam?

Changing audience behaviours

As Bill Sledzik pointed out in Mattern’s comments, it seems that more and more people in this space are looking to Twitter for their reading material nowadays. So, even if people subscribe to someone’s site, they may not check their reader regularly now due to the volume of great content flowing through Twitter, so they may miss a lot of your content.

On the flip side, does someone following you on Twitter mean they’ve signed-up to see links to your blog? Might engaging, interactive content be a better way of driving people to your site?

From my perspective, people who choose to follow you have chosen to read whatever you post. I always appreciate feedback on how I go about things and am willing to change, but at the end of the day people have the ultimate sanction – they can simply stop following you if you continuously post irrelevant things.

If my audience is spending most of their time on Twitter rather than their RSS reader, and I have content of which I’m proud, I’m inclined to post it there.

What’s more, as good communicators know, people usually need a call to action in order to do something. If you want people to read your posts and give you their feedback, you’re much more likely to get that if you point people in that direction. So, if you post all the conversational content in the world but very little of that is necessarily related to your website content, few people will click through. Of course, perhaps that means we should be a little more thoughtful about what we post on Twitter. Perhaps when you’ve blogged about ghost writing, you should post more tweets about that topic.

Your thoughts?

Note: I’m not asking whether linking to your own content is right or wrong. As I mentioned yesterday, there are shades of grey in social media and one person’s “rules” are often irrelevant to another. Guy Kawasaki has 115k followers to an account that is largely automated, so who am I to say it’s wrong? Still, Guy’s audience is not my audience.

I’m really interested to hear what you think on this. Does posting occasional links to your own content constitute Twitter spam?

Social Media Needs Shades Of Grey

Shades of greySocial media operates in shades of grey.

The more I think about our application of these new tools to communications and marketing, the more I realize that things aren’t black and white. Ghost blogging is grey. Online personas are grey. The rules are grey.

Why should you care? Because your approach should be no different.

Your approach to social media will probably differ from most others.

Different situations, different approaches

I just finished co-chairing the Social Media Summit Canada Conference, where I watched Aaron Wrixon deliver a presentation on the Workplace Safety and Insurance Bureau‘s (WSIB) approach to monitoring online conversations.

The WSIB, an Ontario government agency, is at the beginning of its use of social media tools. Right now it uses a variety of free tools to monitor online conversations, and is in the early days of responding to them.

The WSIB’s approach to responding to conversations is based around the U.S. Air Force’s own decision tree. However, it is a little more tentative, ignoring any posts meeting the following criteria (emphasis is mine):

  • Obviously angry posts
  • Taunting/baiting
  • “Not of sound mind”
  • Wrong/misguided posts

The last point in this list stands out to me. The WSIB won’t correct misinformation about it online. What’s more, their protocol for responding to conversations is firmly centred around protecting itself, rather than communicating with the public. Legal, IT and Security departments are also heavily involved in the response process.

Remember the context

My immediate reaction, as yours may have been was that this was a poor approach to engaging online. Frankly, the specific and deliberate decision to not respond to misinformation means that (as David Alston mentioned earlier in the day) this information can propagate and in the absence of anything to the contrary, people may simply assume it is correct.

Before you judge, though, consider the environment in which WSIB and its staff operate. Fear 2.0 is rampant – to an organization that, for years, has had the illusion of being in control of its brand, the idea that it might need to engage with individuals is scary. It’s a huge jump for organizations that put layers and layers of approvals between communications staff and the public.

Culture check

One of the first steps on the road to social media adoption is a culture check. Does your organization really want a conversation with people? Is it really ready to accept that, contrary to the rose-coloured glasses people inside might wear, people do disagree with them? Are you willing and able to respond to conversations in real time?

Many organizations simply aren’t ready to engage with people. They need to adjust the way they and their processes work to effectively engage in a timely way (comment on a blog post 48 hours later and (a) most people have already been and gone, and (b) your comment may be buried at the bottom of a long list).

In this context, WSIB has adopted an approach that fits its situation. One might advise them that, at this stage, they’re just not ready to engage with people. They may be better-off monitoring and assessing discussions, and learning within their organization while they get to a point where they can have a positive effect by reaching-out online.

The important point here, though, is that the WSIB has adopted the “rules” of social media to its organization. Its staff listen and, within the context of their environment, they act accordingly.

Is it “textbook”? No. Is it ideal? No. Is it better than ignoring the online space? Yes.

Shades of grey. It’s not just black and white.

What do you think?

Cluetrain Plus 10: People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice

As part of a project to mark the tenth anniversary of the seminal social media book The Cluetrain Manifesto, Keith McArthur organized a project to have different people blog about each of the 95 theses within the manifesto.

I’m writing about thesis number five. For context, here are the four preceding these:

  1. Markets are conversations. (Christopher Locke)
  2. Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors. (Simon Kendrick)
  3. Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice. (Keith McArthur)
  4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived. (Shel Holtz, A Shel of my Former Self)

My topic:

5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice

Listen. Engage. Develop.

These three steps provide a simple way for organizations to dip their toes into social media. Of those, the first – listen – is the easiest, the most risk-free and potentially the most rewarding.

It is listening that provides the learning; that shows organizations the lay of the land; that pushes companies to adapt and that enables them to head in the right direction.

It is listening that enables companies to participate in online conversations, not as faceless, message-driven entities but as people within an organization. By listening to what people are saying and adapting communication accordingly, you become an active listener rather than a passive one. 

Why care?

Because people generally don’t want relationships with companies or organizations. They don’t want to talk to Skittles, or to Ford, or to Garmin. They want to talk to people within those companies. They want to talk to people with a face and with a personality.

Openness is a core part of a company’s social media presence. In fact, you should do a “culture check” on your organization before moving deeper into social media. If you’re planning to do anything misleading, don’t really want to hear disagreement or don’t really want to engage with your customers, then step away before you drag your organization down with an ill-advised initiative.

Company employees, when acting online, can and should remember that they represent their organization at all times. However, there’s a balance to be struck between rigid on-message formality (no-one wants to be messaged) and off-target communication that, at its worst, can damage companies’ reputations.

Most people don’t:

  • Constantly try to sell you thing
  • Talk in bureaucratese
  • Treat other people as a statistic

If you approach these tools through active listening and engaging in a way that puts a personality and perhaps a face on the organization, expect an evolution in the way people respond to you as people identify with those on your side of the fence.

People recognize other people by the sound of their voices. If you sound like a robot, expect to be treated like one.

Expectations Can Make Or Break You

I mused publicly earlier today about two recent mis-steps by high profile figures, and why the blogosphere came down like a tonne of bricks on one of them and not the other. As I was doing so, the answer came to me:

Musing about different expectations

Expectations are critical.

People have lower expectations of TechCrunch than they do of a well-regarded Forrester analyst. So, when one made a mistake, there was a chorus of disapproval. However, when TechCrunch published a rumour that Twitter was in late-stage talks with Google and was subsequently forced to admit it wasn’t true revise their story, there was barely a murmour. The expectations were different.

Take that thinking and apply it to yourself. It’s easy to type words into your computer and make youself out to be wonderful, but can you match the expectations you raise? Do you preach about bad pitches then go out and spam bloggers? Do you give advice on transparency but fail to follow through? Do you put yourself up as an expert when you have little experience?

I avoid writing about some topics, or write posts that question rather than advise, because I know less about them. On other topics, however, I’m more confident and am happy to write about them. 

Think hard, because if you raise expectations and you don’t meet them, people will react much more negatively than if you did the same thing without talking yourself up beforehand.

Who Are You Online?

Who are you when you’re online? Are you yourself, or are you someone else?

I had a conversation with my colleague Kerri Birtch last night about how we behave online in relation to how we behave in real life. We agreed that we both do our best to be the same “person” in online forums as we are when we’re offline.

On reflection, though, do we really act like this?

Of course, there are the obvious differences like people who have a ghost blogger. I’m talking about more subtle differences, though.

  • Are you more aggressive online?
  • Do you tell more jokes online?
  • Are you more outgoing online?
  • Do you swear more, or less, than you do online?
  • Do you talk about your personal life online?

It’s easy to say that, yes, you do all of the things online that you do offline at home.

Here’s something else to ponder: away from the computer, do you act the same with clients as you do at home? 

I know I don’t. I’m more polite; I tell less jokes. I have a pretty cutting sense of humour, which I keep under control around clients.

What about you? Do you behave the same with clients as you do outside work? I expect not, but you tell me.

Now, put the two of these questions together. Do you act online as though your clients are watching what you post?

Enough of my clients are on Twitter that, alongside my client searches, I have a group set up for all of my clients on the service. Post scroll through that column fairly rapidly. I bear that in mind when I’m twittering, especially during office hours (although sometimes I slip up). I try to remember that existing and potential clients may see what I post, and try to behave accordingly.

There’s a line to tread here, and it’s tough. I want to be myself online, but I know that I occasionally need to self-censor.

Do you?

Make Life Easy

I want to tell you a story.

A few days ago I had dinner with a friend at a restaurant in downtown Toronto. We had stellar service from the waiter at the restaurant and my friend, who picked up the check (thanks!) left a hefty tip for him.

The waiter then pointed out a website that we could go to and at which we could leave feedback in order to obtain a free appetizer next time we went to the restaurant. My friend spotted a telephone number option on the receipt, too, and pulled-out his blackberry on the spot to leave some glowing feedback about the server.

He never left that feedback.

Why?

The automated service he connected-to made it infuriating to leave feedback. Not only did it warn him it would take several minutes to complete the survey, but it made him key-in details that could easily have been automated.

The lesson? Make it easy for people to reach you.

Why couldn’t the service automatically record the date? Why couldn’t the check have a code printed on it to identify the restaurant?  They made it unnecessarily hard to get feedback, so in the end they didn’t receive any.

The irony? If it had been a simple paper form with name, email address and comment box, we would probably have completed it on the spot. The complexity killed the opportunity to get our contact details into their database. What’s more, they marred an excellent meal with an unsatisfying final interaction with their restaurant.

The same applies to websites. Don’t make me create an account to leave a comment on your blog, because I won’t (sorry, Jennifer – you rock but it’s not happening while ZDNet has that form).  

Likewise, I’m tired of constantly filling-out profile forms for new sites, which is why Facebook Connect interests me.

Make life easy, and people will respond. Make it difficult and they’ll take their time (and perhaps their money) elsewhere.

Be Careful What You Save

Be careful what you save in Delicious.

To be a little more specific – be careful how you save things in Delicious.

*Social* bookmarking

Delicious is a social bookmarking tool. This  means that, while Delicious is great for replacing your bloated “favourites” list in your browser, there are also sharing features built-in. This is helpful for teams working in the online space – you can easily tag something as “for: [someone]” to send it to them – but it also brings with it a few other considerations.

Network with care

One of my favourite features in Delicious is the ability to form a network of contacts (here’s mine). When you add people to your network, you can easily subscribe to all of their bookmarks in an RSS reader (I’ve mentioned this before when looking at 6 ways to make your life easier with Delicious). Pretty neat, huh?

Delicious network

Unless you don’t want other people to see the things you’re bookmarking, that is. Maybe you’re working on a new business project, or trying to do something to surprise someone, or *gasp* bookmarking job postings.

Now, Delicious has a “Do not share” feature that prevents others from seeing the sites you save. Problem solved, you would think. But what if you forget to check the “do not share” box when you save the article? No problem, surely – you can just go back and click it later, right?

Wrong.

Yes, you can go back and un-share your bookmarks. Yes, that will remove that bookmark from the public list of sites you’ve saved.

No, it won’t remove them from RSS feeds.

An example

I recently had a conversation with someone about using Delicious to save research they were conducting. We discussed the importance of making their bookmarks private.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I glanced at my RSS reader a while later and saw numerous bookmarks from that person on the topic we’d just discussed. When I searched the person’s saved bookmarks on Delicious itself they were gone – they’d obviously corrected the error – but they’re now stored forever in my Google Reader results.

Once again, a useful reminder – be careful what you do online.

Twitter Follow-Back Fail

I’ve just crossed 2,500 followers on Twitter; double the number of people who read this site. I follow roughly 680.

That means I follow roughly a quarter of the people that follow me.

I’m no A-lister (I’m many thousands of followers and a large ego short of that). I’m a communications professional, not a professional blogger. I don’t have the bandwidth to follow thousands of people while doing my job.

If you follow me I appreciate it, but don’t expect me to automatically follow you back.

So how do I decide who to follow back? Here are my five suggestions on how to go about it.

@ replies

Far and away the most common thing that causes me to follow someone is them sending me a message or engaging with me in a conversation. I’m looking for interaction and conversation when I use Twitter, so demonstrating that you’re interested in conversations about the same things that interest me raises the odds that I’ll follow exponentially.

Real name

I filter my follower-notification emails into a folder. Occasionally I’ll scan through those emails. If I see a topic or company name, unless it’s a brand I’m particularly interested in I’m unlikely to even click through to the Twitter profile to see if it’s interesting. However, this isn’t enough to guarantee a follow on its own.

Relevant bio

If I click through to someone’s profile, I immediately look at their bio information. I look for people who live near me; people who work in similar jobs and people with similar interests. If there’s no bio, it lowers the chances I’ll follow. If I find the bio compelling, I’ll either follow there and then or keep looking.

Website

If the bio is compelling, the next thing I look at is the person’s website. I’m more likely to follow people who write about things that interest me.

Messages posted

The last thing I’ll look at is the kind of things they’re posting. You might think this would be higher-up the list, but it’s a bit more of a crap-shoot – people won’t always post on-topic. Twitter is all about conversations, and sometimes they veer off-topic. So, a person’s updates are the last thing I look at. I look at how people are posting (if updates are all fed through RSS feeds it’s a no-go), whether they broadcast or converse (the former is a no-follow) and general topics.

There you have it – my five things to look at when you’re deciding whether to follow someone back.

This is a very personal thing – different people look for different things. Some people follow everyone back; others filter. How do you approach it?